Transmittal Stantec Consulting Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson AZ 85745-2999 Tel: (520) 750-7474 Fax: (520) 750-7470 To: Nanette Slusser, Assistant County Administrator Company: Public Works Policy Pima County Address: 130 W. Congress, 10th Flr. Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 740-8055 Date: May 16, 2007 File: 185120262-200 Delivery: Via Email Reference: From: ; John Take and Alice Templeton For Your Information For Your Approval For Your Review As Requested Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Enclosed please find a digital copy of the Final Report for the above referenced planning effort. We are pleased to provide this final deliverable sixteen weeks after beginning our efforts together, and look forward to being of assistance in the future. In a few week’s time, we would like to schedule a debriefing and project close-out meeting. On behalf of the entire consulting team, I would like to thank you and the many Pima County staff who worked tirelessly to help make this achievement a reality. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. STANTEC CONSULTING INC. John Take, M.Eng., P.Eng. Vice President Alice Templeton Project Manager john.take@stantec.com alice.templeton@stantec.com Attachment: Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Final Report c. File i Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table of Contents Page LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF MAPS........................................................................................................................... IX LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................... X 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1.1 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................1.1 PLAN STRUCTURE ...........................................................................................................1.1 LOCATION, AREA, AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .......................................................1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................1.1 PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................................................................1.2 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................2.1 OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................................2.1 STAKEHOLDER INPUT SESSION ....................................................................................2.1 PUBLIC DROP-IN WORKSHOP ........................................................................................2.2 3.0 THE SOUTHWEST INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN................................................................3.1 3.1 EXISTING CONTEXT IN THE SOUTHWEST ....................................................................3.1 3.1.1 Current Urbanization Trends................................................................................3.1 3.1.2 Natural Drainage Patterns ...................................................................................3.2 3.1.3 Wastewater Management Facilities .....................................................................3.4 3.1.4 Transportation Facilities.......................................................................................3.6 3.1.4.1 Roadway Facilities ...............................................................................................3.6 3.1.4.2 Physical Features ................................................................................................3.8 3.1.4.3 Roadway and Intersection Crash Experience....................................................3.12 3.1.4.4 Transportation Improvement Plans and Programs ............................................3.12 3.1.5 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Facilities ..................................................3.15 3.1.5.1 Inventory Results ...............................................................................................3.15 3.1.6 Other Public Services and Facilities ..................................................................3.18 3.1.7 Ryan Airfield.......................................................................................................3.20 3.2 THE PROPOSED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT............................................3.21 3.2.1 Proposed Densities and Population Forecast Scenarios...................................3.21 3.2.2 Development Timeline .......................................................................................3.21 3.3 FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE...............................................................................3.24 3.3.1 Hydrologic Assessment .....................................................................................3.24 3.3.2 Floodplain and Geomorphic Assessment ..........................................................3.25 3.3.3 Recommended Flood Control Alternatives and Unit Costs................................3.27 ii Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table of Contents Page 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.3.3.1 Regional Detention Basins.................................................................................3.27 3.3.3.2 Flood Control Only Storm Attenuation Facilities ................................................3.27 3.3.3.3 Flood Control and Park Amenities (Multi-Use Facilities)....................................3.28 3.3.3.4 Engineered Collector / Conveyor Channels.......................................................3.29 3.3.3.5 Natural Riparian Flood Corridors .......................................................................3.30 3.3.3.6 All Weather Access / Major Transportation Corridors........................................3.30 3.3.4 Project Phasing..................................................................................................3.31 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT .....................................................................................3.34 3.4.1 Basis of Analysis and Assumptions ...................................................................3.34 3.4.2 Basis of Existing and Future Sewage Generation Estimates.............................3.35 3.4.3 Delineation of Sewer Sub-basins and Sub-areas ..............................................3.36 3.4.4 Projected Population and Flow Statistics...........................................................3.36 3.4.5 Residual Capacity Analysis of Existing Sewers .................................................3.37 3.4.6 Proposed Expansion of Conveyance Systems ..................................................3.37 3.4.7 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Currently Proposed Expansion...............3.38 3.4.8 Additional Required Treatment Capacity Expansion .........................................3.39 3.4.9 Effluent Utilization Mechanisms .........................................................................3.40 3.4.10 Project Phasing..................................................................................................3.42 PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ..................................................................3.43 3.5.1 Planned Park and Recreation Facilities .............................................................3.43 3.5.2 Park Classification System ................................................................................3.43 3.5.3 Park and Recreation Needs Assessment ..........................................................3.51 3.5.4 Future Park Needs Based on Build Out Assumptions .......................................3.54 3.5.5 Recommended Improvements and Costs per Dwelling Unit .............................3.55 3.5.6 Phasing of Park Improvements and Costs.........................................................3.56 TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................3.57 3.6.1 Special Planning Area........................................................................................3.57 3.6.2 Recommended Transportation Projects ............................................................3.57 3.6.3 Project Phasing..................................................................................................3.60 OTHER SERVICES ..........................................................................................................3.61 3.7.1 Future Plans for Other Services.........................................................................3.61 4.0 OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST ....................................................................................4.1 4.1 OVERVIEW OF PROBABLE COSTS.................................................................................4.1 4.2 FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE COSTS ...................................................................4.1 4.2.1 Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance ...........................................................4.1 4.2.2 Roadway Drainage Crossings .............................................................................4.3 4.3 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COSTS ..........................................................................4.6 4.3.1 Future Treatment and Conveyance System Unit Costs.......................................4.6 4.3.2 Probable Costs for Conveyance System .............................................................4.6 4.3.3 Probable Costs for Septic System Conversions ..................................................4.6 4.3.4 Probable Costs for Required Treatment Capacity ...............................................4.7 4.3.5 Probable Costs for Effluent Disposal ...................................................................4.7 iii Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table of Contents Page 4.3.6 Summary of Wastewater Capital Costs ...............................................................4.8 4.4 PARKS AND RECREATION COSTS .................................................................................4.9 4.5 TRANSPORTATION COSTS .............................................................................................4.9 4.5.1 Basis of Transportation Unit Costs ......................................................................4.9 4.5.2 Transportation Costs per EDU.............................................................................4.9 4.6 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER DWELLING UNIT...............................................................4.10 5.0 FUNDING ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................5.1 5.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION.............................................................................................5.1 5.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................5.1 5.1.2 Key Financial Model Assumptions .......................................................................5.2 5.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................5.4 5.2.1 Pima County Debt Capacity.................................................................................5.4 5.2.2 Debt Capacity of SWIP Area................................................................................5.5 5.2.3 Capital Funding Sources......................................................................................5.5 5.2.4 Annual and Cumulative Capital Requirements ....................................................5.5 5.2.5 SWIP Capital Financing by Source vs. GOB Debt Capacity................................5.5 5.2.6 Current GOB Values by Asset Category vs. GOB Debt Capacity .......................5.5 5.2.7 Bond Ceiling Surplus and/or Deficit .....................................................................5.6 5.2.8 Additional Discussion of Flood Control Funding ..................................................5.6 5.2.9 Additional Discussion of Transportation Funding.................................................5.7 5.2.9.1 Historical and Identified Future Transportation Capital Project Funding..............5.7 5.2.9.2 Funding Sources for Identified SWIP Transportation Improvements...................5.8 5.2.9.3 SWIP Transportation Funding Summary .............................................................5.9 5.3 FUNDING CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................5.10 5.3.1 Developer Impact Fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit........................................5.10 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS .........................................................................................6.1 6.1 RECOMMENDED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................6.1 6.1.1 Benefit of Comprehensive Planning.....................................................................6.1 6.1.2 Project Management Improvements ....................................................................6.2 6.2 NEXT STEPS......................................................................................................................6.4 6.2.1 Capital Project Funding........................................................................................6.4 6.2.2 Flood Control Implementation..............................................................................6.5 6.2.3 Wastewater Management Project Implementation ..............................................6.6 6.2.4 Parks and Recreation Project Implementation.....................................................6.7 6.2.5 Transportation Project Implementation ................................................................6.7 6.2.5.1 Arterial Capacity Projects.....................................................................................6.8 6.2.5.2 New Arterial Roadways........................................................................................6.9 6.2.5.3 Alternate Modes – Public Transit .........................................................................6.9 6.2.5.4 Alternate Modes – Travel Demand Management Facilities ...............................6.10 iv Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Tables Table Number Title Follows Page EC-1 Historical Pima County and SWIP Permit Data 3.1 TR-1a Road Classification and ADT (Ajo Highway through Joseph Avenue) 3.7 TR-1b Road Classification and ADT (Kinney Road through Valencia Road) 3.7 TR-2 Roadway and Intersection Crash Data 3.12 TR-3a Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements (SR 86 and Valencia Road) 3.14 TR-3b Other Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements 3.14 PR-1 Existing Park and Recreation Facility Inventory 3.15 H-1 HEC-1 Modeling Results for Black Wash Watersheds 3.25 H-2 HEC-1 Modeling Results for Mission Road Watersheds 3.25 H-3 Regional Stormwater Detention Basin Facilities 3.27 H-4 Box Culverts at Proposed Roadway Crossings 3.30 W-1 Acreage of Sub-basins and Sub-areas 3.36 W-2 Projected Populations for Three Density Scenarios 3.36 W-3 Projected Wastewater Generation Rates 3.37 W-4 Total Required Treatment Capacity at Avra Valley WWTF 3.39 PR-2 Population and Population Characteristics by Census Tract 3.51 PR-3 Park Land Demand for Current and Build-Out Assumptions 3.54 PR-4 Park Land Acreage Shortfall Based on Population Estimates 3.55 PR-5 Per Dwelling Unit Costs Based on Land Use Assumptions 3.55 PR-6 Estimated Phased Costs for Additional Park Facilities 3.55 TR-4 Recommended Transportation Projects 3.57 TR-5 Phasing Plan for Transportation Projects 3.60 H-5 Costs for Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance 4.1 H-6 Costs for Roadway Drainage Crossings 4.3 W-5 Probable Capital Costs for Conveyance System 4.6 W-6 Probable Capital Costs for Septic System Conversions 4.7 W-7 Probable Capital Costs for Wastewater Treatment 4.7 W-8 Probable Capital Costs for Effluent Utilization 4.7 W-9 Details of Probable Capital Costs for Urban Re-uses 4.7 W-10 Summary of Wastewater Management Capital Costs 4.8 v Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Tables (Continued) Table Number Title Follows Page TR-5a Additional Funding Required for Planned and Programmed Projects 4.9 TR-6 Recently Completed Roadway Project Costs 4.9 C-1 Summary of SWIP-Related Infrastructure Costs FA-1a Existing Sources of Revenue 5.1 FA-1b Existing Sources of Capital Funding 5.1 FA-2 Capital Financing and Cash Flow Event Comparison 5.3 FA-3a Dimensions of Capital Funding 5.3 FA-3b Five Model Options for Capital Funding 5.3 FA-3c Capital Funding Assumptions for Presented Solution Set 5.3 FA-4 Details of Special Purpose Bonds 5.4 TR-7 Pima County Transportation Capital Funding Sources 5.7 TR-8 Transportation Funding for Active Projects in SWIP Area 5.8 4.10 vi Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Figures Figure Number Title Follows Section EC-1 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests 3.1 EC-2 Contextual Aerial Photography of SWIP Area 3.1 EC-3 Conservation Lands System 3.1 EC-4 Existing Subdivisions 3.1 EC-5 Planned Land Uses 3.1 EC-6 Historical Pima County and SWIP Permit Data 3.1 W-1 Photographs of Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility 3.5 TR-1 SR 86 Ajo Highway / Ajo Way Aerial Photographs 3.8 TR-2 Valencia Road Aerial Photographs 3.9 TR-3 Sandario Road Aerial Photographs 3.10 TR-4 Kinney Road Aerial Photographs 3.10 TR-5 Mission Road Aerial Photographs 3.11 PR-1 Photographs of Existing Neighborhood Parks 3.17 PR-2 Photographs of Existing District and Regional Parks 3.17 DC-1 Development Timelines for Three Density Scenarios 3.23 DC-2 Anticipated Pace of Dwelling Unit Permits 3.23 H-1 Black Wash Watersheds 3.24 H-2 Watersheds Along Mission Road 3.24 H-3 Channel Section 1 3.29 H-4 Channel Section 2 3.29 W-2 Land Ownership in the Vicinity of the Avra Valley WWTF 3.40 W-3 Current Effluent Disposal Plans at the Avra Valley WWTF / Black Wash 3.40 PR-3 Census Tract Demographics 3.51 TR-6 Pima County Transportation Capital Funding Sources 5.7 TR-7 HURF Revenue Bond and County HURF Portions of Transportation Funding 5.8 FA-1 Pima County Total Debt Capacity 5.4 FA-2 Assumed Population Model for Funding Analysis 5.5 FA-3 Weighted Average Capital Funding Mechanisms Presented Solution Set 5.5 FA-4 Annual SWIP Capital Funding Requirements by Asset Class 5.5 vii Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Figures (Continued) Figure Number Title Follows Section FA-5 Cumulative Capital Requirements of SWIP Area 5.5 FA-6 Capital Financing Sources vs. GOB Debt Capacity 5.5 FA-7 SWIP GOB Values by Asset Category vs. Debt Capacity 5.5 FA-8 General Obligation Bond Ceiling Surplus or (Deficit) 5.6 FA-9 Summary of Funding Analysis Input Assumptions 5.10 viii Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Maps Map Number Title All Maps Contained in Appendix E DC-1 Density Assumptions for Low Growth Scenario DC-2 Density Assumptions for High Growth Scenario H-1 Flood Control Facilities O-1 Other Public Services and Facilities O-2 Tucson Water Infrastructure PR-1 Public and Private Land Ownership PR-2 Existing Land Use PR-3 Existing Park Sites PR-4 Park Service Area Boundaries PR-5 Census Tract by Population per Square Mile PR-6 Number of Children 0-17 Years by Tract PR-7 Residential Density Allocation Model PR-8 Existing and Proposed Park Sites TR-1 Existing Transportation System TR-2 Planned or Programmed Capacity Projects TR-3 Future Transportation Conditions W-1 Existing Wastewater Collection System W-2 Existing System Residual Capacity Analysis Results W-3 Proposed Wastewater Collection System Sub-basins W-4 Potential Areas for Septic System Conversion W-5 Proposed Alternatives for Treated Effluent Recharge / Re-use W-6 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Lower Density Scenario) W-7 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Medium Density Scenario) W-8 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Higher Density Scenario) ix Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan List of Appendices Appendix Letter Title A Stakeholder Invitation Including Attachments B Stakeholder List C Input from Stakeholder Sessions D Sign-In and Comment Cards from Public Drop-in Workshop E Maps F Capital Project Lists and Funding Model Input / Output Products x Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Introduction May 9, 2007 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE Pima County’s Southwest area has been identified by County planners as a potential and strategic growth area. To accommodate population growth, the existing infrastructure must be improved and expanded. The purpose of this Infrastructure Plan is to provide a basis for infrastructure decision-making related to development in the Southwest area. It quantifies the nature, phasing, financial impacts, and funding possibilities for those flood control, parks and recreation, transportation, wastewater infrastructure and other improvements that are necessary to service future saturation growth within the study limits. This fast-tracked plan uses extensive input from the public, identified stakeholders, numerous Pima County departments and staff, the consulting team of Curtis Lueck & Associates and Stantec Consulting, and subconsultant firm JE Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology. 1.2 PLAN STRUCTURE The plan includes phased infrastructure plans, estimates of probable cost, and funding analysis outputs. This work will serve to collaboratively develop and evolve an infrastructure planning process suitable for deployment elsewhere in Pima County. The Plan also summarizes readily available data regarding the provision of other services provided by public, quasi-public, and private agencies. This includes those delivered by the County and others such as fire districts, Tucson Water, Tucson Unified School District, and utility providers. 1.3 LOCATION, AREA, AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The project area is bounded by Tucson Mountain Park to the north, Mission Road to the east, The Tohono O’odham Nation – San Xavier District to the south and Sandario Road to the west. 1.4 BACKGROUND A study entitled Southwest Area Plan Development of Public Facilities (SWAPDPF) was completed by Pima County staff in March 1980. This study followed the County’s adoption of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) which predicted a dramatic increase in population (42,000 by 2000 and 187,068 at ultimate saturation). The SWAPDPF was done in order to identify what County-provided infrastructure would be needed in order to accommodate this anticipated population growth. It identified infrastructure and facility needs for Flood Control, Parks and Recreation, Planning & Zoning, Transportation and Wastewater Management. This report used the same boundary area described in Section 1.3 above. Following the passage of more than twenty years, the Southwest Infrastructure Plan will provide new insights into the servicing situation and provide a planning tool to guide further development in the area - which continues to experience significant demands for growth. In response to these demands, the comprehensive SWIP initiative was delivered in an accelerated fashion. 1.1 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Introduction May 9, 2007 Project Startup PLANNING PROCESS Subsequent to a successful startup period which prepared the groundwork for the SWIP, the infrastructure planning process proceeded in two distinct phases. Describe Existing Context Confirm Land uses & Phasing 4 3 Quantify Service Demand Establish Population Forecast Stakeholder Input 5 ew C as t Prepare Preliminary Infrastructure Plans on ol er Phase 2 O th n io or ks h op 6 Assemble Estimates of Probable Cost tr 1 od at e r o Fl Phase at re ec W 7 ub li c Funding Analysis P In Phase 2, the team completed three technical tasks (6 – Assemble Cost Timeline, 7 – Funding Analysis, and 8 – Develop Infrastructure Plan Documentation), planned to conduct two public workshops, and completed the project. Project participants collaboratively developed and finalized timelines which tied the best opinions of probable project costs to a yearly timeline. A funding analysis was then completed which identified options and rendered opinions as to how each candidate project would be best delivered to the end user. This second phase concluded with the development of Infrastructure Plan documentation and final County review and approval of the Southwest Infrastructure Plan. The Final Public Workshop, originally slated to occur after the finalization of the Plan, was deemed redundant given the advanced state of the results which were presented at the first Public Drop-In Workshop and was not held. 2 R In Phase 1, the planning team comprehensively described the existing infrastructure context in the Southwest area and then quantified the future servicing challenges that the proposed land uses and densities pose. Each of the four infrastructure planning area teams (flood control, parks and recreation, transportation, wastewater infrastructure, and “other” services) were responsible for formulating a preliminary infrastructure plan which responded to the challenges which will arise as growth occurs. Phase 1 includes project facilitation, management, and startup followed by five technical tasks (1 – Describe Existing Context, 2 – Confirm Land Uses and Phasing, 3 – Establish Population Forecast, 4 – Quantify Servicing Demands, and 5 – Prepare Preliminary Infrastructure Plans) and a round of strategic and selective stakeholder input. 1 W 1.5 8 Finalize Infrastructure Plans and Reports Final Public Workshop The original SWIP planning process is schematically depicted in the graphic to the right. Project Closeout 1.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Community Involvement May 9, 2007 2.0 Community Involvement 2.1 OVERVIEW Community involvement was identified early in the process as a very important part of the planning effort. Encouraging public input was a major priority augmented by the involvement of selected major stakeholders early in the planning process. As such, despite an aggressive 17week schedule that commenced the first week of January 2007 it was decided to provide two opportunities at two different levels, a stakeholder session and a meeting open to the general public. Both meetings would provide opportunities for the public to learn about the project and provide input. The area has various levels of development and population. Up-zoning to higher densities could conceivably impact current residents and stakeholders in a variety of ways. The interfaces between proposed master-planned communities and the considerable wildcat development and lot-splitting which have occurred in the area were seen as inducing additional needs for public involvement given the fact that there are three current applicants seeking to process Comprehensive Plan Amendments in the area. Community involvement inputs were also desired regarding cultural resources, and the eventual uses and disposition of State Trust Land, University owned land and large privately owned parcels. In addition, viewpoints were desired from various existing recreational and cultural facilities such as a trap and skeet shooting club, a museum, and other entities. Involvement from two different Native American entities in the area with large land holdings and enterprises was desired, along with inputs from the regional airport which serves as one of the major employers in the area. 2.2 STAKEHOLDER INPUT SESSION The first meeting with the major stakeholders was planned to occur early in the process. The stakeholder session had two purposes. The first was to introduce the planning effort and the second purpose was to listen and learn about future plans for the area and also any challenges in the study area. A list of primary stakeholders including outside service providers, developers, environmental groups, primary employers, land holders or owners, regulatory entities and advisors and others was created. A letter was drafted and sent to the stakeholders along with a project description and a list of sample stakeholder questions. A sample letter including the two attachments and a list of stakeholders are provided in Appendices A and B. The Stakeholder Input session was held on Thursday, February 1, 2007 from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm and attracted about 50 stakeholder participants. County Supervisor Sharon Bronson, who represents District 3 and the large portion of the SWIP area, welcomed the stakeholders and briefly explained the reason for the aggressive schedule. Deputy County Administrator John 2.1 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Community Involvement May 9, 2007 Bernal then gave a quick overview of the study. Pima County Planning Staff followed with a presentation on the study area. A question and answer session followed. The stakeholders were also invited to participate in one on one follow up meetings with the team members. Stakeholder input is included in Appendix C. 2.3 PUBLIC DROP-IN WORKSHOP The second opportunity for much wider public involvement in the form of a drop-in style public workshop was conducted on March 22nd, 2007. This workshop coincided with the completion of the draft report documenting the process and results of the Southwest Infrastructure Plan. The timing maximized the benefit of public input by giving people an opportunity to provide comment after learning more about the plan’s findings and financial implications. The workshop consisted of a series of information stations staffed by the project team. Appendix D contains the sign-in sheets and comment cards from the Public Drop-in Workshop. 2.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.0 The Southwest Infrastructure Plan 3.1 EXISTING CONTEXT IN THE SOUTHWEST This report section summarizes the results of the existing context assessment which was completed in order to develop a baseline from which to examine future infrastructure. 3.1.1 Current Urbanization Trends Pima County, at 1 million residents, continues to be one of the fastest growing counties in the country with an estimated 16% increase in population since 2000. Figure EC-1 indicates that in 2006 there were a total of 22 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests in Eastern Pima County, five of which (Nos. 2, 12, 14, 16, and 18) were within the SWIP planning boundary. The study area contains two primary natural constraints to development, those being the mountainous areas and large drainage washes which are clearly visible in Figure EC-2. The bulk of the study area is outside of the conservation land system shown on Figure EC-3. Existing land use maps confirm that many portions of the SWIP area are developed or otherwise committed. Figure EC-4 depicts the primary subdivisions which exist in the area. The County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, depicted in Figure EC-5, illustrates the current and officially adopted plans for the SWIP area. The eastern portion of the study area has been more developed, yet still has considerable infill potential, while the western portion has larger areas of vacant and presumably developable land. Areas along the Ajo Road and Valencia Road Corridors can be expected to have higher densities should flood control and drainage concerns permit. Land ownership in the area is widespread and diverse, including the federal government, the State of Arizona, Pima County, the Arizona Board of Regents, and Tribal Nations. Many of these owners are anticipated to release all or portions of their property to development. Historical Permit Activity Table EC-1 and Figure EC-6 display the recent history of Pima County and the SWIP area in terms of issued permits for single family, townhomes, multi-family, and manufactured homes. Averaged over the past seven years, 8.0% of the annual 10,854 Pima County permits have been issued within the SWIP area. 3.1 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-1 Title 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests Pima County Public Works Legend Existing Roadways Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-2 Title Contextual Aerial Photography of SWIP Area Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-3 Title Conservation Lands System Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-4 Title Existing Subdivisions Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-5 Title Planned Land Uses Table EC-1 Historical Pima County and SWIP Permit Data Year Single Family + Townhomes + Multi-family + Manufactured Homes Permits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 All Pima County Permits Incorporated Areas Other Areas SWIP Study Area Permits SWIP Permits - Percentage of Other Areas Total SWIP Permits - Percentage of All Pima County Permits 11,072 6,978 4,094 508 12.4% 4.6% 10,645 6,813 4,456 639 14.3% 6.0% 10,234 6,392 3,842 827 21.5% 8.1% 10,288 5,919 4,369 992 22.7% 9.6% 11,499 7,175 4,324 860 19.9% 7.5% 13,482 7,130 6,372 1,799 28.2% 13.3% 8,757 5,144 3,613 584 16.2% 6.7% Legend Seven Year Average 10,854 6,507 4,439 887 19.3% 8.0% Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. EC-1 Title Historical Pima County and SWIP Permit Data Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above X.X % SWIP Area Permits as a Percentage of All Pima County Permits Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. EC-6 Title Historical Pima County and SWIP Permit Data Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.1.2 Natural Drainage Patterns Watershed Overview The SWIP study area is comprised of two primary watershed basins. The drainage areas west of Robles Pass include the watersheds tributary to the Black Wash. Drainage areas east of Robles Pass are tributary to the west branch of the Santa Cruz River. The Black Wash watershed consists of relatively flat topographic terrain along many of the drainage corridors. Overall, the Black Wash watershed is comprised of highly braided channels resulting in broad, shallow, unconfined sheet flooding during storm events. Storm runoff is conveyed primarily from east to northwest via the Black Wash. Along many reaches of the Black Wash there are no discernable channels, only dense vegetation to indicate the natural drainage corridors. The one in 100-year return frequency peak discharge associated with the Black Wash is equal to 26,369 cfs at Sandario Road. This runoff is generated via a 147.21 square mile drainage area with headwaters originating in the Sierrita Mountains. The drainage areas tributary to the West Branch Santa Cruz River also consists of relatively flat topographic terrain. Within the SWIP boundary, the West Branch Santa Cruz River watersheds are relatively more developed than the Black Wash watersheds and therefore include more flood control structures. Runoff generated within the West Branch Santa Cruz River watersheds is conveyed northerly to the SWIP southern boundary, and easterly within the limits of the study area. The contributing drainage areas south of the study area have a one in 100-year peak discharge rate of 4,225 cfs at Mission Road. This runoff is generated by a 23.15 square mile drainage area. The watersheds originating within the study area generate one in 100-year peak discharge rates along Mission Road which vary from 96 cfs to 2,248 cfs. Runoff is generated by 0.15 square mile and 2.70 square mile watersheds, respectively. Flood Hazards Flooding within the Southwest Area has been studied several times; however, defining the one in 100-year return frequency floodplain limits has proven problematic. Many of the drainage corridors do not have sufficient capacity to contain more than the one in 2-year to one in 5-year storms. As a result, flood flows coalesce from one drainage corridor to another making determination of watershed boundaries and concentration points difficult. In 1989, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted a qualitative map of the Black Wash floodplain areas and associated sheet flooding zones. The regulatory floodplain for Black Wash has been mapped as Zone AO which is defined as sheet flooding on sloping terrain with depths of flow ranging from one to three feet. The remainder of the area has been mapped as unnumbered A Zones which are defined as areas with depths of flow of one foot or more. In these unnumbered A Zones, base flood elevations (one in 100-year event water surface elevations) have not been determined. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) encompassing the Black Wash study area includes Community Panel Nos. 2200, 2225, 2800, 2825, and 2810, all with effective dates of February 3.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 8, 1999. Several Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) have been prepared within the study area; however, these LOMR documents are site-specific and do not have any overall impacts to the existing conditions or drainage characteristics of the Black Wash watershed. Black Wash has been defined as an administrative floodway by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District through the Black Wash Drainage Analysis and Policy Assessment, as adopted in 1990 by the Pima County Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Directors of the Flood Control District. The Black Wash drainage corridor is predominately natural with ill-defined tributaries that are subject to change during storm events and as a result of development impacts. The 1990 Southwest Basin Management Study evaluated existing roadways within the study area as well as access issues associated with multiple storm event intervals. Currently, Ajo Highway is the only roadway within the study area that has been designed with culvert crossings to provide some measure of all-weather (passable during a one in 100-year event) access. However, the culverts under Ajo Highway only have capacity to convey the one in 10-year to one in 25-year storm event. There are two existing bridge sections along Ajo Highway associated with the Black Wash and the Snyder Hills Wash watercourses (Ajo Highway – STA 890+25 & STA 950+00). These bridge sections are assumed to convey the one in 100-year storm event and have not been analyzed as part of this study. Numerous roads located within the study area, such as Valencia Road and Camino Verde, are subject to closure due to flood inundation during even a one in 2-year storm event. The undersized culverts and dip sections under Ajo Highway have resulted in significant runoff impoundment as evidenced by increased vegetation south of Ajo Highway and Valencia Road as compared to the north side of Ajo Highway. Impounded floodwaters south of Ajo Highway have the potential to create adverse impacts on adjacent property owners, while the reduction in vegetation north of Ajo Highway contributes to increased flow velocities and decreased soil infiltration capacity. Central Arizona Project Impacts Sections of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal located within the northern portion of the study area impact the Tucson Mountain Park watersheds that convey runoff westerly to the Black Wash. Similar to the undersized drainage structures along Ajo Highway, the CAP canal impounds stormwater runoff along the upstream side of the canal producing upstream flooding as well as downstream vegetation reduction, increased velocities, and decreased soil infiltration capacity. The CAP canal impacts four significant Tucson Mountain Park watersheds. Stormwater flows are conveyed across the CAP canal via 36-foot concrete flume channels or 72-inch diameter pipe culverts. A fifth Tucson Mountain Park watershed does not appear to be impacted by the CAP canal as the canal has been designed to convey CAP water below the natural flow line of the drainage corridor via an 810-foot long siphon channel. Additional CAP canal impacts are further discussed in a subsequent section of this analysis. 3.3 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Ryan Airfield Impacts The issue of flood control facilities in the vicinity of Ryan Airfield was considered. Per Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory, open bodies of water have the potential to become hazardous wildlife attractants. These hazardous wildlife attractants should be located a minimum of 5,000 feet from the Airport Operations Area (AOA) for airports that do not include jet activity (piston engines) and 10,000 feet from the AOA for airports that do include jet activity. Currently only piston engine airplanes are active at Ryan Airfield, although Tucson Airport Authority is planning to expand the current facilities to include jet aircraft activity in the near future. Given the local Sonoran Desert environment and the fact that Pima County design standards aim to ensure that stormwater detention facilities are drained within 24 hours of a storm event, Ryan Airfield should not present flood control limitations associated with future development located in proximity to the runways, taxiways, and aprons. 3.1.3 Wastewater Management Facilities The SWIP study area is comprised of two separate major sewer basins tributary to two different wastewater treatment facilities. In general, the area to the west part of the study area drains westward to the Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), while the east part of the study area drains northward all the way to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Pima County provided direction that the Avra Valley WWTF servicing area was to be the focus of this study, and areas draining to the Roger Road WWTP were not to be scrutinized. Map W-1 illustrates the existing wastewater collection system. There is a 6,709 acre area in the northwest portion of the study area whose topography eliminates the potential for servicing via gravity sewers. General slopes within the Avra Valley sewer basin ranged from 0.9% to 50%, with an average slope of 2.3% from the northeast, southeast and southwest towards the northwest corner of the study area. The existing sewer influent enters Avra Valley WWTF via a 24-inch pipe line under Snyder Hill Road. This 24-inch pipe runs about 0.4 miles to the east along Snyder Hill Road and turns 45 degree to the northeast. It becomes a 21-inch to service the northern portions of the Avra Valley WWTF sewer basin. The 24-inch pipe was fed by two major trunk lines (21-inch and 15inch) under the intersection of Snyder Hill Road and Airline Road. The 21-inch extends to the southeast and turns into 18-inch and then 12-inch sewers to service the southern portions of the existing basin. The 15-inch pipe continues along Snyder Hill Road and ends approximately 1.5 miles to the east. Avra Valley WWTF is located at 10000 Snyder Hill Road, Tucson, Arizona, which is in the southwest quarter of Section 36, T14S, R11E. The existing Avra Valley WWTF includes a biological nutrient removal oxidation ditch (BNROD) system that was originally designed for an average daily dry weather flow (ADWF) of 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing unit processes include a 0.288 million gallon flow equalization pond, a 1.33 million gallon oxidation 3.4 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 ditch, two secondary clarifiers, disinfection equipment, sludge storage tanks, sludge loading station, emergency sludge drying facility, effluent reservoir, four percolation ponds, and a sprayfield system along the Black Wash. The sludge is held on site in the sludge holding tanks until it is pumped into and hauled away by tanker trucks. Sludge in the sludge holding tank is aerated for odor control. The tanker trucks haul and discharge the sludge into a designated manhole for conveyance through the sewer system for further processing at Roger Road WWTP. The existing facility produces Class B+ effluent. The existing facility efficiently treats wastewater to biological oxygen demand (BOD) below 5 mg / l, total suspended solids (TSS) lower than 5 mg / l, and total nitrogen (TN) less than 3 mg / l. The effluent is disposed of via percolation basins, with occasional intermittent irrigation to the spray-field area. The Avra Valley WWTF will be capable of producing Class A+ effluent following its ongoing expansion to a 4.0 MGD facility. Figure W-1 provides both aerial and ground photographs depicting facility components at the existing Avra Valley WWTF. Interim Avra Valley WWTF Upgrade The facility is currently in the process of being upgraded to an interim facility with a capacity of 2.2 MGD. This interim upgrade includes Phase I, which will increase capacity from 1.2 MGD to 1.6 MGD by increasing aeration capacity, and Phase II which will raise capacity from 1.6 MGD to 2.2 MGD by adding an anoxic selector. Phase I improvements include the installation of four 20-hp floating mechanical aerators, addition of an influent flow meter upstream of the influent pump station, upsizing of the 12-inch influent pipe, installation of control instruments for continuous monitoring and automatic oxic / anoxic cycling, increasing the capacity of return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, and upgrades to the electrical system. Phase II improvements include improvements to the screening facility, construction of a new anoxic selector, and increasing RAS pumping capacity. The interim upgrade is anticipated to be completed by the end of April 2007. The cost of the interim modifications now underway is estimated to be $2.1 million. Ryan Airfield Impacts Currently the Avra Valley WWTF is outside the hazardous wildlife attractant separation distance measured as 5,000 feet from the Air Operations Area (AOA) for airports that do not include jet activity (piston engines). Once jet operations commence and the separation distance expands to 10,000 feet from the AOA, a wildlife hazard management plan will be required by the FAA. 3.5 Aerial Photograph Oxidation Ditch Legend Percolation Pond Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. W-1 Title Photographs of Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.1.4 Transportation Facilities The transportation and roadway sections present an inventory and analysis of existing and planned transportation facilities in the project area which are pertinent to the development of the SWIP. The sections emphasize major routes, including state corridors and local arterials crucial to new development in the study area. For purposes of this study, roads classified as local and collector streets are presumed to be built as part of the on-site improvements, and are not planning or funding considerations in this analysis. There is also a major concern about lack of all-weather access in the study area, particularly in the developable central area. Hydrology and floodplain management are considered in a different chapter of the SWIP. These sections will also present an inventory of transportation facilities, issues and implications that are pertinent to the development of this plan. These routes have two important functions: to provide internal circulation within the area, and to provide connectivity to social and economic activities in the greater metropolitan area. 3.1.4.1 Roadway Facilities Jurisdictional Responsibility State Route 86 (also known as SR 86, Ajo Way or the Ajo Highway) is a State highway operated and maintained by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Most other public roads within the study area are the responsibility of Pima County Department of Transportation and a few are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Tucson. There are scattered private streets and some unimproved rural roads that are not maintained by any jurisdiction. Roadway Functional Classification There are two primary classification systems for the roadways within the study area. Pima County employs the Major Streets and Scenic Routes (MSSR) Map as a guide to establish rights-of-way for arterials and collector roads. It is also used as an instrument to determine setbacks for these roads and for roads designated as scenic routes. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Act required each state to functionally reclassify its public roads and streets; ADOT was assigned to lead Arizona's effort and the most recent update of this classification was approved by FHWA in 2005. The ADOT (state highway) functional classification system characterizes all roadways as either rural or urban, and as arterials or collectors. Definitions for these ADOT functional classifications can be found in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Approved Federal Functional Classification System Guidelines (2005). According to this system, SR 86 is considered a Rural or Urban Minor Arterial. Other roadways classified as arterials are Cardinal Avenue, Drexel Road, Irvington Road, Los Reales Road (east of Cardinal Road), Mission Road, and Valencia Road (east of Camino de Oeste). All others are classified as rural or urban collectors or not classified by either system. 3.6 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 The City of Tucson also maintains a Major Streets and Routes Map that defines major street classifications, public right of way widths and special routes. Within the City of Tucson limits of the project study area, Mission Road, Ajo Way, Irvington Road and Valencia Road are designated as arterials. Ajo Way and Valencia Road are also designated as Gateway Routes and Mission Road is designated as a Scenic Route. Map TR-1 shows the existing arterial grid network of the study area. Tables TR-1a and TR-1b contain an inventory of important roads in the study area as well as their classification under the functional classification systems. Recent daily traffic volumes are also provided in the table. Map TR-1 shows that the arterial grid network is based primarily on east-west travel within the project area. There are few north-south roadways that provide access through and out of the area. Only Sandario Road and Mission Road are north-south roads that continue beyond the project area. SR 86, Valencia Road and Irvington Road are major east-west facilities that provide access to locations well outside the project area. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Map TR-1 and Tables TR-1a and TR-1b also display ADT for major arterial and collector roadways within the study area. This information was gathered from the Pima County Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering website and ADOT’s website. The table also shows the daily capacities of the roadways at level of service (LOS) D. LOS is a measure of effectiveness of the operational efficiency of the roadways. LOS is measured qualitatively like school grades – LOS “A” represents little to no congestion experienced along a roadway possibly due to low volumes and good access control, thus resulting in shorter travel times and driver comfort; LOS “F” represents conditions where drivers experience unacceptable congestion that may be due to high volumes, poor access control and “bottlenecks”, resulting in increased travel time, vehicle emissions (due to frequent stops and starts) and driver frustration. LOS B through LOS E represents driving conditions between LOS A and LOS F. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) published planning level volume tables that assist agencies in estimating existing and future LOS conditions on roadways based on their existing or projected daily volumes. Tables TR-1a and TR-1b display the LOS D capacities as LOS D is generally considered the acceptable LOS condition for roadways in urban areas. 3.7 Table TR-1a Road Classification and ADT (Ajo Highway Through Joseph Avenue) Existing Under/Over AADT Daily LOS D LOS D Capacity* Capacity Street Ajo Highway (SR 86) SR 286 to Valencia Road Valencia Road to San Joaquin Road San Joaquin Road to Kinney Road Kinney Road to La Cholla Boulevard La Cholla Boulevard to Mission Road Bopp Road Jerome Avenue to Palant Drive Palant Drive to Tucson Estates Parkway Tucson Estates Parkway to Kinney Road Camino de Oeste Tetakusim Road to Valencia Road Dakota Street to Irvington Road Irvington Road to TucsonAjo Highway Camino Verde Road Valencia Road to Drexel Road Drexel Road to Tucson-Ajo Highway Cardinal Avenue Hermans Road to Los Reales Road Los Reales Road to Valencia Road Valencia Road to Bilby Road Bilby Road to Drexel Road Drexel Road to Irvington Road Drexel Road Cardinal Avenue to Westover Avenue Westover Avenue to Mission Road Gates Pass Road Kinney Road to 2.4 Miles East of Kinney Road Irvington Road Sunset Boulevard to Joseph Avenue Joseph Avenue to Camino de Oeste Camino de Oeste to Cardinal Avenue Cardinal Avenue to Mission Road Joseph Avenue Bilby Road to Irvington Road Juris- No. of Speed Transit diction Lanes Limit Route Designated Bikeable Facility FHWA Classification Pima County MSSSR Classification / ROW 8,600 8,400 15,500 15,500 Under Under ADOT ADOT 2 2 65 65 PCRT PCRT Yes Yes Rural Minor Art Rural Minor Art State Route** State Route** 15,700 15,500 Over ADOT 2 55/65 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art State Route** 34,500 34,200 Over ADOT 4 55 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art State Route** 36,500 34,200 Over ADOT 4 45 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art Gateway (COT)/120' 4,300 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT No Rural Minor Coll Major Route/150' 6,900 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT No Urban Collector Major Route/150' 6,400 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector Major Route/150' 8,000 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector Major Route/90' 1,200 13,600 Under PC 2 40 No Yes Urban Collector Major Route/90' 5,900 13,600 Under PC 2 35 PCRT Yes Urban Collector Major Route/90' 6,100 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector Major Route/90' 6,300 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT No Urban Collector Major Route/90' 2,500 13,600 Under PC 2 40 No No Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 6,100 13,600 Under PC 2 35 ST No Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 10,800 13,600 Under PC 2 30 ST No Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 10,700 13,600 Under PC 2 30 ST No Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 6,300 13,600 Under PC 2 30 No Yes Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 9,100 13,600 Under PC 2 40 ST Partial Urban Minor Art NC 12,300 13,600 Under PC 2 40 ST No Urban Minor Art NC 2,400 13,600 Under PC 2 35 No Yes Rural Major Coll Scenic, Major Route/150' 2,900 13,600 Under PC 2 Partial No NC Major Route/150' 4,800 13,600 Under PC 2 PCRT No NC 6,600 13,600 Under PC 2 30-45 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art 7,400 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' 3,700 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector Major Route/150' Pima County Public Works Notes * ** *** **** NC ST PCRT Based on FDOT Capacity LOS ROW Varies along SR 86 between 150' and 250' Classified as Urban Collector north of Snyder Hill Road Classified as Urban Collector east of Valhalla Road Not Classified Sun Tran Pima County Rural Transit Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-1a Title Road Classification and ADT Table TR-1b Road Classification and ADT (Kinney Road Through Valencia Road) Existing Under/Over AADT Daily LOS D LOS D Capacity* Capacity Street Kinney Road Ajo Way to Bopp Road 15,200 Bopp Road to Tucson Estates Parkway Tucson Estates Parkway to Gates Pass Road Gates Pass Road to Mile High Road Los Reales Road Sorrel Lane to Cardinal Avenue Cardinal Avenue to Mission Road Mark Road Los Reales Road to Valencia Road Valencia Road to Bilby Road Mile Wide Road 0.5 Miles East of Reservation Road to Sandario Road Sandario Road to Kinney Road Mission Road Pima Mine Road to San Xavier Road San Xavier Road to Los Reales Road Los Reales Road to Valencia Road Valencia Road to Drexel Road Drexel Road to Irvington Road Irvington Road to 0.5 miles South of Ajo Way San Joaquin Road Ajo Way to Bopp Road Bopp Road to 0.9 Miles North of Calle Anasazi Sandario Road Ajo Way to San Joaquin Road San Joaquin Road to Mile Wide Road Mile Wide Road to Manville Road Ajo Way to Bopp Road Valencia Road Ajo Way to Camino Verde Camino Verde Road to Mark Road Mark Road to Camino de Oeste Camino de Oeste to Caballo Road Caballo Road to Camino de la Tierra Camino de la Tierra to Cardinal Avenue Cardinal Avenue to Mission Road Mission Road to 0.5 Miles E. of Mission Road Juris- No. of Speed Transit diction Lanes Limit Route Designated Bikeable Facility FHWA Classification Pima County MSSSR Classification / ROW 13,600 Over PC 2 45 PCRT Yes Urban Collector Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' 10,000 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT Yes Urban Collector 2,300 13,600 Under PC 2 35 No Yes Rural Major Coll 3,000 13,600 Under PC 2 No Yes Rural Major Coll 9,300 13,600 Under PC 2 45 ST Yes Urban Collector Major Route/150' 9,500 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No Yes Urban Minor Art Major Route/150' 3,900 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector NC 3,700 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector NC 500 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Rural Major Coll Major Route/150' 1,800 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll Scenic, Major Route/150' 1,300 13,600 Under PC 2 55 Partial Yes Urban Minor Art 4,600 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT Yes Urban Minor Art 9,400 13,600 Under PC 2 45 PCRT No Urban Minor Art 10,800 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Minor Art 24,900 29,300 Under PC 4 45 No Yes Urban Minor Art 26,400 29,300 Under PC/COT 4 45 ST Yes Urban Minor Art Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' 3,000 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll*** 1,500 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector 2,500 13,600 Under PC PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll 1,600 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll 2,700 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll 1,300 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No NC 5,200 13,600 Under PC 2 50 No No Rural Major Coll**** 12,200 13,600 Under PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector 18,400 13,600 Over PC 2 45 No No Urban Collector 23,000 13,600 Over PC 2 45 No No Urban Minor Art 24,800 13,600 Over PC 2 45 No No Urban Minor Art 29,100 29,300 Under PC 4 45 ST Yes Urban Minor Art 41,000 29,300 Over PC 4 45 ST No Urban Minor Art 39,200 29,300 Over PC 4 45 ST Yes Urban Principal Art Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Major Route/150' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Scenic, Major Route/200' Pima County Public Works Notes * ** *** **** NC ST PCRT Based on FDOT Capacity LOS ROW Varies along SR 86 between 150' and 250' Classified as Urban Collector north of Snyder Hill Road Classified as Urban Collector east of Valhalla Road Not Classified Sun Tran Pima County Rural Transit Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-1b Title Road Classification and ADT Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.1.4.2 Physical Features The following subsections describe the alignments, cross-sections, access management and planned improvements for five of the major roadways within the study area. SR 86 (Ajo Highway / Ajo Way) Existing Alignment: SR 86 is an arterial roadway generally extending along an east-west alignment from near the community of Ajo, Arizona to I-19. Between Ajo, Arizona and La Cholla Boulevard, SR 86 is also called the Ajo Highway. West of La Cholla, it becomes Ajo Way. In addition, west of I-19, the road is under the City of Tucson’s jurisdiction. Its eastern terminus is at Alvernon Way. SR 86 provides a direct connection between communities within the Tohono O’odham Nation and Tucson in the south-central area of Arizona. It is also a corridor for access to Rocky Point, Mexico via its intersection with SR 85. Figure TR-1 contains two aerial photographs of Ajo Way. Speed Limit: The speed limit on SR 86 is 65 mph from west of Sandario to Camino Verde where it is reduced to 55 mph. It continues at 55 mph to La Cholla Boulevard, where it is reduced to 45 mph. Alternate Modes: Pima County Rural Transit provides service in the project area through their San Xavier, Ajo and Tucson Estate Routes. Buses run on SR 86 via the Ajo Service Area route. This route provides morning service (one bus) from Ajo to Tucson and afternoon return service from Tucson to Ajo. This route runs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. There are no transit stops within the project study area on the Ajo Service Area route – the closest stops are at the Laos Transit Center near the intersection of Irvington Road / 6th Avenue within the City of Tucson, and at Robles Junction, approximately six miles west of Sandario Road. On the current Tucson Bike Map, SR 86 is designated as a roadway with paved shoulders. Existing Traffic Control: There is an existing traffic signal on SR 86 at its intersection with Kinney Road. There are other cross streets that are stop controlled at their intersections with SR 86. Pima County is working with ADOT to develop a State Highway Overlay District ordinance that will better regulate and manage access along State Highways and State Routes that pass through Pima County. This project will address access strategies to and from SR 86 within the project area. Plans for Improvement: ADOT has an active project to widen SR 86 between Sandario Road and Kinney Road to a four-lane cross section. As part of this widening, there will be traffic signal control added at select intersections and turn restrictions from minor crossroads onto SR 86 to reduce left turn crash potential. The SR 86 / Kinney Road intersection will also be reconstructed as part of this widening project and will be improved based on the future construction of a Wal-Mart shopping center on the northwest corner of the intersection. The developers of the Wal-Mart shopping center will improve sections of SR 86 and Kinney Road 3.8 Ajo Way, East of Sandario Road Ajo Way at La Cholla Blvd. Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-1 Title SR 86 Ajo Highway / Ajo Way Aerial Photographs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 that front the Wal-Mart center as part of a development agreement with Pima County and ADOT. Valencia Road Existing Alignment: Valencia Road follows an east-west section line alignment. The western terminus of Valencia Road is at its intersection with SR 86 near Ryan Air Field. Valencia Road continues east through the project area with its eastern terminus just east of Houghton Road on the east side of Tucson. Figure TR-2 contains two aerial photographs of Valencia Road. Speed Limit: The speed limit on Valencia Road is 50 mph from Ajo Way to Camino Verde where it is reduced to 45 mph and continues with this speed limit to the east end of the project area. Typical Section: Valencia Road through the study area is a two-lane, undivided road with eight to ten foot shoulders from SR 86 to Camino de Oeste. East of Camino de Oeste, Valencia Road widens to a four-lane divided urban section. Alternate Modes: Sun Tran provides weekday and weekend service (Routes 27 and 29) on Valencia Road from Camino de la Tierra to the east beyond the eastern limit of the study area. Transit riders can then travel to the Roy Laos Transit Center, where riders can transfer to buses that provide access to most areas Sun Tran serves. On the current Tucson Bike Map, Valencia Road is designated as a “bike route with striped shoulder” between Camino de la Tierra and Cardinal Avenue. Although not indicated on the Tucson Bike Map, we believe that the planned improvements to Valencia Road between the Ajo Highway and Camino de la Tierra will include the provision of paved, striped shoulders that will increase safety for bicycle travel. Existing Traffic Control: Traffic signals are located at Mark Road, Camino de Oeste, Cardinal Avenue and Mission Road. Stop signs control access from all other cross streets intersecting Valencia Road. Plans for Improvement: Pima County has plans to improve Valencia Road to a four-lane divided roadway between Ajo Highway and Mark Road and between Mark Road and Camino de la Tierra. The eastern project is a Pima County bond project (DOT-17) and the western project is a project to be funded through the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). The proposed improvements consist of upgrading Valencia Road to a four travel lane (two in each direction) roadway, with a two-way continuous left turn lane, six-foot paved shoulders, four-foot graded and landscaped shoulders and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian pathways. The section from Mark Road to Camino de la Tierra is projected to be completed by summer 2008. The western section from Ajo Way to Mark Road is projected to begin preliminary design in spring 2007. Pima County is currently reconstructing Valencia Road from Mission Road to I-19 (Pima County Bond No. DOT-49) to a six-lane divided urban roadway. This project is scheduled to be complete by summer 2007. The developers of the La Luna 3.9 Valencia Road, South of SR 86 Valencia Road, East of Mark Road Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-2 Title Valencia Road Aerial Photographs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 residential development have an agreement with Pima County to widen a short section of Valencia Road west of the Casino del Sol complex to four lanes. Sandario Road Existing Alignment: This two-lane rural road travels in a north-south direction, beginning at SR 86 and continuing north 20 miles to its terminus at Avra Valley Road in the Town of Marana. A section of Sandario Road travels through Saguaro National Park’s West Unit. Figure TR-3 contains two aerial photographs of Sandario Road. Speed Limit: The speed limit on Sandario Road is 50 mph from SR 86 through to the north boundary of the project area. Typical Section: Sandario Road is predominantly a two-lane undivided rural road with 11-foot lanes and narrow paved shoulders. Alternate Modes: There are no facilities for alternate modes (transit service, bike lanes) along Sandario Road. Existing Traffic Control: There are few intersections along Sandario Road. All are un-signalized with stop signs on the cross streets. Plans for Improvement: There are no existing plans for roadway capacity improvements along Sandario Road. However, there are improvement plans for Sandario Road in Pima County’s Development Impact Fee Program. Kinney Road Existing Alignment: Kinney Road follows a diagonal alignment, generally from northwest to southeast, beginning at Mile Wide Road within Tucson Mountain Park and continuing southeast to just south of SR 86. Kinney Road provides access to two major tourist attractions in Pima County; Old Tucson Studios and the Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum. Figure TR-4 contains two aerial photographs of Kinney Road. Speed Limit: The speed limit on Kinney Road is 45 mph from SR 86 to Tucson Estates Parkway. Northwest of Tucson Estates Parkway the speed limit is reduced to 35 mph and continues with this speed limit through Tucson Mountain Park. Typical Section: Kinney Road is a two-lane roadway with narrow shoulders through most of the project area. Kinney Road widens to a three lane section between Naomi Road and Western Way, but narrows down again as it approaches the Tucson Mountain Park Boundary. As Kinney Road approaches Ajo Way, there has recently been substantial residential development which has resulted in minor improvements on Kinney Road. Alternate Modes: Pima County Rural Transit provides service on Kinney Road via the Tucson Estates Service Area. This route makes eight scheduled trips per weekday to the Laos Transit 3.10 Sandario Road at Snyder Hill Road Sandario Road at SR 86 Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-3 Title Sandario Road Aerial Photographs Kinney Road at SR 86 Kinney Road at Sarasota Road Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-4 Title Kinney Road Aerial Photographs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Center. On Kinney Road the service is provided from Calle Don Miguel, south of SR 86 to Donald Avenue. On the current Tucson Bike Map, Kinney Road is designated as a “bike route with striped shoulder” between SR 86 and Tucson Mountain Park. It continues as the “Acupuncture Trailhead” in Tucson Mountain Park, one of several designated mountain biking routes within Pima County. Kinney Road is a popular recreational bicycling route with its connection to Gates Pass Road. Existing Traffic Control: There are traffic signals on Kinney Road at Western Way and at SR 86. Other cross streets are controlled by stop signs. There are no access restrictions for turning movements on Kinney Road. Plans for Improvement: Pima County has a bond project to widen Kinney Road to a four-lane cross section (DOT-50) from Bopp Road to SR 86. Pima County also has a development agreement with Wal-Mart who plans to build a Super Wal-Mart shopping center on the northwest corner of the SR 86 / Kinney Road intersection. As part of the development agreement, Wal-Mart will construct improvements on Kinney Road and on SR 86. These improvements include turn lanes, drainage improvements and intersection improvements at the SR 86 / Kinney Road intersection. Mission Road Existing Alignment: Mission Road is a major urban roadway with a north-south alignment. It provides access from the Green Valley area north into the downtown Tucson area. Mission Road is within the Tucson City Limits from just south of SR 86 to the north. South of SR 86, Mission Road is within the jurisdiction of Pima County, although there is a short segment between SR 86 and Irvington Road that is within the City of Tucson’s jurisdiction. Figure TR-5 contains two aerial photographs of Mission Road. Speed Limit: The speed limit on Mission Road is 55 mph south of San Xavier Road and 45 miles north of San Xavier Road, through the project area. Typical Sections: Between just south of 36th Street and Drexel Road, Mission Road has an urban four-lane cross section with a raised median, curb and gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes. South of Drexel Road, Mission Road narrows to a two-lane undivided rural road cross section and continues as such to the southern boundary of the study area. Alternate Modes: Pima County Rural Transit provides service on Mission Road from just south of San Xavier Road to Valencia Road via its San Xavier Access Route. This route provides residents of the San Xavier area with transit access to Tucson employment centers, medical facilities and other activities and services. Ten round trips along this route are provided during the week from the San Xavier area to the Roy Laos Transit Center. Nine round trips are provided on Saturday. 3.11 Mission Road at Irvington Road Mission Road at Valencia Road Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-5 Title Mission Road Aerial Photographs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 On the current Tucson Bike Map, Mission Road is designated as a “bike route with striped shoulder” from Drexel Road north beyond the northern project boundary. South of Los Reales Road, Mission Road is designated on the Bike Map as a “Major Street”, which may be appropriate for experienced riders. Existing Traffic Control: There are traffic signals at 36th Street, SR 86, Irvington Road, Drexel Road, Valencia Road. Access is controlled north of Drexel Road by the raised median, restricting some turns onto Mission Road to right-in, right-out only. Plans for Improvement: There are no capacity improvement projects planned for Mission Road. 3.1.4.3 Roadway and Intersection Crash Experience Pima County maintains a database of crash incidences for roadways and intersections on Pima County roadways through their Safety Management System (SMS). The crash information is obtained from traffic crash reports submitted to PCDOT / TED by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. (ADOT also collects reported crash data on ADOT facilities). Pima County recently published their annual Safety Management System (SMS) Report. The current report summarizes crash history on Pima County facilities from January 2003 through December 2005. The SMS data are used to help identify and prioritize traffic safety projects within unincorporated Pima County. Table TR-2 lists the highest five ranked unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, and roadway segments within the plan area based on their crash history and their ranking in Pima County’s SMS priority index1. 3.1.4.4 Transportation Improvement Plans and Programs PAG Regional Transportation Plan The Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) looks at transportation and funding needs today and 20 or more years into the future, identifying transportation solutions and financial strategies. It guides the investment of regional transportation resources in our region’s roadway, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, aviation, freight and rail facilities over the next 20 to 30 years. The current long-range transportation plan horizon is the year 2030. The 2030 RTP includes updated growth projections, adjusted proposed project costs, and revised expected revenues. This Plan was adopted by the PAG Regional Council on June 29, 2005 and amended on June 29, 2006. 1 The priority index for roadway segments and intersections is calculated by adding the rank of each location (based on all Pima County roadway segments and intersections included in the database) for the four statistic groups (crash frequency, crash rate, severity index, and volume). It should be noted that the four crash statistics are treated equally in importance. As a result, no one statistic is given extra weight prior to the summation of the four. Based on this methodology, the lower the priority index, the higher the priority index rank and the more critical the need for corrective action. The highest priority index is “1.” 3.12 Table TR-2 Highest Five PI Ranked Unsignalized Intersections in Plan Area Intersection Bopp Road Camino Verde Valencia Road Bilby Road Los Reales Road Volume Kinney Road Valencia Road Westover Avenue (East) Cardinal Avenue Mission Road 15535 11462 38158 10994 11292 3 Year Period - January 2003 to December 2005 Crash SI PI PI Rank Rate Frequency 17 1.00 1.80 201 7 15 1.20 1.71 252 16 11 0.26 1.80 278 21 11 0.91 1.62 292 34 12 0.97 1.42 321 43 Table TR-2 Highest Five PI Ranked Signalized Intersections in Plan Area Intersection Irvington Road Cardinal Avenue Mission Road Mark Road Camino de Oeste Volume Mission Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road 44065 42790 50245 19732 25048 3 Year Period - January 2003 to December 2005 Crash SI PI PI Rank Rate Frequency 94 1.95 1.80 48 2 86 1.84 1.43 101 14 19 2.02 1.58 117 21 38 1.76 1.93 149 29 46 1.68 1.51 162 33 Table TR-2 Highest Five PI Ranked Roadway Segments in Plan Area Roadway Segment From To Length Volume Los Reales Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Cardinal Avenue Sorrel Lane Camino Verde Camino de Oeste Mark Road Los Reales Road Cardinal Avenue Mark Road Caballo Road Camino de Oeste Valencia Road 1.0 2.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 9,220 10,166 23,955 17,314 8,334 Notes 3 Year Period - January 2003 to December 2005 Crash SI PI PI Rank Rate Frequency/Mile 33.00 3.27 1.62 391 15 18.50 1.66 2.02 391 15 65.00 2.48 1.46 395 17 58.00 3.06 1.44 418 26 28.00 3.07 1.63 419 28 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-2 Title Roadway and Intersection Crash Data Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 PAG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), prepared by Pima Association of Governments (PAG), is a five-year schedule and budget of proposed transportation improvements within eastern Pima County. The TIP is typically updated annually through a multi-step process in association with PAG member jurisdictions and other implementing agencies. The TIP addresses regional transportation projects and programs including federal, state and local highways, transit, aviation, ride sharing, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities. Arizona Department of Transportation Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program For over a decade, The Arizona Department of Transportation has developed the Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program for highways and airports under the "Priority Programming Law". The law sets guidelines that the department follows in prioritizing projects for the program. This site outlines the key features of the programming process and identifies projects selected for the fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Pima County Capital Improvement Program Pima County’s Fiscal Year 2007 / 08 to 2011 / 12 Adopted Budget for its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of ten categories: Facilities Management; Transportation; the Flood Control District; Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation; Open Space; Cultural Resources; Neighborhood / Housing Reinvestment; Solid Waste Management; Airports; and Wastewater Management. Transportation is the largest component of the budget for CIP, in terms of expenditures and number of projects. Pima County Development Impact Fee Program – CIP Projects In 2003, the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2003-40 which modified County Code Chapter 19.03 relating to roadway development impact fees by, in part, establishing new fees for non-residential land uses. The Board of Supervisors originally implemented roadway development fees in 1996, although these fees were for new residential developments only. The impact fees are based on the projected impact of the land use on the arterial roadway system. By statute, the fees must help fund capital improvements on the arterial system within Pima County. Because roadways classified as local roads and collectors are usually built or improved by the developers of a project, only the roadways that are classified as arterials (minor and major), and those of higher classifications (parkways, freeways) are considered for improvements to be funded by development impact fees. City of Tucson Capital Improvement Program The City of Tucson develops and maintains a continuing five year Capital Improvement Program. The current program includes capital projects to be funded between 2007 and 2011. 3.13 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 For this fiscal period, there are no transportation projects within the City of Tucson that are within the plan study area. The current program does list projects that are to be funded through the Pima County 1997 Highway User Revenue Bond program that are partially within the City of Tucson. One project that is in the plan area, Valencia Road from Mission to Interstate 19 is included in this list. This project is to widen Valencia Road to a six-lane cross section. Regional Transportation Authority The Regional Transportation Authority is made up of jurisdictions within a common geographic boundary to identify transportation priorities and design projects to meet regional needs. The RTA focuses on multi-modal transportation planning that supports Pima County, South Tucson, Tucson, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, Marana, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and Tohono O’odham Nation. The legislation allows the RTA to request voter approval of a transportation plan and a half-cent transaction privilege tax, or sales tax, to fund it. The tax may be collected over a period of up to 20 years. Revenues from the sales tax are to be spent based on the defined elements in the voter-approved RTA plan. In May 2006, voters approved a $2.1 billion regional transportation plan with 60 percent voting in favor of the plan and 58 percent voting for the half-cent sales tax. The projects in the plan include roadway improvements, transit improvements, safety improvements and environmental and economic vitality enhancements. Map TR-2, Planned or Programmed Capacity Projects, shows currently planned transportation improvements, as well as future corridors under consideration. Tables TR-3a and TR-3b list programmed roadway improvement projects from the PCDOT and PAG Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP), the ADOT Five-Year Construction Program and the PAG RTP and RTA plans. Project numbers are indexed to the numbers shown in Map TR-2. 3.14 Project Table TR-3a Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements (SR 86 and Valencia Road) Programs / Plans Road Location Length 1 Sandario to Valencia 3.70 2 Sandario to Valencia Valencia Road to Kinney Road Valencia Road to Kinney Road Valencia Road to Kinney Road Type of Work Fiscal Year(s) Sponsor ADOT TFCP Cost PAG TIP Cost PC CIP Cost PC DIFO Cost PAG RTP Cost ADOT X $5,000 2020-2030 ADOT X $38,250 6.60 Widen to 4 lanes 2010 ADOT 6.60 Widen to 4 lanes 2010 ADOT 6.60 Widen to 4 lanes 2010 ADOT X $18,875 Kinney Road Intersection 0.80 Reconstruct intersection and approximately 4,300 feet of roadway to 4lane divided 2007 ADOT 7 Kinney to Mission 4.50 2020-2030 ADOT X $9,000 8 Mission to I-19 2.00 2020-2030 ADOT X $23,150 9 10 11 Ajo Hwy to Mark Ajo Hwy to Mark Ajo Hwy to Mark Mt. Eagle Road to Wade Road Wade Road to Mark Road Wade Road to Mark Road Mark to Camino de la Tierra Mark Road to Camino de la Tierra Mark Road to Camino de la Tierra CAP Pipeline to Camino de la Tierra Mark to Mission Mission to I-19 Mission to I-19 Mission Road to I-19 Mission Road to I-19 5.75 5.00 5.00 Widen to 6 lanes Reconstruct and widen to 6 lanes Widen to 4 lanes Widen to 4 lanes Widen to 4 lanes 2020-2030 Pima County Pima County RTA X $41,000 1.50 Widen to 4 lanes 2.50 Widen to 4 Lanes 2011 Pima County 2.50 Widen to 4 Lanes 2011 Pima County 2.00 Widen to 4 lanes 2007-2010 Pima County 2009 Pima County 2009 Pima County 2020-2030 2010-2020 Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County 3 4 5 6 SR 86 / Ajo Highway / Ajo Way 2020-2030 3.06 Reconstruct and widen to 40 feet. Widen to 4 lanes 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Valencia Road 13 Notes 2.00 2.00 Widen to 4-lane road Widen to 4-lane road 3.00 Widen to 4 lanes 3.30 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.8 Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 6 lanes 2012-2016 X Cost X $15,057 $14,400 X X $17,600 $1,819 X Pima County X X X $800 X $14,956 $15,700 X X $25,100 $18,225 $13,181 X X $15,708 $16,200 $10,828 X $4,628 Project Plans and Programs ADOT TFCP = Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Facilities and Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007-2011) PAG TIP = Pima Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program (FY 2007-2011) PC CIP = Pima County Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007/08 to 2011/12) PC DIFO = Pima County Development Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance Project List (Dollars are shown in 2002 Costs) PAG RTP = Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (2006-2030) PAG RTA = Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Authority Transportation Plan Funding Amounts Expressed in Thousands of Dollars ($ 000) X $17,356 X X $45,000 $15,056 Pima County 2008 2008 PAG RTA Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-3a Title Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements Table TR-3b Other Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements Project Road Location Length 24 Camino de Oeste Calle Torim to Valencia 1.50 Drexel Road Programs / Plans Midvale Park to Calle Santa Cruz 25 26 Ignacio Bumea Road 27 (Sheridan/C AP Line Road) 28 29 Irvington Road 31 32 33 Kinney Road 30 34 35 36 37 1.55 Mission to I-19 Fiscal Year(s) Sponsor Widen to 4 Lanes 2010-2020 Extend 2 lane roadway with new bridge Widen to 4 lanes divided inc bike lanes & sidewalks PAG RTP Cost Pascua Yaqui X $8,500 2010-2020 City of Tucson X $16,750 2020-2030 Pima County X $17,900 2010-2020 Pascua Yaqui X $5,000 X $15,400 ADOT TFCP Cost PAG TIP Cost PC CIP Cost PC DIFO Cost PAG RTA Cost 1.00 Construct new collector road to PY reservation Los Reales to Valencia Road Ajo Hwy to Joseph Road Mission to I-19 Ajo Way to Bopp Road Ajo Way to Bopp Road Ajo Way to Sarasota Sarasota to Tucson Estates Ajo to Tucson Estates Sandario Road Camino Verde San Joaquin Road 0.40 Type of Work Rudasill to SR 86 Valencia Road to Ajo Road Sandario to Calle Cibeque Notes 1.80 1.32 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.03 1.60 13.80 1.80 3.40 Construct new twolane roadway Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 4-lane road Widen to 4-lane road Pima County X $7,000 2010-2020 Tucson 2011 Pima County 2011 Pima County Widen to 4 lanes 2007-2010 Pima County X $9,581 Widen to 4 lanes 2010-2020 Pima County X $9,100 Widen to 4 lanes Widen to 4-lane road Widen to 4-lane road Reconstruct new two lane roadway X $13,800 X $12,089 Pima County X $8,000 Pima County X $55,000 Pima County X $7,200 Pima County X $13,600 Project Plans and Programs ADOT TFCP = Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Facilities and Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007-2011) PAG TIP = Pima Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program (FY 2007-2011) PC CIP = Pima County Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007/08 to 2011/12) PC DIFO = Pima County Development Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance Project List (Dollars are shown in 2002 Costs) PAG RTP = Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (2006-2030) PAG RTA = Pima Association of Governments Regional Transportation Authority Transportation Plan Funding Amounts Expressed in Thousands of Dollars ($ 000) Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-3b Title Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.1.5 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Facilities The project study area for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space facilities is generally bounded by Mission Road on the east, Tucson Mountain Park on the north, Sandario Road on the west and the Tohono O’odham Nation on the south. The study area encompasses approximately 80.9 square miles or 51,725 acres of land. The ownership interests throughout the study area include several federal, state, county and municipal agencies, tribal nations, the Arizona Board of Regents and the Tucson Airport Authority. After subtracting 4,434 acres for roads and drainage-ways from the total, approximately 22,092 acres (46.7%) of the study area is privately held; the balance, 25,199 acres (53.2%) is public land. Map PR-1 illustrates land ownership throughout the study area. The extent of publicly owned property is substantial and reflects the high number of interests involved in planning for the future development of the Southwest area. The federal government owns a significant number of the large parcels that present potential opportunities for parks and recreation sites. Residents currently take advantage of the large vacant public parcels for hiking and mountain biking activities. The study area does include several large regional parks, such as Tucson Mountain Park, Saginaw Hill Regional Park and Robles Pass Trails Park. Tucson Mountain Park and Robles Pass Trails Park offer formal trail systems in natural settings with designated trailheads and parking areas. With over 18,000 acres available to view wildlife, horseback ride, hike and enjoy nature walks, these parks are frequented by residents and visitors alike. Other activities available include target shooting, archery and visiting the Sonora Desert Museum. Saginaw Hill Regional Park has informal trail networks but remains under the ownership of the federal government. The current development pattern in the study area consists predominately of residential uses with limited commercial along Ajo Highway and Valencia Road. There are approximately 17,250 developed residential parcels with lot sizes ranging from 0.03 to 234.7 acres. The smallest residential parcels are located within a development on Kinney Road. The largest parcels are used for agriculture purposes. The average parcel size is 0.66 acres. The predominant residential development pattern is home sites ranging in size from one acre to five acres. Map PR-2, Existing Land Use, illustrates the current development pattern by land use type and the location of the existing park sites in relation to developed residential parcels. 3.1.5.1 Inventory Results To plan for future recreational needs, an inventory of existing facilities within the study area was compiled. There are a total of seven parks consisting of neighborhood and district sites within the Pima County park system. Although school sites within the study area do provide additional sources of recreation amenities, these facilities have been excluded from the calculations of existing supply and demand. To include school acreages and facilities would obscure the results of a comparison of Pima County park and recreation amenities to a national standard. Table PR-1 provides an inventory of park sites and the recreational resources available (note the altered status of Lawrence District Park, which is actually a community park); Map PR-3 illustrates the location of each park in the study area. 3.15 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 N 11.0 0 N 6.7 1 1 D 50.0 0 1 3 2 2 Lawrence District Park C 29.1 13 1 2 1 1 113.8 14 3 6 4 10 3 2/5 7 18 1 2 1 3/6 4 28 1 2 1 3 1 8 2/4 8 4 77 1 2 1 1 1 6 1/2 2 1 5 1 2 1 12 6 / 18 7 14 284 2 7 1 8 2/5 6 6 56 2 7 6 38 17 / 44 23 37 477 9 23 2 2 2 2 2 Notes Lawrence District Park was created as larger District Park, however portions of the land were returned to Tucson Unified School District. It retains its original name despite its new status as a Community Park Horseshoe Pit 1 Trail 1 BMX Race Track 9 Swim Pool 1 Community Bldg 0 Drinking Fountain 9.0 Restroom N 1/4 Park Bench 1 Group Picnic Area w/ Ramada and Tables 1 Individual Family Picnic Area 0 Volleyball Court 6.9 Tennis Court N Playground 1 Star Valley Neighborhood Park Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park Manzanita Pool—Winston Reynolds District Park Totals Youth Basketball Court Football / Soccer Fields 1 60’ Softball Fields 0 90’ Baseball Fields 1.2 Parking Vesey Neighborhood Park N BBQ's 3 Undeveloped Acres 2 Branding Iron Neighborhood Park Ebonee Marie Moody Neighborhood Park Acres 1 Park Name Park Type No. Multi-Purpose Open Play Table PR-1 Existing and Proposed Park and Recreation Facility Inventory 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-1 Title Existing Park and Recreation Facility Inventory Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 The seven existing park sites represent a total of 113.8 developed acres. There are a total of 14.0 additional acres at Lawrence District Park and Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park to accommodate future expansion activities. When reviewing Table PR-1 and Map PR-3, it is important to note that: • • • • • • Existing park sites in the study area are all south of Ajo Highway, except for the 18,000acre Tucson Mountain Park that offers only hiking trails The park and recreation inventory includes predominately neighborhood parks There is one district park, one community park, and no regional parks in the study area There are 3 baseball fields, 6 softball fields and 4 soccer fields serving approximately 17,250 residential units It is unclear what role private recreation facilities play in augmenting the supply of recreation opportunities for existing residents Developed park sites are split equally between Board of Supervisor district boundaries Branding Iron Neighborhood Park This park provides a recreation amenity for the residents of the Branding Iron subdivision that border the park. Residents frequently walk to the park to use the basketball court, playground and picnic area with four tables and a ramada. Restrooms and parking are available. The future plans for this park site include a community garden, perimeter fencing, an additional playground for tots (defined as 3 to 5 year olds) with a covering for shade, installing a shade structure over the existing playground, more picnic areas, additional trees, and the addition of decomposed granite for dust control purposes. Ebonee Marie Moody Neighborhood Park (Cardinal Park) This facility serves the approximate area east of Mission Road, south of Valencia, north of the Tohono O’odham Nation Boundary and west of Sorrel Lane. Surrounding conditions have residential to the south and west with open space to the north and east. The park features a basketball court, softball field, horse pits, playground equipment, a paved trail and picnic areas. Future park plans include expanding and paving the existing parking area, adding parking lot lighting along Cardinal Avenue, buffering future development (i.e. the proposed Tucson Unified School District bus barn facility) to the north with plant material, adding more security lighting throughout the park, adding more picnic areas and ramadas, covering the playground with a shade structure and installing sideline fencing for the softball field. Vesey Neighborhood Park This neighborhood park is located adjacent to Vesey Elementary School and draws residents from a two mile radius. Recreational amenities include a softball field, football / soccer field, playground equipment, individual and group picnic areas, parking, restrooms, and a horseshoe pit. Vesey Neighborhood Park will need new ADA-accessible playgrounds for 3-5 year olds and 5-12 year olds to comply with current national standards. An ADA walking path around the perimeter of the park is also planned. Shade canopies over the playground areas, additional 3.16 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 parking, picnic areas, and possibly a ball field. Security and parking lot lighting are recommended improvements as well. Figure PR-1 contains a photograph of this park. The State of Arizona and the federal government both own 10-acre parcels adjacent to Vesey Park. These public parcels could be purchased for purposes of expanding the number of ball fields, open play fields, soccer fields and additional amenities to serve the area. Mission Neighborhood Park Mission Neighborhood Park is adjacent to Miller Elementary School and frequented by the surrounding residents. The park features are a baseball field, multi-purpose open play area, playground, basketball court, individual and group picnic areas, off-street parking and restrooms. This park currently experiences off-site drainage from the adjacent school property, that causes water damage and erosion, which must be corrected before any additional improvements can be made. One possible solution is an on-site retention basin. Upon resolution of the drainage problems, plans for a new covered playground should be implemented. Additional facilities that are currently needed include another group ramada, more individual picnic sites, ADA walkways and paths, security and parking lights, and ball field fencing. Figure PR-1 contains a photograph of this park. Star Valley Neighborhood Park Star Valley Park is the newest park in the existing system and serves the surrounding residents of Star Valley subdivision. Constructed by the developer on 11.0 acres, this park includes a popular amenity in the form of two dog parks. Three playgrounds, a grass open play area, two group picnic ramadas, picnic tables and a paved pathway provide residents with opportunity to enjoy the outdoors in close proximity to their homes. This park has been fully developed with no room for future expansion. Lawrence District Park Lawrence District Park was created as a larger District Park, however portions of the land were returned to Tucson Unified School District. It retains its original name despite its new status as a Community Park. This park is located adjacent to Lawrence Intermediate School and generally serves the park visitors within a two mile radius. The park has 29.1 acres of developed area and 13.0 acres for future expansion. The park has three baseball / softball fields, a soccer field, playground equipment, individual and group picnic areas, off-street parking, and restrooms. Expansion plans for this park include a community center, a lighted softball field, more landscaping, additional ramadas and picnic areas, another parking lot, security and parking lot lights, and a potential swimming pool. The existing playground should be replaced with ADA accessible playgrounds for 3-5 and 5-12 year olds to comply with national standards. These amenities should also be covered with shade structures when replaced. Figure PR-2 contains a photograph of this park. 3.17 Vesey Neighborhood Park Mission Neighborhood Park Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. PR-1 Title Photographs of Existing Neighborhood Parks Lawrence District Park Winston Reynolds - Manzanita Regional Park Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. PR-2 Title Photographs of Existing District and Regional Parks Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Winston Reynolds - Manzanita Pool District Park This District Park consists of 50 developed acres and serves a large portion of the study area. The available recreational activities appeal to a wide range of park visitors. These recreational amenities include: tennis courts, volleyball courts, lighted baseball, softball and football / soccer fields, a concession building, a lighted basketball court, playground, picnic areas, BMX track, horseshoe pits, restrooms, and community center with a swimming pool. Future plans for this District Park involve an upgrade to the ball field lighting system to a more energy efficient one that satisfies the Dark Skies standards and Little League lighting standards. Parks staff would also like to pave the parking area along Nebraska, add more ADA walkways, add more picnic areas, a restroom, and a ramada at the BMX track, install additional ramadas throughout the park, a covered playground by the community center, a trailhead along Irvington Road to access the Tucson Mountain Park trail system, and plant more trees. Decomposed granite should also be added in the planter areas for air quality purposes. The State of Arizona currently owns an 18.3 acre parcel adjacent to the park site that could be purchased for the purposes of expanding the number of soccer / football fields, picnic areas, trails and parking, to name but a few amenities. Figure PR-2 contains a photograph of this park. 3.1.6 Other Public Services and Facilities In addition to the primary (flood control, wastewater management, transportation, and parks and recreation) services outlined in the Plan numerous other public, quasi-public, and private agencies currently provide other public services and facilities in the Southwest area. This section of the SWIP document summarizes the data which was collected regarding the current provision of other such services. It is noted that the provided data cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy and completeness. Map O-1 and O-2 display the location of existing sites and linear facilities. Fire Districts Drexel Heights: This fire district currently has four stations located within the study area: No. 1Camino Verde; No. 2- Mark Road; No. 3- Cardinal Avenue; No. 4- Kinney Road. Three Points: Three Points Fire Station No. 92 is located on Sandario Road at Camino Lucido. The site occupies 4.68 acres, and is currently the only Three Points station within the study area. Pascua Pueblo: Currently, one facility exists within the study area. The District has one station, No. 27, located on Calle Torim. Law Enforcement Pima County Sheriff: Currently, one Pima County Sheriff’s Office substation exists within the study area. The Tucson Estates Substation is located at 5900 Western Way Circle. 3.18 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Tucson Airport Authority (TAA): Currently, TAA operates one law enforcement facility which is located on West Ajo Way adjacent to Ryan Airfield. Pascua Yaqui Tribal Police: Currently, one station exists in the Pascua Yaqui Tribe at 4884 N. Tarook. Pima County Libraries One public library exists within the study area at present. It is located within the Southwest Alternative Middle School facility at 6855 Mark Rd. The library facility is approximately 2,200 square feet. School Districts Tucson Unified School District (TUSD): All existing TUSD facilities are illustrated on Map O-1. Altar Valley School District: The District currently does not have any facilities located within the study area. Natural Gas Southwest Gas: Map O-1 identifies the current location of the existing SWG primary conveyance system. This network consists of high-pressure feeders (operating at 60 pounds per square inch of pressure and greater), as well as existing regulator stations. The typical high-pressure lines range in size from 2 inches to 6 inches in diameter. The primary conveyance system follows the West Ajo Highway alignment from the west to the Drexel alignment, east to Camino Verde, and then north towards Kinney Road. El Paso Natural Gas: Map O-1 delineates the existing El Paso conveyance system. The primary existing pipeline generally follows the San Joaquin alignment in the northwest part of the study area and extends southeasterly to the eastern limits of the study area. This section of pipeline consists of two lines (one 30-inch and one 26-inch diameter line). Two smaller lines feed off of this main, one 8.625-inch diameter line extending south halfway between the Mark Road and Camino Verde alignments, and one 10.75-inch diameter line extending north in an easement roughly along the Westover Avenue alignment between Mission Road and Cardinal Avenue. Electrical Power Southwest Transmission Cooperative (SWTC) and Central Arizona Project (CAP): Both SWTC and CAP currently operate transmission facilities located within the study area. Map O-1 depicts the location of the existing facilities of each entity. Tucson Electric Power (TEP): The existing TEP primary conveyance system within the study area is depicted in Map O-1, and includes an existing 138 kV transmission line extending northerly from Valencia Road along the west branch of the Santa Cruz to the substation located at Drexel Road. 3.19 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 TRICO Electric: TRICO’s primary conveyance system within the study area consists of the overhead and underground lines delineated on Map O-1. Water Virtually all of the SWIP study area lies within the Tucson Water service area. The Diablo Water Company serves a relatively small area including the subdivisions of Tucson Mountain Ranch, Diablo Village Estates, and the Caddis Haley Estates. Tucson Water’s existing conveyance system is outlined on Map O-2, which depicts existing mains, reservoirs, boosters, production wells and pressure reducing stations. 3.1.7 Ryan Airfield Ryan Airfield is a 60-year old general aviation reliever airport located at 9698 Ajo Way at the intersection of Ajo Way and Valencia Road. It occupies approximately 1,804 acres and contains three runways. The airfield, which is operated by the Tucson Airport Authority, offers flight instruction, aircraft sales, hangar rentals, charter service, and accommodates various flying clubs. The airport employs approximately 125 employees. The airfield is experiencing growth, and is currently planning for future expansion in an effort to maintain its ability to serve the city’s growing general aviation business. Ryan Airfield has seen a recent increase in the number of helicopters and business jets using the facility. As of mid2006, thirty companies served over 200 private and 60 training aircraft all using the airfield’s three runways. The airfield is developing an Avigation Easement Disclosure Policy for property in the vicinity, particularly along the runway flight paths. Tucson Airport Authority is currently revising its business plan for Ryan Airfield, re-examining its master plan, and also planning a future extension of one of its east / west runways. 3.20 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.2 THE PROPOSED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Building upon the existing area context and urbanization trends discussed in Section 3.1, the evolution of a new proposed land use development concept was spearheaded by Pima County planning staff. This development concept increases the predicted densities in the planning area over those currently forecast by PAG for the year 2030. This is a direct result of ongoing and proposed developments in the area which present greater densities than those previously envisioned. The proposed land use development concept represents a balanced view, factoring in these new developments while never losing sight of either the physical challenges inherent in the Southwest area or the consideration of those developments which have occurred to date. 3.2.1 Proposed Densities and Population Forecast Scenarios A systematic review of each developed and undeveloped land parcel within the study area was completed which yielded a re-confirmed range of anticipated densities measured in terms of residences per acre, or RAC. This range consisted of a predicted lower density, medium density, and higher density RAC forecast for each parcel. Map DC-1 and DC-2 present the proposed densities for the bounding cases – the lower density growth scenario and the higher density growth scenario, respectively. These maps illustrate the forecasted range of densities for both unimproved private parcels (the lighter shade of each color) and parcels which have been developed per the latest County Assessor tax records (the darker shade of each color). Note that “developed” parcels may have been deemed so for tax purposes and may still exist in their raw state. In several areas of the Southwest, extremely low density areas already developed (shown in the yellow shades) will be subdivided in the future to yield low density areas. 17,260 existing dwelling units were identified within the SWIP area using the County’s GIS data. The proposed RAC figures combined to predict the addition of the following: • • • 15,936 dwelling units (a population increase of 43,027) for the lower density scenario 28,699 dwelling units (a population increase of 77,487) for the medium density scenario 41,439 dwelling units (a population increase of 111,885) for the higher density scenario The above population figures use a planning assumption of 2.7 persons per dwelling unit. 3.2.2 Development Timeline The prediction of a development timeline is at best an inexact science given that numerous inherently variable factors combine to result in land being transformed from its raw undeveloped state into an urbanized form. Many of the variables may and will change, altering the foreseen balance of probabilities. The simplest prediction of the pace of development in the SWIP area would amount to the status quo as measured by the seven-year average number of permits from 2000 through 2006, which would predict 887 permits per year. Given that the proposed SWIP area infrastructure 3.21 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 would enhance prospects in what is already a designated growth area, the most likely development timeline is expected to represent increased activity in the SWIP area. However, given the need to develop probable estimates for funding requirements and cash flows, a timeline was developed based upon the empirical estimation of which Southwest areas would likely develop sooner than others. Pima County planning staff provided input suggesting which areas would most likely be “first to market” given the pace and locations of ongoing developments in the area. These areas were labeled “fast”. A second group of areas labeled “medium” was identified as those being likely to follow the faster “first to market” land development areas, while the third group consisted of all other areas which were assumed to slowly transition from their existing state to an infilled build-out state over the anticipated total development duration of the majority of the subject lands. This third group of areas was labeled “slow”. Using the combination of the proposed RAC figures and the “fast” / “medium” / “slow” area boundaries, the dwelling units expected in the lower density, medium density, and higher density scenarios were found to be distributed as follows: • • • The lower density scenario contains 5,098 “fast”, 2,591 “medium”, and 8,247 “slow” dwelling units for a total of 15,936 The medium density scenario contains 12,711 “fast”, 4,002 “medium, and 11,986 “slow” dwelling units for a total of 28,699 The higher density scenario contains 20,676 “fast”, 5,040 “medium, and 15,723 “slow” dwelling units for a total of 41,439 Timeline Assumptions Predicting the future pace of development in the SWIP area was founded on the recent development trends which have been observed. Key predictive assumptions included: • • • • • The sum of total annual single family, townhome, multi-family, and manufactured home permits in Pima County will total 10,000. This is roughly 90% of the seven-year average observed from 2000 through 2006 SWIP area development will take several years to begin in earnest; it was assumed that 887 permits would be issued in the years 2007 through 2009, representing “Fast” areas will begin reaching market in 2010 “Medium” areas will be sequenced to reach market the year after the “Fast” areas have completed their build-out “Slow” areas will develop evenly throughout the timeline’s build-out duration, from its inception in 2010 to its end Duration of SWIP Area Build-out With the predicted dwelling unit counts and timeline assumptions noted above, the sole remaining variable in the SWIP area development timeline model became the duration over which each of the “fast”, “medium”, and “slow” areas would come to market. 3.22 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 These three durations were adjusted (for each of the lower, medium, and higher density scenarios) to create the development timeline. For each triplet of selected durations, a unique total number of SWIP permits per year could be calculated by the model. This allowed for the effective control of the selected values, in that the inputs were varied until satisfactory build-out durations and annual permit counts were obtained. For each scenario, the inputs were adjusted to yield an average of +/- 900 annual permits in the SWIP area over the build-out duration. This average was invariably front-end loaded, in that earlier years in the timeline saw more intense development, while latter years saw less intense development. Lower Density Scenario: The selected duration triplet for the lower density scenario was (7, 5, 15) representing a seven year build-out of the “fast” areas, followed by a five year build-out of the “medium” areas, during an ongoing 15 year overall build-out of the “slow” areas. This scenario builds out in the year 2024. Medium Density Scenario: The selected duration triplet for the medium density scenario was (14, 7, 29) representing a fourteen year build-out of the “fast” areas, followed by a seven year build-out of the “medium” areas, during an ongoing 29 year overall build-out of the “slow” areas. This scenario builds out in the year 2038. Higher Density Scenario: The selected duration triplet for the higher density scenario was (21, 14, 43) representing a twenty-one year build-out of the “fast” areas, followed by a fourteen year build-out of the “medium” areas, during an ongoing forty-three year overall build-out of the “slow” areas. This scenario builds out in the year 2052. Figure DC-1 displays the resulting development timelines for each density scenario, showing how the additional anticipated dwelling units cumulatively add to the existing 17,260 dwelling units over time. Figure DC-2 provides the annual permit volumes expected from the SWIP area for the three density scenarios given the assumptions documented in this section. With these volumes, the SWIP area during its peak development period would be responsible for 11%, 12%, and 13% (for the lower, medium, and higher density scenarios, respectively) of Pima County’s assumed annual total of 10,000 permits. On average, however, the SWIP area would contribute 9.0% of Pima County’s assumed annual total of 10,000 permits. 3.23 70,000 Cumulative Count of Dwelling Units 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Higher Density Scenario Medium Density Scenario 10,000 Lower Density Scenario 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. DC-1 Title Development Timelines for Three Density Scenarios 1,400 Higher Density Scenario Medium Density Scenario 1,200 Lower Density Scenario Dwelling Units / Year 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. DC-2 Title Anticipated Pace of Dwelling Unit Permits Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.3 FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE The SWIP study area has been investigated numerous times over the past twenty to twenty-five years with respect to hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Existing studies conducted within the study area range from site-specific drainage reports to basin management studies and documentation surrounding transportation and flood control infrastructure design projects. A partial list of past drainage reports and documents would include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Southwest Area Plan Development of Public Facilities Tucson Estates Parkway Tucson CAP Water Treatment Plant Star Valley Master Drainage Plan Star Valley Sub-Basin Management Plan ADOT Tucson-Ajo Highway Improvement Plans Kinney Road Improvement Plans Diablo Village Drainage Report Milestone Manner #6 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report for Mission West I, II, & III Southwest Basin Management Study – Phase II Drainage Memorandum – HEC-1 models Draft Design Concept Report – SR 86 – Continental Road to Kinney Road The SWIP study area includes two distinct watershed basins. The drainage areas east of Robles Pass are tributary to the west branch of the Santa Cruz River. The drainage areas west of Robles Pass include the watersheds tributary to the Black Wash. The Black Wash watersheds and the west branch of the Santa Cruz River watershed have both been analyzed using the Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph model. 3.3.1 Hydrologic Assessment Description of HEC-1 Modeling and Assumptions The HEC-1 model for the watersheds tributary to the west branch of the Santa Cruz River was primarily focused on the concentration points along Mission Road. The HEC-1 model for the watersheds tributary to the Black Wash was primarily focused on the larger tributaries both south and north of Ajo Highway. Watersheds were delineated using USGS quadrangles supplemented by Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2005 color aerial photography and PAG 2000, 2002, and 2005 topography where available. The delineated limits of the Black Wash Watershed and the west branch of the Santa Cruz River Watershed are attached as Figures H-1 and H-2, respectively. Rainfall values were determined from NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States (2004). Per direction from Pima County, the 90% confidence interval rainfall values were used for all modeling. Areal reduction methods were used for those drainage areas greater than 10 square miles in area. The 3-hour design storm using the TSMS rainfall 3.24 Pima County Public Works Legend Southwest Infrastructure Plan See Above Figure No. H-1 Title Black Wash Watershed Pima County Public Works Legend Southwest Infrastructure Plan See Above Figure No. H-2 Title Watersheds Along Mission Road Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 distribution described in the Existing Conditions Hydrologic modeling for the Tucson Stormwater Management Study, Phase II, Stormwater Master Plan (1995) was used for modeling all washes except the main branch of the Black Wash. The 3-hour design storm rainfall depths ranged from 3.15 inches to 3.21 inches for the Black Wash and from 3.03 inches to 3.21 inches for the west branch of the Santa Cruz River. The 24-hour design storm, using the SCS Type I rainfall distribution within the Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 years (1961), was used for modeling the west branch of the Santa Cruz River, Black Wash, and other contributing areas greater than 10 square miles in area. Soil data for the SWIP area was based upon the Soil Survey of Pima County, Arizona, Eastern Part (2003). Soil percentages were determined via importing the soils data into computer aided drafting and geographic information system drawings as overlays superimposed upon the identified watershed delineations. Rainfall runoff was modeled using the SCS Curve Number method by entering the SCS Curve Number into the HEC-1 model data for each watershed sub-area. Curve Number values were obtained from the Hydrology Manual for Engineering Design and Floodplain Management within Pima County, Arizona (1981). Runoff transformation was modeled using the SCS Unit Hydrograph by inputting watershed sub-area lag times on the HEC-1 UD record. Equation 15.4 of the National Engineering Handbook – Section 4: Hydrology, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1972) was used to determine sub-area lag times. Hydrograph routing between sub-areas was performed using the 8-point normal depth routing option in HEC-1. The 8-point cross sections were developed based on field investigation and review of the PAG 2005 color aerial photography and topography where available. 3.3.2 Floodplain and Geomorphic Assessment Hydrologic (HEC-1 Modeling) Summary and Findings One in 100-year peak discharges for the Black Wash watersheds and the west branch of the Santa Cruz River watersheds are included within Table H-1 and Table H-2, HEC-1 Modeling Results for the Black Wash Watersheds and Mission Road Watersheds, respectively. West Branch of the Santa Cruz River: The primary offsite watershed associated with the west branch of the Santa Cruz River has a one in 100-year peak discharge of 4,225 cfs at the southern limit of the SWIP boundary. This runoff is generated by a 23.15 square mile watershed with headwaters originating in the Sierrita Mountains. Within the limits of the SWIP study, the west branch of the Santa Cruz River watersheds draining west to east have one in 100-year peak discharges varying from 96 cfs to 2,248 cfs along Mission Road. The contributing drainage areas associated with these watersheds vary from 0.15 square miles to 2.70 square miles, respectively. 3.25 Table H-1 HEC-1 Modeling Results for Black Wash Watersheds Watercourse Location Concentration Point Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Black Wash Ryan Filed West Ryan Field East Old Ajo Road Wash CAP CAP CAP CAP Camino De Oeste Sheridan Avenue Alignment Valencia Road Ajo Road Ajo Road Ryan Field Ryan Field Snyder Road Avra Valley WWTP 1 Mile East of Sandario Road Sandario Road Snyder Road North End of Ryan Field San Joaquin Road Section 31 T14S, R12E Section 25 T14S, R11E Section 24 T14S, R11E Section 13 T14S, R11E 2013 2016 2021 2023 2023A 2024 2024A 2025 2026 2027 2028 4219 215 1810 1904 1956 1974A 1985 Notes Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 13.76 16.20 21.78 29.91 42.37 59.41 80.49 82.43 90.86 98.29 147.21 30.20 16.22 2.86 7.65 5.85 5.68 7.45 Peak Flow (cfs) 3,926 4,388 5,407 6,857 9,204 12,577 16,442 16,643 18,097 18,374 26,369 7,900 4,578 1,291 2,747 2,071 3,099 4,788 Time of Peak (hrs) 13.08 13.25 13.58 14.08 14.00 14.42 14.33 14.67 14.67 14.67 15.25 13.08 13.17 2.33 2.92 3.17 1.75 1.67 Storm Duration (hrs) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 3 3 3 3 3 Rainfall Depth (inches) 110 4.46 4.46 4.46 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.46 4.46 3.13 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. H-1 Title HEC-1 Modeling Results for Black Wash Watersheds Table H-2 HEC-1 Modeling Results for Mission Road Watersheds Watercourse Location Concentration Point Drainage Area (sq. mi.) Peak Flow (cfs) Time of Peak (hrs) Storm Duration (hrs) Rainfall Depth (inches) West Branch of Santa Cruz River (by Areal Reduction) Mission Road N210 23.15 4,225 4.58 3 3.03 Unnamed Wash Unnamed Wash Valencia Valencia Unnamed Wash Unnamed Wash Unnamed Wash Dakota Unnamed Wash Wyoming Unnamed Wash Unnamed Wash Unnamed Wash Ajo 1000' North of Los Reales 2,500' North of Los Reales Valencia Road Mission Road 1550' South of Drexel Road 600' South of Drexel Road Mission and Drexel Road Mission Road Mission Road Mission Road 140' North of Mission Place 260' North of Ohio 1270' North of Via Ingresso Mission Road N310 S320 N465 N470 N510 S520 S530 N640 S690 N710 S840 S830 S850 N810 0.81 0.30 2.36 2.70 0.29 0.54 0.15 2.10 0.16 1.30 0.22 0.20 0.13 1.88 524 181 2,126 2,248 177 365 96 1,504 132 933 359 222 271 1,243 1.75 1.92 1.42 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.67 1.67 1.42 1.58 0.50 0.83 0.42 1.42 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. H-2 Title HEC-1 Modeling Results for Mission Road Watersheds Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Black Wash: The Black Wash watershed consists of three primary drainage basins within the SWIP study area as identified by the Black Wash HEC-1 model. The primary drainage basins include the Black Wash drainage corridors located within the central portion of the study area, the Ryan Field drainage corridors located within the western portion of the study area, and the Tucson Mountain Park watersheds located within the northern portion of the study area. Near the southern limit of the study area, the Black Wash has a one in 100-year peak discharge of 3,926 cfs generated by a 13.76 square mile drainage area (CP2013). Approximately 2 miles downstream, one in 100-year peak discharges increase to 5,407 cfs at Valencia Road (CP2021). The contributing drainage area at this point has increased approximately 8 square miles to 21.78 square miles. At Ajo Highway, several drainage corridors associated with the Black Wash watershed confluence combined to generate a one in 100-year peak discharge of 9,204 cfs (CP2023A). The contributing drainage area at this location is 42.37 square miles. Downstream of Ajo Highway, one in 100-year peak discharges increase to 16,643 cfs at Snyder Road (CP2025), 18,097 cfs at the Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility (CP2026), and 26,369 cfs at Sandario Road (CP2028). The contributing drainage areas associated with these points of concentration increase rapidly as drainage areas associated with the Tucson Mountain Park watersheds and Ryan Field drainage corridors combine with the drainage areas of the Black Wash. The CAP canal located west of San Joaquin Road impacts the Tucson Mountain Park watersheds. At concentration point CP904, the one in 100-year peak discharge is equal to 2,747 cfs generated by a 7.65 square mile drainage area. Storm runoff is conveyed over the CAP canal via (2) 36-foot wide concrete aqueducts / flumes. West of the CAP canal, peak discharges are decreased to 2,157 cfs (CP1904A) due to runoff being impounded along the upstream side of the canal. Evidence of storm flow impoundment can be seen in the increased amount of vegetation that is present upstream of the concrete aqueducts and flumes. Concentration point CP1956 has a one in 100-year peak discharge of 2,071 cfs generated by a 5.85 square mile drainage area. Discharges are conveyed across the CAP canal via one 72-inch diameter culvert. Downstream of the CAP canal, the one in 100-year peak discharges are significantly reduced to 317 cfs due to substantial impoundment of runoff upstream of the 72-inch diameter culvert. The one in 100-year peak discharges at concentration points 1974 and 1976 equal 2,137 cfs and 1,000 cfs, respectively. Storm runoff is conveyed over the CAP canal via two sets of five 72-inch pipe culverts. Attenuated flow is not significant at this location. The downstream concentration point (CP1974A) has a one in 100-year peak discharge of 3,099 cfs. At concentration point 1985, the one in 100-year peak discharge is equal to 4,788 cfs, generated by a 7.45 square mile drainage area. The CAP canal has been constructed under the natural drainage corridors at this location via an 810-foot long siphon. As a result, no attenuation of runoff occurs at this location. 3.26 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.3.3 Recommended Flood Control Alternatives and Unit Costs Regional Flood Control Drainage in the SWIP study area is highly complex and is characterized by large areas of sheet flow, braided channels, and coalescing flow between drainage corridors associated with the Tucson and Sierrita Mountains. At present the area includes very few flood control structures. The SWIP study area is a rapidly developing area; therefore, there is both the need and opportunity to provide regional flood control within the SWIP study area consistent with the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Critical regional flood control elements identified within this study include: multi-use storm attenuation facilities (detention basins), flood control only storm attenuation facilities, engineered channel sections (which collect and convey runoff), natural drainage corridors (also called greenways), and all-weather roadway crossings along major transportation corridors. 3.3.3.1 Regional Detention Basins Seven regional flood control basins are currently proposed within the SWIP study area. These facilities are located within the southern portion of the study area and upstream of existing and proposed major roadway corridors. Locating the regional facilities as recommended provides maximum benefit within the downstream watershed. The regional basins are proposed as either multi-use facilities or as flood control only features. A table summarizing the characteristics of the seven detention basins is included as Table H-3, Regional Stormwater Detention Basin Facilities. Map H-1 displays their approximate locations. 3.3.3.2 Flood Control Only Storm Attenuation Facilities Preliminary design parameters associated with the flood control only facilities include the following assumptions: • • • Approximately 90 percent of the land area will be available for construction of the flood control facility The maximum storage depth will be 5 feet The basin invert will be established no lower than the existing downstream elevation in order to preclude complex and / or expensive outlet configurations Unit costs associated with both the flood control only and multi-use detention basins are based upon the following assumptions: • • • • • Land acquisition at $16,000 / acre Earthwork / excavation at $6,500 / acre-foot ($4 / cubic yard) Drainage structures / improvements at 10% of earthwork costs Design at 15% of construction costs Contingencies at 25% of total costs 3.27 Table H-3 Regional Stormwater Detention Basin Facilities Area Depth (acres) (feet) Storage (Acre-Feet) Pre-Basin Discharge (cfs) Post-Basin Discharge (cfs) Flow Attenuation (cfs) Basin Location Description 1 West One-Half of Section 19, T15S, R13E Pasqui Yaqui Tribe Property, Flood Control Only 92 5 413 3,926 2,948 978 Black Wash Floodway, Flood Control or Multi-Use Facility 218 5 978 5,407* 3,143 2,264 6 5 27 5,407 3,125 2,282 36 5 179 5,407 2,999 2,408 Pasqui Yaqui Tribe Property, Flood Control Only 72 5 323 1,263 47 1,216 755, 462, 1345 0 100 Percent 2 3 4 5 Northeast One-Quarter Section 15 & Northwest OneQuarter of Section 14, T15S, R12E Southeast One-Quarter of Section 24, T15S, R12E Southeast One-Quarter of Section 23, T15S, R12E Southeast One-Quarter of Section 22 & Southwest OneQuarter of Section 23, T15S, R12E Pasqui Yaqui Tribe Property, Flood Control Only Pasqui Yaqui Tribe Property, Flood Control Only 6 West One-Half of Section 20, T15S, R12E Multi-Use Facility 181 2 323 7 North One-Half of Section 13, T15S, R11E Multi-Use Facility 75 2 130 Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan *Assumes Regional Basin 1 has been constructed Table No. H-3 Title Regional Stormwater Detention Basin Facilities Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Detention basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are currently identified as flood control only facilities. Basins 1, 3, 4, and 5 are located within Pascua Yaqui Tribe property and are included within this study due to the previously successful joint efforts between the Tribe and Pima County Regional Flood Control District to provide flood mitigation within the area. The area associated with Detention Basin 1 has previously been established at 92 acres. The available acreage for basin construction is therefore 82.8 acres. The one in 100-year peak discharge conveyed through this basin is assumed to be 3,926 cfs (CP2013). Based upon anticipated storage capacity, outflow from Basin 1 would be approximately 2,948 cfs. Peak discharges would be reduced by about 1,000 cfs at this location. Detention Basin 2 would be located within the Black Wash drainage corridor south of Valencia Road and east of Camino Verde, downstream of Basin 1. This basin would encompass approximately 218 acres of which 196 acres are assumed available for flood control. Assuming Basin 1 is in the ground, the one in 100-year peak discharges entering Basin 2 would be 5,407 cfs. At a storage depth of 5 feet, the proposed basin would provide enough storage to reduce the one in 100-year peak discharge to 3,143 cfs, a reduction of over 2,200 cfs. The combined effects of Basins 1 and 2 would provide much needed flood control for both existing and proposed development as well as future cost expenditures associated with providing reliable all-weather crossings along Valencia Road and Camino Verde. Detention Basins 3, 4, and 5 are also located within Pascua Yaqui Tribe property along the alignment of Hermans Road. These three basins would encompass 6 acres, 36 acres, and 72 acres, respectively. All three basins are assumed to be constructed at a depth of 5 feet. Basins 3 and 4 would have the combined affect of reducing the peak discharge being conveyed to Basin 2 of approximately 130 cfs. The one in 100-year peak discharge conveyed to Detention Basin 5 is 1,263 cfs. The outflow from this basin would be approximately 47 cfs, a reduction of 1,216 cfs. This volume of runoff reduction would greatly benefit the existing (and any proposed) developments between Hermans Road and Valencia Road. 3.3.3.3 Flood Control and Park Amenities (Multi-Use Facilities) Preliminary design parameters associated with multi-use flood control facilities are similar to the flood control only facilities with the exception of flood storage depth. In order to incorporate and accommodate proposed park amenities, the maximum storage depth for multi-use basins is assumed to be limited to 2 feet. Detention Basins 6 and 7 are identified as multi-use flood control facilities. These basins are planned to incorporate park amenities into the landscaping and contouring of the facilities. Detention Basin 6 is located within the west one-half of Section 20, adjacent to the north side of Hermans Road. This basin would encompass approximately 181 acres of which 163 acres are assumed available for flood control. This facility would intercept runoff associated with watersheds CP405, CP503, and CP605. One in 100-year peak discharges for these three watersheds are 755 cfs, 462 cfs, and 1,342 cfs, respectively. Based upon a 2-foot storage 3.28 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 depth, Basin 6 would store the entire one in 100-year runoff volume (i.e., no outflow would occur). This basin would therefore provide a significant impact to the downstream watershed for both existing and proposed developments. Detention Basin 7 would be located within the north half of Section 13 within the proposed Montecito Master Planned Community, just upstream of Ajo Highway. This basin is also proposed to be a multi-use facility; therefore, a 2-foot stormwater storage depth has been assumed within the facility. Based upon preliminary assumptions, the basin would encompass approximately 72 acres of which 65 acres could be available for stormwater mitigation. This facility would intercept runoff from the adjacent upstream watershed as well as discharges conveyed to the basin via Channel Sections 1 and 2. The total one in 100-year peak discharge conveyed into the basin is equal to 4,578 cfs. Per anticipated storage capacity, outflow from Basin 7 would be equal to approximately 4,418 cfs. Discharges could therefore be reduced by approximately 160 cfs at this facility. At the basin outlet, discharges would be conveyed under Ajo Highway via (4) 10-foot by 5-foot existing concrete box culverts. 3.3.3.4 Engineered Collector / Conveyor Channels In order to maximize potential benefit associated with Detention Basin 7, approximately 18,500 linear feet of collector / conveyor channel has been proposed to intercept runoff south of Hermans Road. Channel sections have been included as Figure H-3, Channel Section 1, and Figure H-4, Channel Section 2. In addition to maximizing the available storage capacity at Basin 7, the collector / conveyor channel will substantially reduce existing flooding conditions between Hermans Road and Valencia Road. Preliminary design parameters associated with the collector / conveyor channel include the following assumptions: • • • • Channel flow targeted at a 3-foot depth in order to avoid “levee” design Channel bank slopes at 4 horizontal :1 vertical Channel velocity to be held under 10 feet per second Channel to be of earthen design to the maximum extent possible to minimize expenditures and annual maintenance costs Similar to the unit costs associated with the detention basins, unit costs associated with the collector / conveyor channels are based upon the following criteria: • • • • • • Land acquisition at $16,000 / acre Easements acquired at $4,000 / acre Earthwork / excavation at $6,500 / acre-foot ($4 / cubic yard) Drainage structures / improvements at 10% of earthwork costs Design at 15% of construction costs Contingencies at 25% of total costs 3.29 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. H-3 Title Channel Section 1 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. H-4 Title Channel Section 2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.3.3.5 Natural Riparian Flood Corridors The vast system of braided channels within the Black Wash basin offers the opportunity to provide critical wildlife habitat within the SWIP study area. The existing natural floodplains contain critical riparian habitat and function as a wildlife link between the adjacent mountains and the valley floor. Hydraulic, biologic, and recreational connectivity can be enhanced via the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan to create a “Black Wash Greenway.” The Black Wash Floodway identified on Map H-1, Proposed Flood Control Facilities, shall serve as the proposed Black Wash Greenway. The recommended flood control facilities presented within the SWIP are intended to mitigate current flooding conditions, provide critical all-weather access along major transportation corridors, and to the extent possible, preserve the Black Wash drainage corridor in the current natural condition. Regional detention basins located within the upper portion of the watersheds have been proposed to mitigate current flooding conditions. The basins have been strategically located to intercept discharges within the upper portion of the watersheds, detain / attenuate large volumes of flow, and release reduced peak discharges intro the downstream channels to maintain the natural riparian corridors (i.e., Greenway). The large regional basins presented within this report can provide stormwater detention associated with large infrequent storm events (i.e. at the one in 100-year return frequency level) while allowing flows associated with the more frequent storm events (one in 2-year or one in 5-year) to pass through the storage facility into the natural downstream drainage corridors to enhance vegetation and reduce potential erosion. The Pima County Regional Flood Control District has been actively acquiring flood-prone lands along the Black Wash. Land purchases have been accomplished through the Flood-prone Land Acquisition Program (FLAP); therefore, Unit Costs associated with maintaining and preserving the primary natural drainage corridors, or Greenways, has not been included within this study. 3.3.3.6 All Weather Access / Major Transportation Corridors An important element within the SWIP is to provide critical all-weather access at both existing and proposed major transportation corridors. Currently, significant reaches of major roadways are subject to frequent closures following storm events. The existing and proposed major transportation corridors identified by the SWIP that are recommended to incorporate all-weather roadway crossings include: Ajo Highway, North San Joaquin Road, Valencia Road, Camino Verde, Mark Road, Valhalla Road, Drexel Road, and South San Joaquin Road. Table H-4 contains a summary of the proposed improvements. Preliminary design parameters associated with all-weather roadway crossings include the following assumptions: 3.30 Table H-4 Box Culverts at Proposed Roadway Crossings Crossing Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ** 28 ** 29 30 ** 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Road, Location (Approximate ADOT Stationing) Ajo Road, Station 632 Ajo Road, Station 683 Ajo Road, Station 729 Ajo Road, Station 795 Ajo Road, Station 817 Ajo Road, Station 855 Ajo Road, Station 870 Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road Valencia Road San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) San Joaquin Road (north) South Camino Verde South Camino Verde South Camino Verde South Camino Verde South Camino Verde Valhalla Road Valhalla Road Valhalla Road San Joaquin Road (south) San Joaquin Road (south) San Joaquin Road (south) San Joaquin Road (south) Drexel Road Drexel Road South Mark Road Irvington Road Calle Don Miguel Q 100 (cfs) Number of Cells Span (ft), Each Cell Rise (ft), Each Cell Length (ft) 1,822 6,606 1,108 5,425 1,971 1,326 4,849 3,900 1,781 1,379 3,748 1,370 1,316 5,407 1,291 1,227 1,692 1,369 2,137 1,000 4,788 5,400 1,614 1,061 1,123 3,992 5703 6878 3748 6496 1614 1123 3992 3992 1123 3,926 3,273 1,000 5 18 5 15 7 5 15 12 5 6 12 4 4 12 4 4 5 5 6 3 10 9 5 4 4 12 Bridge Bridge 7 Bridge 5 4 12 12 4 12 7 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 85 100 12 100 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 5 4 5 5 *** *** 6 *** 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 100 50 Pima County Public Works Notes * ** *** Culvert to be built as three structures according to future hydrologic analysis Likely bridge crossing (similar to bridge at Ajo Road) downstream on each respective watercourse Height to bridge deck not factored into rise Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. H-4 Title Box Culverts at Proposed Roadway Crossings Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • • • • Minimum one in 100-year peak discharge of 1,000 cfs used as design threshold Standard ADOT reinforced concrete box culverts Height of box culverts limited to minimize excessive roadway fill 4-foot minimum box culvert height in order to prevent clogging Unit costs associated with the all-weather roadway crossings are based upon the following assumption: • • • • • • No land acquisition costs are needed since they will form part of any transportation design elements during the right-of-way acquisition process Earthwork / excavation at $4 / cubic yard Drainage structure reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) expenditures per linear foot o 10’ x 4’ RCBC @ $1,400 / LF o 10’ x 5’ RCBC @ $1,500 / LF o 10’ x 6’ RCBC @ $1,600 / LF o 12’ x 4’ RCBC @ $1,600 / LF o 12’ x 5’ RCBC @ $1,700 / LF o 12’ x 6’ RCBC @ $1,800 / LF o 12’ x 7’ RCBC @ $1,900 / LF Drainage structure (Bridge) expenditures per square foot o Span x Length @ $200 / SF Design at 15% of construction costs Contingencies at 25% of total costs In addition to providing all-weather access, the box culvert roadway crossings can also play an important role in maintaining critical wildlife linkage between the adjacent mountains and valley floor. Increased urbanization has led to increased interactions with wildlife and resulted in disjointed or fragmented wildlife corridors. Per the Arizona Game & Fish Heritage Fund, a 5-mile long segment of Ajo Highway (Mile Post 154 to 159) has been identified as an area of high wildlife mortality. Incorporating multi-use culvert designs can maintain watershed integrity, wildlife habitat connectivity, and provide cost savings by decreasing wildlife / vehicle collisions. Roadway drainage crossings can include installation of fencing designed to promote wildlife linkage via drainage structures and prevent wildlife from reaching the roadway. Arizona Game & Fish has developed additional guidelines associated with promoting safe wildlife passage through drainage structures. To provide all weather access, box culverts (sized for the appropriate one in 100-year design flow) are anticipated to be required at all future roadway crossings where the one in 100-year peak discharge exceeds 1,000 cfs. 3.3.4 Project Phasing The recommended flood control facilities identified during the SWIP analysis include four primary design elements. The first flood control element includes regional detention basins designed to intercept, detain, reduce peak discharges, and direct runoff into natural vegetated channels to enhance riparian habitat and minimize potential downstream erosion. The regional 3.31 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 detention basins have been analyzed as either flood control only basins or as multi-use flood control facilities whereby park amenities will be incorporated into the landscaping and contouring of the facility. Project phasing for the flood control only facilities (Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) can be triggered via flood control needs and / or available funding. Construction of the regional detention basins can provide immediate benefits in the form of reduced downstream flooding to both existing and proposed residential and commercial developments, reduced cost expenditures associated with contiguous all-weather roadway drainage crossings, and natural drainage corridor (Greenway) enhancement via the controlled release of runoff and reduction in potential downstream erosion. Project phasing associated with implementing multi-use flood control facilities is coupled with the phasing of proposed parks within the SWIP study area. The second flood control element includes the proposed engineered channel (Channel Sections 1 and 2) designed to intercept and convey upstream flows to Detention Basin 7. The engineered channel sections would intercept more flow and convey the runoff to Basin 7 in order to maximize the potential benefit of this multi-use facility. Implementation of the collector / conveyor channel (Channel Sections 1 and 2) will likely be based upon regional flood control needs and / or available funding. The third element of the flood control plan is to incorporate all-weather crossings along existing and proposed major transportation corridors. All-weather access identified along existing major transportation corridors that are not planned for transportation improvements can be implemented in response to regional flood control needs and / or available funding. All-weather access proposed in conjunction with transportation improvements shall be implemented in conjunction with the Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements (refer to Tables TR-3a, TR-3b, and TR-4). Potential exceptions to providing all-weather access are the future Valhalla Road corridor between Valencia Road and the Drexel Road extension and the San Joaquin Road extension south to Los Reales. In order to provide all-weather access along Valhalla Road and San Joaquin Road, three bridge sections would likely be required. Should Pima County Regional Flood Control District recognize the need to reduce cost expenditures, the Valhalla Road crossings, at the Black Wash and Snyder Hills Wash, and the San Joaquin Road crossing, at the Black Wash, could include drainage crossings designed for the smaller, more frequent storm events. All-weather access would exist via the Ajo Highway, Valencia Road, and Drexel Road transportation and flood control improvements. 3.32 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 The recommended Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements include the following 10 project descriptions: • • • • • • • • • • Ajo Highway – Sandario Road to I-19 Camino De Oeste connection to Kinney Road Joseph Road / Mark Road – extension from Ajo Highway to Los Reales Irvington Road – Ajo Highway to Mission Road Drexel Road – Ajo Highway to Mission Road Valhalla Road – Valencia to Drexel Road Valencia Road – Ajo highway to Mark Road San Joaquin Road – Ajo Highway south to Los Reales San Joaquin Road – Ajo Highway north to Sandario Road Los Reales – Extend easterly to I-19 JE Jacobs, J2 Engineering and Environmental Design, and JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology Inc., are under contract with the Arizona Department of Transportation, and are currently investigating the proposed Ajo Highway improvements from Sandario Road to Kinney Road. One in 100 year peak discharges and conceptual box culvert sizing along Ajo Highway are consistent with the current draft studies prepared by the above consultants. The fourth flood control element is the preservation of the natural drainage corridors, or Greenways, associated with the Black Wash watershed. These Greenways are intended to maintain open space and critical riparian habitat, function as wildlife linkage between mountains and the valley floor, and provide natural flowage corridors for vegetation enhancement and erosion mitigation. Currently, the Pima County Flood Control District is actively acquiring floodprone lands along the Black Wash through the Flood-prone Land Acquisition Program (FLAP). Project phasing will therefore not impact the preservation of the natural drainage corridors. 3.33 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.4 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT The purpose of the wastewater management portion of the Southwest Infrastructure Plan is to quantify the impending consequences of proposed land uses in the area by developing a proposed interceptor sewer sizing and conceptual alignment plan. This servicing strategy considered serviceability and conversion issues for areas currently using septic systems. It is noted that the infrastructure sizes, alignments, and locations provided in this report are for planning purposes. Final details must be determined in follow-on preliminary and detailed design stages. In addition, the study has included Pima County’s ongoing and future planned upgrades at the Avra Valley WWTF, and quantified the existing and committed capacity at the plant in light of the demand forecasts posed by the envisioned land uses in its upstream tributary area. Key wastewater treatment issues addressed by this study include effluent discharge issues posed by the receiving water bodies, regulatory constraints and treatment processes, biosolids handling, and opportunities for effluent water re-use. Opinions of probable capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, right of way (ROW) and land acquisition costs, and environmental permitting costs are provided. 3.4.1 Basis of Analysis and Assumptions Standard Pima County assumptions were used to estimate the sewer flows, including the following conservative assumptions: • • • • Average wastewater generation for residential development = 85 gallons per capita / day Average wastewater generation for commercial development = 1,000 gallons per acre / day Average persons per dwelling unit = 2.7 Peak dry weather flow (PDWF) was calculated as: PDWF = ADWF x dry weather peaking factor (PF) where commercial area PF = 2.0, and where residential area dry weather PF was calculated using the method defined in Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 9, E301 4.01 D If 1,001 < upstream population < 10,000: PF= (6.330 × p −0.231 ) + 1.094 If 10,001 < upstream population < 100,000: PF= (6.177 × p −0.233 ) + 1.128 3.34 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) was calculated as: PWWF = PDWF + I & I Where extraneous inflow and infiltration (I & I) was estimated as 8% of the PDWF, an assumption carried forward from the previous Avra Valley wastewater collection system basin study • Wastewater generation at existing and proposed school sites was calculated as: Number of students x 20 gallons per student per day • Casino wastewater generation in the study area (Casino del Sol and Casino of the Sun) were provided by staff from Pima County’s Wastewater Management Department, while build-out wastewater flows from other Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui lands were estimated using the number and size of parcels in a given area The following general design criteria were applied to guide the planning of the pipe system: • • Minimum slope was used to achieve the minimum velocity of 2 feet per second Minimize and / or eliminate potential negative impacts on existing structures and customers For planning purposes, those areas with densities below an assumed cost-effective threshold of 1.33 residences per acre (RAC) were not serviced via traditional gravity sewers. Triggering flows for any proposed treatment plant expansion were set at 85% of the plant design inflow. 3.4.2 Basis of Existing and Future Sewage Generation Estimates The volume of wastewater generated by existing developments was roughly estimated using Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data from the Pima Association of Government (PAG). This TAZ data provided population data for both the year 2000 and projected populations at 2030. Current year (2007) population estimates were extrapolated from this 2000 / 2030 dataset assuming a constant linear growth rate. Because TAZ data only extends out to the year 2030, the anticipated SWIP build-out may occur beyond the range of the current TAZ time frame. Future build-out flows were estimated based on the projected land use and population data provided by Pima County Planning Department. 3.35 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.4.3 Delineation of Sewer Sub-basins and Sub-areas The study area within the Avra Valley sewer basin was divided into eight sub-basins numbered 1 through 8 as shown on Map W-3. These sub-basins were defined based on their natural drainage patterns and existing infrastructure. The acreages (constrained within the SWIP boundary limits) of the various sub-basins and notable sub-areas are contained within Table W1. Given topographic conditions at the SWIP boundary, it may be possible to service additional adjacent areas in the future. One potential servicing expansion to the southwest towards Three Points was considered, however land uses in this area would quickly become constrained by the Conservation Land System (CLS) which forms the backbone of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). Within the study area (but outside the delineated Avra Valley sewer service sub-basins) are three distinct sub-areas which are notable based upon their drainage condition. Their locations and acreages are also shown on Map W-3 and quantified in Table W-1. The 6,709 acre area located in the northwest corner of the study area cannot naturally drain to the Avra Valley WWTF via gravity flow. Given that the proposed growth density in this area is relatively low, onsite septic systems may prove to be the most feasible means of disposing of wastewater generated within this area. The 8,357 acre area located in the eastern portions of the study area is part of the Roger Road WWTP sewer basin. In addition, on the ridge line between this area and the delineated Avra Valley WWTF sewer basin there is an indeterminate treatment destination area where future wastewater could potentially be directed to either the Avra Valley WWTF or the Roger Road WWTP. As directed by Pima County, areas outside the specifically delineated Avra Valley WWTF sewer basin were not examined in this Infrastructure Plan. Optimal means of servicing these subareas may be studied in subsequent planning projects. 3.4.4 Projected Population and Flow Statistics The projected populations provided by Pima County planners were used to generate future flow estimates. Three growth scenarios were developed, describing higher density, medium density, and lower density scenarios. The total projected population for each sub-area is listed in Table W-2. In general, it does not make economic sense to provide public sewer service to subdivisions in which houses are located far away from each other. For the purposes of this planning level effort, only areas where the proposed RAC is higher than 1.33 (e.g. one unit on a lot equal to or larger than 0.75 acres) was considered for public sewer servicing. Based on this assumption, low density areas with a proposed RAC less than 1.33 will be on septic systems and will not contribute wastewater to the public sewer facilities. Table W-2 lists the effective populations who must be serviced by public sewer, the projected flows, and the percentage of the population that are serviced by public sewer. As expected, denser developments lead to higher percentages of the population being serviced by public sewers. 3.36 Table W-1 Acreage of Sub-basins and Sub-areas Sub-basin / Sub-area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Non-serviceable Area (by Gravity to Avra Valley WWTF) Area in Roger Road WWTP Sewer Service Basin Indeterminate Treatment Destination Area Notes Total Acreage 5,836 5,136 3,138 2,358 2,223 6,032 5,838 2,771 6,709 8,357 5,539 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-1 Title Acreage of Sub-basins and Sub-areas Table W-2 Projected Total and Effective Populations for Three Density Scenarios Sub-basin / Sub-area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sub-totals Non-serviceable Area (by Gravity to Avra Valley WWTF) Area in Roger Road WWTP Sewer Service Basin Indeterminate Treatment Destination Area Notes Lower Density Scenario Effective % on Public Total Sewer Population Population 15,312 14,255 93.1% 10,825 9,967 92.1% 18,935 17,970 94.9% 4,273 3,460 81.0% 5,941 4,506 75.8% 12,966 9,765 75.3% 4,065 910 22.4% 7,906 6,693 84.7% 80,223 67,526 84.2% Medium Density Scenario Total Effective % on Public Population Population Sewer 27,194 26,830 98.7% 18,430 17,552 95.2% 22,762 21,587 94.8% 5,885 3,909 66.4% 8,059 7,414 92.0% 15,386 11,222 72.9% 6,993 2,967 42.4% 9,577 8,035 83.9% 114,286 99,516 87.1% Higher Density Scenario Total Effective % on Public Population Population Sewer 39,071 38,652 98.9% 26,034 24,286 93.3% 26,589 25,151 94.6% 7,496 5,632 75.1% 10,178 9,459 92.9% 17,806 14,002 78.6% 9,921 4,139 41.7% 11,251 9,385 83.4% 148,346 130,706 88.1% 1,924 0 0.0% 4,278 0 0.0% 6,597 0 0.0% 23,140 19,434 84.0% 26,285 21,599 82.2% 29,433 25,475 86.6% 4,559 881 19.3% 6,710 2,885 43.0% 8,858 4,199 47.4% Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-2 Title Projected Populations for Three Density Scenarios Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Using the methodologies stated in Section 3.5.1, these populations will generate wastewater at the rates predicted on Table W-3. The total predicted influent ADWF flows at the Avra Valley WWTF range from 6.3 MGD for the lower density scenario up to 11.7 MGD for the higher density scenario. Inflows under the medium density scenario and the higher density scenario are higher than previously anticipated inflows to this facility. 3.4.5 Residual Capacity Analysis of Existing Sewers A computerized hydraulic model was constructed (using GIS-based H2OMap Sewer Pro software) to assess the residual capacity in the backbone network, consisting of those pipes with 12-inch and larger diameters. Map W-1 shows the simulated backbone network system draining to the Avra Valley WWTF servicing area. The pipes are color coded by diameter, with the largest pipe in the system being 24 inches in diameter. Steady flow estimates of the current ADWF and PWWF were routed through the existing wastewater collection system network. As mentioned earlier, the entire Avra Valley WWTF service area had been divided in to eight sub-basins – to which point flows were assigned at key concentration points. This simplified hydraulic model allowed for an approximate assessment of the current hydraulic conditions and the residual capacity in the existing backbone network. Map W-2 shows the resulting peak flow depths in the backbone network, color coded according to the “d / D ratio” which is calculated by dividing the simulated water depth by the nominal pipe diameter. Under ADWF conditions many of the reaches are less than 60% full with no surcharges being identified. Under PWWF conditions some reaches saw flow depths approaching 80% of the nominal pipe diameter. One potential bottleneck was identified near the intersection of Valencia Road and Iberia Avenue; however Pima County’s Wastewater Management Department had previously identified this bottleneck and is already moving forward with a solution which will resolve this capacity issue. In summary, for current conditions the great majority of the wastewater collection and conveyance system has enough capacity to handle the existing flow during peak wet weather flow periods. However, the residual capacity in the existing system is not sufficient to accommodate the proposed future flows in all locations. 3.4.6 Proposed Expansion of Conveyance Systems Maps W-6, W-7, and W-8 display the proposed wastewater conveyance infrastructure plans for the lower, medium and higher density scenarios, respectively. As previously stated, this planning exercise assumed that areas with densities above1.33 RAC would require sewer servicing. These areas are shown as yellow on Maps W-6 through W-8. It was determined that the existing system is not sufficient to accommodate the entirety of the anticipated future flows. It was assumed that in many cases the conveyance capacity of existing sewers would be augmented through the addition of sewers installed in parallel with existing sewers. These existing pipes which require augmentation are highlighted in red. In 3.37 Table W-3 Projected Wastewater Generation Rates Sub-basin / Sub-area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sub-totals Non-serviceable Area (by Gravity to Avra Valley WWTF) Area in Roger Road WWTP Sewer Service Basin Indeterminate Treatment Destination Area Notes Lower Density Scenario ADWF PDWF PWWF (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) 1.314 2.383 2.573 0.895 1.662 1.795 1.591 2.813 3.039 0.307 0.631 0.681 0.688 1.377 1.487 0.883 1.643 1.775 0.077 0.186 0.201 0.570 1.096 1.183 6.326 11.791 12.733 Medium Density Scenario ADWF PDWF PWWF (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) 2.383 4.092 4.420 1.540 2.724 2.942 1.899 3.306 3.570 0.345 0.700 0.756 0.936 1.809 1.954 1.007 1.853 2.001 0.252 0.527 0.570 0.684 1.292 1.395 9.045 16.303 17.608 Higher Density Scenario ADWF PDWF PWWF (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) 3.388 5.649 6.100 2.112 3.637 3.928 2.202 3.785 4.088 0.492 0.962 1.039 1.109 2.104 2.272 1.243 2.243 2.423 0.352 0.710 0.767 0.799 1.486 1.605 11.696 20.576 22.221 - - - - - - - - - 1.734 3.05 3.293 1.918 3.343 3.611 2.247 3.865 4.174 0.080 0.191 0.206 0.250 0.525 0.567 0.362 0.729 0.788 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-3 Title Projected Wastewater Generation Rates Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 order to service the proposed development in the southwest corner of the SWIP area, a new trunk sewer will be necessary. The proposed trunk, which extends along the West Ajo Highway, is schematically shown on the maps for the purposes of this study. The eventual constructed alignment must be determined through a formal route study. This trunk has been sized to handle wastewater generated in the adjacent yellow-colored areas within the SWIP boundary. 3.4.7 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Currently Proposed Expansion Existing Treatment Capacity The Avra Valley WWTF is a biological nutrient removal oxidation ditch with an ADWF design capacity of 1.2 MGD. The facility is currently in the process of being upgraded to an interim facility with an ADWF capacity of 2.2 MGD. Proposed Expansion Currently Programmed in CIP Due to the ongoing and rapid growth in the Avra Valley WWTF service area, Pima County has authorized a proposed plant expansion of 4.0 MGD additional capacity. The new expansion will construct two new parallel 2.0 MGD process trains. The original oxidation ditch was designed and built as a temporary facility. After the 4.0 MGD expansion, the original oxidation ditch will be taken out of service. The County will then have the option of replacing the existing system with a third new process train or converting the new 4.0 MGD ditch system to the Modified Ludzak-Ettinger (MLE) process to create additional capacity. The improvements providing the additional 4.0 MGD capacity include a new inlet gravity sewer and influent lift station, headworks modifications, two biological nutrient removal oxidation ditches, clarifiers, continuous backwashing deep bed filters, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, sludge holding basins, sludge thickening equipment, dewatering equipment, means of additional effluent discharge to percolation basins and / or the Black Wash spray fields, and upgrades to the process water, odor control, and electrical systems. Initially, solids will be stored on-site, dewatered to 5% to 6% solids content, and trucked to the Ina Road WPCF for further digestion. Future on-site aerobic digestion may be considered at some point. The influent lift station and headworks will be designed for an ultimate ADWF flow of 6.2 MGD and a peak flow of 12.0 MGD. Solids handling from both new treatment trains and the existing system will be combined and thickened in an aerated and mixed holding tank prior to aerobic digestion. The sludge will be dewatered and trucked to land application sites. A tertiary filtration area will be planned and basin capacity constructed for ultimate 6.2 MGD. The filtration and ultraviolet disinfection equipment will be sized to treat 4.0 MGD. This 4.0 MGD expansion is currently programmed within the CIP and is on-going, being delivered through the construction management at risk (CMAR) process. It is anticipated that design efforts will be completed by the middle of April 2007. Construction is expected to begin in July of 2007 and to be completed by early 2009. The estimated total combined cost for the Avra Valley WWTF 4.0 MGD Biological Nutrient Removal Oxidation Ditch (BNROD) Expansion 3.38 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 project delivery is $44,900,000. Included in these costs is the purchase of heavy equipment to operate and maintain the effluent disposal ponds in a proactive manner to maximize their disposal capacity. This amount is being financed through a combination of 2004 Bonds under an amended bond authorization and System Development Funds. The new Avra Valley WWTF will require four staff for its continuous operation, including one senior operator, two operators, and one mechanic, electrician, or instrument technician craftsman. 3.4.8 Additional Required Treatment Capacity Expansion Pima County planners developed three SWIP scenarios with varying levels of development intensity. From a wastewater treatment design point of view, the total required treatment capacity at the Avra Valley WWTF for the higher, medium, and lower density scenarios is provided in Table W-4. Lower Density Scenario As mentioned above, an expansion adding 4.0 MGD capacity has been programmed into the CIP and is in the process of being delivered. With this 4.0 MGD addition, the Avra Valley WWTF could theoretically treat an ADWF of up to 6.2 MGD, however the original oxidation ditch was designed and constructed as a temporary facility and has already been in operation for an extended period of time. Once the 4.0 MGD addition is finished, it is recommended that this temporary facility be taken out of service. A new facility expansion would then be pursued to provide sufficient treatment capacity to support the lower density scenario ADWF of 6.5 MGD. Avra Valley WWTF requirements related to this scenario will include maintaining the proposed 4.0 MGD and replacing the existing 2.2 MGD capacity oxidation ditch with an equivalent means of treating 2.5 MGD capacity. Through these additions the Avra Valley WWTF would continue to be capable of producing Class A+ effluent. Medium Density Scenario An ADWF capacity of 9.5 MGD will be required to support the population represented by the medium density scenario. Avra Valley WWTF requirements related to this scenario will include the maintenance of a total capacity of 4.0 MGD from the ongoing expansion, and the construction of an additional 5.5 MGD of ADWF treatment processes capable of producing Class A+ effluent. Higher Density Scenario An ADWF capacity of 12.0 MGD will be required should the higher density development scenario transpire. 3.39 Table W-4 Total Required Treatment Capacity at Avra Valley WWTF Scenario and Type of Project Lower Density Scenario Medium Density Scenario Higher Density Scenario Required Treatment Capacity (MGD) 6.5 9.5 12.0 Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-4 Title Total Required Treatment Capacity at Avra Valley WWTF Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Avra Valley WWTF requirements related to this scenario will include the maintenance of a total capacity of 4.0 MGD from the ongoing expansion, and the construction of an additional 8.0 MGD of ADWF treatment processes capable of producing Class A+ effluent. Land Requirements at Avra Valley WWTF The area required for a plant of a particular capacity depends on numerous factors such as the degree of treatment required, the process to be used, the degree of redundancy necessary, space requirements for ancillary and support facilities, and space requirements for access, circulation, and maintenance. In general, a 12.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility typically requires ten to thirty-five acres of raw land. In addition, a buffer area between the facility and the adjacent properties is required. According to the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Arizona Administrative Code, minimum setbacks are required from the treatment and disposal components within the wastewater treatment facility to the nearest adjacent dwelling, workplace, or private property. Assuming the existing treatment processes will be used for the future required expansions, the anticipated setback distance is at least 1,000 feet. As shown on Figure W-2, the State of Arizona owns 443.87 acre adjacent to the east of the existing Avra Valley WWTF. Pima County itself owns adjacent land parcels to the west of the existing Avra Valley WWTF. Assuming the adjacent lands currently owned by Pima County are available for wastewater treatment facility expansion, they would be adequate for the largest expansion required in order to support the higher density development scenario. 3.4.9 Effluent Utilization Mechanisms The amount of effluent to be generated within the SWIP area will depend on the density of the final development. Reviewing the development potential scenarios considered for the sewer basin has resulted in a range of anticipated ADWF from a high of 12.0 MGD for the higher density scenario, to 9.5 MGD for the medium density scenario, and as low as 6.5 MGD for the lower density scenario. The design of the expanded treatment facility will include the necessary process modifications to produce a Class A+ effluent. Class A+ effluent is wastewater that has undergone secondary treatment, filtration, nitrogen removal, and finally disinfection. The water is also treated with coagulants or polymers to ensure turbidity levels (indicating the particle size distribution and concentration of suspended solids as well as dissolved solids) are 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) or less. The disinfection must be sufficient to ensure that there are no detectable coliform bacteria in four of the last seven daily tests. Class A+ effluent can be used for any type of reuse authorized by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Effluent reuse could include the construction of recreational impoundments that allow partial body contact (including fishing and boating) but not full body contact or swimming. 3.40 Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. W-2 Title Land Ownership in the Vicinity of the Avra Valley WWTF Ponds Ponds Ponds Proposed Percolation Ponds and Riparian Set-aside Area Plans for Riparian Areas at Black Wash “Before” “After” Plans for Avra Valley WWTF Ponds “Before” “After” Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. W-3 Title Current Effluent Disposal Plans at the Avra Valley WWTF / Black Wash Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 The current plans for effluent use and disposal at the Avra Valley WWTF include the expansion of the percolation basins for the effluent recharge purposes. The existing and proposed percolation ponds are shown in Figure W-3. This graphic also depicts related improvements proposed as a 2008 Bond Program Project by Pima County Regional Flood Control District. This project, referred to as the Avra Valley / Black Wash Ecosystem Restoration and Groundwater Replenishment initiative, represents capital investments above and beyond those included within the proposed 4.0 MGD Avra Valley WWTF expansion efforts. Percolation testing for the basins at the Avra Valley WWTF has determined that a reasonable application rate is 0.48 feet per day (as per the Avra Valley WWTF 1.2 MGD to 1.6 MGD Aquifer Protection Permit application). With the consideration of evaporation and rainfall, the higher development density scenario will require approximately 75 acres of net percolation pond area. The existing percolation ponds are not large enough at present to discharge all the effluent from the envisioned 12.0 MGD plant. It will be necessary to plan additional mechanisms and construct a secondary effluent disposal facility. Depending upon the needs of the Southwest community, effluent waters from the Avra Valley WWTF could also be used for a wide range of potential projects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established the following categories for the reuse of wastewater effluent: • • • • • Groundwater Recharge Habitat Restoration / Enhancement and Recreational Reuse Urban Re-uses Agricultural Irrigation Industrial Reuse Among these possible reuse methods, the study area can readily support groundwater recharge, habitat restoration, and urban reuses. There may also be some limited potential for agricultural irrigation and industrial reuse opportunities. Groundwater Recharge The current plan for the operation of the Avra Valley WWTF anticipates using groundwater recharge as the principal method of effluent utilization. Recharge will take advantage of the existing facilities and will be the least expensive utilization option. Habitat Restoration / Enhancement and Recreational Reuse Habitat restoration / enhancement and the creation of recreational facilities suitable for bird watching, fishing and hiking represent another potential means of effluent utilization in the Southwest planning area. The quality of the water which can be discharged from the Avra Valley facility would be suitable for all of these activities. The area downstream from the exiting treatment facility could provide an ideal and cost effective location for a habitat restoration project. 3.41 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Urban Re-uses Widespread distribution of treated effluent for irrigation and commercial uses will require the construction of a separate distribution system. Separate effluent distribution systems are costly to construct, particularly for services extending to individual homes. The SWIP area has over 2,000 acres of parks and proposed parks that could be irrigated with reclaimed water. The limited volume of reclaimed water available after recharge, and the long distances between potential large reuse sites, may limit the distribution of water to major parks and recreational facilities. Other urban re-uses worthy of consideration include: • • • • • • • Irrigation of public parks, athletic fields, and school yards, highway medians and landscaped areas around public buildings Irrigation of golf courses Irrigation of landscaped areas single family and multi family residences, general wash down and other maintenance activities Commercial uses such as vehicle washing facilities, window washing, mixing water for pesticides and liquid fertilizers Ornamental landscape features such as fountains, reflecting pools and waterfalls Dust control and concrete production on construction projects Fire protection using stored treated effluent 3.4.10 Project Phasing To enable the funding analysis component of this project, the timing requirements for SWIP’s wastewater management projects were established using wastewater flows calculated directly from the dwelling unit development timeline documented in Section 3.2.2. For the medium density scenario the construction of an additional 5.5 MGD of ADWF treatment processes capable of producing Class A+ effluent (and an equivalent effluent utilization capacity) will be required. This will be provided in an initial increment of 2.5 MGD, and a second increment of 3.0 MGD. According to the medium density scenario’s development timeline, the 2.5 MGD capacity additions must be online at the beginning of 2018 and the 3.0 MGD capacity additions must be online at the beginning of 2025. It was assumed that five-year development cycles will be required for Avra Valley WWTF planning, design, and construction. This necessitates the start-up of the two development cycles in 2013 and 2020. For conservative planning and funding purposes it was assumed that the septic conversions, which in reality will be triggered by emerging patterns of system failures, occur fairly early in the build-out of the SWIP area – between the years 2012 and 2015. 3.42 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.5 PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE 3.5.1 Planned Park and Recreation Facilities Currently, there are no undeveloped park sites owned by Pima County with designs or plans for immediate construction. As discussed earlier, Parks staff has identified necessary improvements at specific parks to address drainage problems, security, ADA compliance, and user group interests such as soccer and Little League baseball. There are also existing public parcels adjacent to both Winston Reynolds-Manzanita District Park and Vesey Neighborhood Park that could be acquired to expand facilities in these two locations. The County also has been working with the federal government to acquire a 77-acre parcel on Valencia Road near Ryan Field for a proposed park site. Discussions are underway on other larger public parcels to address existing demands for park and recreation as well as future growth. The specific parcels for potential planned parks sites in the future will be addressed further in this report. 3.5.2 Park Classification System The classifications of parks in Pima County are incorporated into this section. Classifications define the basic parameters and guidelines for each type of park within a recreational system. The classifications provide a common, consistent and justifiable framework for planning purposes and seek to ensure the community’s needs are fulfilled as the park system is developed. While park acreage is typically used as a general indication of a park’s classification, it is not the only factor considered. It is the balance of park size and function that determines the appropriate classification for a particular facility. Facilities that serve a unique and specific function are classified as Special Purpose Parks / Alternative Recreation Areas. Special Purpose Parks are not considered “programmable” parks for purposes of determining level of service. Map PR-4, Park Service Area Boundaries, illustrates the developed residential parcels and their inclusion, or exclusion, within an existing park service area. Neighborhood / School Parks A neighborhood / school park is 10.0 acres or less in size, and may occur in conjunction with a school site. Note that the park / recreation area is land exclusive of, and in addition to, the school site itself. Examples of neighborhood parks are cited below in each size category. Please refer to the Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department’s Recreation Area Design Manual for layout examples of neighborhood parks. 3.43 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Neighborhood Parks Up to 1 Acre in Size A neighborhood park of approximately one acre in size is often described as a “pocket park.” Examples of neighborhood parks in this size category include Pima County’s Branding Iron Park. Minimum amenities for neighborhood parks in this size category include: • • • • • • • • • • • • Infrastructure: Water and Electricity Linkages to adjacent or nearby trails, linear parks, greenways, etc. (if applicable) Signs Fencing (as needed) Landscaping (trees and other plant materials, preferably native; see Section 10 in the Recreation Area Design Manual for additional information) Irrigation Turf area: 30% of total park area (exclusive of parking spaces, roads, footprints of restrooms and other structures and other areas committed to non-recreational purposes). Alternate functional recreation area surfacing, including recreation-grade artificial turf, etc., may be acceptable alternatives Vehicular barriers (as needed) Parking: 1 space per every 20 units, as per the ordinance Trash receptacles – a minimum of 1 trash receptacle necessary Bicycle Racks: 1 bicycle rack (4 bike capacity) necessary Park benches: 1 bench necessary; 2 benches preferable Recommended and suggested additional features: • • • Security lighting Public art Water fountain Neighborhood Parks Up to 1.01 – 5 Acres in Size There are no neighborhood parks in this size category in the study area. Minimum amenities for neighborhood parks in this size category include: • • • • • • • • • • Infrastructure Linkages to adjacent or nearby trails, linear parks, greenways, etc. (if applicable) Signs Fencing (as needed) Landscaping (trees and other plant materials, preferably native; see Section 10 in the Recreation Area Design Manual for additional information) Irrigation Vehicular barriers (as needed) Parking: one space per every 20 units, as per the ordinance Trash receptacles: 1-3 acres: 2 receptacles; 3-5 acres: 2 to 4 receptacles Bicycle racks: 1-3 acres: 1 rack (4 bike capacity); 3-5 acres: 2 racks (4 bike cap. ea.). 3.44 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • • • • • • • • • Water fountain: recommended in 1 to 3 ac. Recreation area; 1 fountain necessary in 3.05.0 acre recreation area. Restroom: one unisex restroom for recreation areas 3.0-5.0 acres in size Turf area: 30% of total park area (exclusive of parking spaces, roads, footprints of restrooms and other structures and other areas committed to non –recreational purposes). Alternate functional recreation area surfacing, including recreation-grade artificial turf, etc., may be acceptable alternatives. Outdoor park benches: 1.0-3.0 acres: 2 benches; 3.0-5.0 acres: 4 benches Shade structure(s) on concrete pad (choice of vendor and style), 20’x28’: 1.0-3.0 acres: 1 structure, minimum 3.0-5.0 acres: 1 structure, minimum Picnic tables with benches: 1.0-3.0 acres: 2 tables; 3.0-5.0 acres: 4 tables Grills: 1.0-3.0 acres: 2 grills; 3.0-5.0 acres: 3 grills Basketball court: 1.0-3.0 acres: recommended only; 3.0-5.0 acres: one half-court basketball court (post-tension slab recommended) Playground or fitness equipment: 1.0-3.0 acres: 3 pieces; 3.0-5.0 acres: 1 structure, minimum Recommended and suggested additional features: • • • • • • Security lighting Public art Water fountain: recommended for recreation areas in the 1.0 to 3.0 size category Telephone: recommended in the 3-5 acre recreation area category Perimeter walking / jogging path system: rec. for all recreation areas 1.0 to 5.0 acres in size Athletic field (baseball / softball): recommended in the 3.0 to 5.0 size category Neighborhood Parks Up to 5.01 – 10 Acres in Size Examples of neighborhood parks in this size category include Ebonee Marie Moody (Cardinal) Park, and Mission Ridge Park. Minimum amenities for neighborhood parks in this size category include: • • • • • • • • • Infrastructure: Water, Power and Sewer Water fountains: 5.0-7.5 acres: 1 fountain; 7.5-10.0 acres: 2 fountains Unisex restroom: 5.0-7.5 acres: 1 unisex restroom; 7.5-10.0 acres: 2 unisex restrooms recommended Linkages to adjacent or nearby trails, linear parks, greenways, etc.: (if applicable) Signs Fencing (as needed) Landscaping (trees and other plant materials, preferably native) Irrigation Turf area: 30% of total park area for all recreation areas in the 5.0 to 10 acre size range (exclusive of parking spaces, roads, footprints of restrooms and other structures and other areas committed to non-recreational purposes). Alternate functional recreation 3.45 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • area surfacing, including recreation-grade artificial turf, etc., may be acceptable alternatives Vehicular barriers (as needed) Parking: one space per every 20 units, as per the ordinance Trash receptacles: 5.0-7.5 acres: 4 receptacles; 7.5-10.0 acres: 6 receptacles Bicycle racks: 5.0-7.5 acres: 4 racks (4-bike capacity); 7.5-10.0 acres: 6 (4-bike capacity) Park Benches: 5.0-7.5 acres: 6 benches; 7.5-10.0 acres: 8 benches Security lighting: mandatory for all recreation areas in 5.0-10.0 acres in size Shade structure(s) on concrete pad (choice of vendor and style), 20’ x 28’: 5.0-7.5 acres: 2 structures, minimum; 7.5-10.0 acres: 2 structures, minimum Picnic tables with benches: 5.0-7.5 acres: 6 picnic tables; 7.5-10.0 acres: 8 picnic tables Grills: 5.0-7.5 acres: 4 grills; 7.5-10.0 acres: 6 grills Basketball court: 5.0-7.5 acres: 1 full-court + 1 half-court recommended; 7.5-10.0 acres: 1 full-court + 1 half-court recommended Playground and / or fitness equipment: 5.0-7.5 acres: 2 individual components plus one 5-pc multi-use play structure; 7.5-10.0 acres: 2 individual components plus two 5-pc multi-use play structures Perimeter walking / jogging path system: 5.0-7.5 acres: provide either 1 baseball / softball field or 1 soccer / football field; 7.5-10.0 acres: provide 1 baseball / softball field and 1 soccer / football field Recommended and suggested additional features: • • • • Security lighting Public art Telephone (5.0-7.5 acre recreational areas) Additional basketball court (full or half-court) Community Parks Community parks range from 10.01 to 40 acres in size. Lawrence District Park (despite maintenance of its original name) is the sole community park in this size category in the study area. Minimum amenities for neighborhood parks in this size category include: • • • • • • • • Infrastructure: Water, Electricity, Telephone and Sewer Water Fountains: 10-20 acres: 3 fountains; 20-40 acres: 5 fountains Restrooms: 10.01-20.0 acres: 2 restroom buildings, each with one men’s facility (one toilet, one urinal and sink) and one women’s facility (two toilets and sink); 20.01-40.0 acres: 3 restroom buildings, each with one men’s facility (one toilet, one urinal and sink) and one women’s facility (two toilets and sink) Linkages to adjacent or nearby trails, linear parks, greenways, etc.: (if applicable) Signs Fencing (as needed) Landscaping (trees and other plant materials, preferably native) Irrigation 3.46 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Turf area: 20% of total park area for all recreation areas in the 10.0 to 40.0 acre size range (exclusive of parking spaces, roads, footprints of restrooms and other structures and other areas committed to non-recreational purposes). Alternate functional recreation area surfacing, including recreation-grade artificial turf, etc., may be acceptable alternatives Parking: one space per every 20 units, as per the ordinance Vehicular barriers: (as needed) Trash receptacles:10.01-20.0 acres: 10 receptacles; 20.01-40.0 acres: 15 receptacles Bicycle Racks: 10.01-20.0 acres: 10 (4 bike capacity); 20.01-40.0 acres: 15 (4 bike capacity) Park benches: 10.01-20.0 acres: 10 benches; 20.01-40.0 acres: 15 benches Security lighting: mandatory for recreation areas in the 10.0 to 40.0 size category Shade structure(s) on concrete pad (choice of vendor and style), 20’ x 28’: 10.01-20.0 acres: 3 structures; 20.01-40.0 acres: 4 structures Picnic tables with benches: 10.01-20.0 acres: 12 picnic tables; 20.01-40.0 acres: 18 picnic tables Grills: 10.01-20.0 acres: 8 grills; 20.01-40.0 acres: 14 grills Basketball court: 10.0-20.0 acres: 1 full and 1 half-court basketball courts required (posttension slabs recommended); 20.01-40.0 acres: 2 full-court basketball courts required (post-tension slabs recommended) Playground and / or fitness equipment: 10.01-20.0 acres: 4 individual components (play or fitness) plus two 5-pc multi-use play structures; 20.01-40.0 acres: 6 individual components (play or fitness) plus two 5-pc multi-use play structures Perimeter walking / jogging path system: 10.01-40.0 acres: mandatory DG or paved perimeter path system Athletic fields: 10.01-20.0 acres: 1 baseball / softball field and 1 soccer / football field; 20.01-40.0 acres: 2 baseball / softball field and 1 soccer / football field Maintenance building necessary for recreation areas in this size category Recommended and suggested additional features: • • • • • Public art Additional half of full-sized basketball court Additional soccer field (strongly recommended) Swimming pool Community center District Parks District parks are typically 40.01 acres to 100 acres in size. There are no parks of this size in the SWIP planning area. Minimum amenities for District parks in this size category include: • • • Infrastructure: Water, Power, Telephone (line to site), Sewer Water fountains: 6 fountains Restroom facilities: 4 restroom buildings or equivalent, each with one men’s facility (one toilet, one urinal and sink) and one women’s facility (two toilets and sink) 3.47 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Linkages to adjacent or nearby trails, linear parks, greenways, etc. (if applicable). Signs Fencing (as needed) Landscaping (trees and other plant materials, preferably native) Irrigation Turf area: 15% of total park area for all recreation areas in the 40.0 to 100.0 acre size range (exclusive of parking spaces, roads, footprints of restrooms and other structures and other areas committed to non-recreational purposes). Alternate functional recreation area surfacing, including recreation-grade artificial turf, etc., may be acceptable alternatives Parking: one space per every 20 units, as per the ordinance Vehicular barriers: (as needed) Trash receptacles: 15 receptacles minimum Park benches: 15 benches minimum Security lighting – necessary Shade structure(s) on concrete pad (choice of vendor and style), 20’ x 28’: 5 structures Picnic tables with benches: 20 minimum Grills: 16 minimum Basketball courts: 2 full and 1 half-court basketball court necessary (post-tension slab recommended) Play or and / or fitness equipment: 6 individual components (play or fitness) plus three 5piece multi-use play structures Perimeter walking / jogging path system: mandatory DG or paved perimeter path system Athletic fields: 3 baseball / softball fields required, plus 2 soccer / football fields Maintenance building: necessary Swimming pool: necessary Community center: necessary Recommended and suggested additional features: • • • Public art Additional half or full-size basketball court Additional soccer field Regional Parks Regional parks exceed 100 acres in size. Regional parks may be urban parks, natural resource parks (i.e. natural open space parks with passive recreation features such as trails), or “hybrid” parks that contain both developed and natural features. Examples include Manzanita Park and Tucson Mountain Park. Minimum amenities for neighborhood parks in this size category include District Park features plus additional features identified by the developer and the Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department. A tract of high-quality natural open space (i.e. with significant natural resource values) may satisfy the recreation area requirement in all or part. 3.48 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Recommended Features: Special purpose park, such as an open space area with trails, skate park, equestrian facility, etc. Linear Parks / Greenways Linear Parks and Greenways are regional parks or park-like features developed along watercourses and / or major road rights-of-way, and are intended to provide recreation and fitness opportunities, as well as alternate modes of transportation. These facilities are typically developed to the City / County River Park or Divided Urban Pathway Standards. Examples include the Rillito River Park, the Santa Cruz River Park, the Pantano River Park, the Houghton Greenway, and the Camino Loma Alta Greenway, although there are no linear parks / greenways in the study area at the present time. Minimum amenities for parks in this category include: • • • • • • • • • • • Paved path (12’ – 15’ in width, per River Park or Divided Urban Pathway Standard) Natural surface (DG) path (8’-10’ in width, per River Park or Divided Urban Pathway Standard). Bridges (if necessary) Landscaping (native species) Irrigation Shade Structure (one structure every one mile); design to be approved by PCNRPR. Parking / Staging (public access facilities) Water fountain (one fountain every one mile). Fencing / railing / post-and-cable or other vehicular barriers as appropriate. Signage (as appropriate, consistent with the Regional Greenways Plan) Linkages to adjacent or nearby parks, trails, linear parks, greenways, etc. Optional features: restrooms; park nodes adjoining the corridor with turf and other recreation features. Special Purpose Parks / Alternative Recreation Areas Special Purpose Parks are developed to serve a particular community recreational need, such as a skateboard park, a natural-resource based trails park, an equestrian center, a soccer complex, a dog park, an amphitheater or performing arts facility, or an off-highway vehicle park. SPP’s can range in size from one-half acre to 640 acres or more, depending on the special purpose. Examples include the BMX track at Pima County’s Manzanita Park, the skate park at the City of Tucson’s Purple Heart Park and Pima County’s Pima Motor Sports Park. 3.49 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Alternative Recreation Areas are recreation areas designed to complement and serve the special needs of a given residential subdivision project and / or its surrounding area. Examples of Alternative Recreation Areas Include: A. Active Adult Recreation Area. An Active Adult Recreation Area could be constructed to address the unmet recreation needs of active adults, and might include a community recreation center or club house, park space, and / or a golf course that provides recreational utility considerably beyond golf – for example, a golf course with a system of walking trails around its perimeter combined with a Par Course, adjacent park nodes and other similar features that are directly integrated into its design (golf courses themselves are not eligible for inclusion as recreation areas, and no credit against the standard requirements will be applied for them). B. Educational Recreation Area. An Educational Recreation Area could be created to take advantage of an opportunity to provide significant educational benefits within a recreational context. Examples of this kind of recreation area might include a night sky / astronomy park, a water resources park (i.e. constructed wetlands with a path system and interpretive exhibits), a passive wildlife observation park with a path system and other features, an archeological park with a path system and interpretive exhibits, a cultural heritage or diversity park, a military veterans memorial park, and / or public art park. All such parks should provide substantial recreational utility along with their educational features. C. Special Needs Recreation Area. A Special Needs Recreation Area could be developed to provide recreation opportunities for physically challenged members of the community. One example is Pima County’s Feliz Paseos Universal Access Open Space and Trails Park, which, when complete, will include an accessible trail system and interpretive exhibits, along with other features. D. Expanded Capacity Recreation Area. This category of recreation would address unmet needs for expanded hours at an existing or new recreation facility or facilities. Examples might include the construction of an indoor or sun-shielded active recreation area (such as a basketball facility under a ramada-type structure), lighting of amenities such as ball fields, and other similar enhancements that dramatically increase the availability of facilities to the public. E. Other Opportunities. Pima County recognizes that new and unique types of recreation facilities may be created as time passes, such as technology parks, and is willing to consider proposals that suggest alternative kinds of recreation facilities that may significantly benefit the community and its quality of life. Such proposals must provide value that is either equivalent or greater than the value of the standard requirement. 3.50 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.5.3 Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Measuring demand for parks and recreation involves several factors. The desire on behalf of existing residents to recreate is affected by such factors as access, convenience, weather and temperature, seasonality of a particular activity, or the availability of a particular activity at a local / regional park site. The needs assessment is based upon the following: • • • An estimate of current population and its demand for park facilities An estimate of the build-out population based on three build-out scenarios and the past average annual growth rate projected over time Input from Pima County Natural Resources, Park and Recreation Department staff Population figures are an important tool for planning recreation facilities and programs. With steady growth in the Tucson area, it is especially important to identify demographic trends so as to seek to ensure the needs of current and future residents are met. According to figures compiled by the US Census Bureau, the 2000 population for the census tracts associated with the study area was 62,650 persons. It should be noted that the outside limits of the census tract boundaries extend well beyond the study area boundary and a portion of tract 4417 does include a developed area within Tucson’s city limits. As a result, census-derived statistics are best seen as general indicators of what is actually transpiring within the SWIP study area itself. The census data indicates the population increased to 69,973 persons in 2004. This represents an average annual growth rate over the period of 2.9 percent. Table PR-2 identifies the population figures and characteristics by census tract. Map PR-5 and Map PR-6 illustrate the 2004 population per square mile and the concentration of children ages 0-17 in the year 2000 overlaid by census tracts. Table PR-2 reveals an overall four year average growth rate of 11.6 percent for the census tracts in question. This would not correlate to an equivalent 11.6 percent growth rate in the SWIP area, but does illustrate the growth which is occurring in the vicinity of the area under consideration. There is a variety of population growth rates between census tracts. The fouryear rates translate into an average annual growth rate of approximately 1.2 percent to a high of 6.42 percent (excluding the census tract that experienced a decline in population over the time period). The most significant growth occurred in tracts 2605 and 4321 possibly due to the development of a large subdivision or planned development during this time frame since the tract area is comparatively small. These census tracts plus tracts 4312, 4322 and 4311 reflect significant residential development and few vacant parcels. The amount of children, ages 0-17 within these tracts, accounts for approximately 26.6 percent of the total population. Although the total census population does not match the exact current SWIP population, it is suggested that these figures are relevant to the general needs assessment discussion. To further understand the demographics of the population within the study area, Figure PR-3 identifies the 2000 population by age group. What is evident is that the 5-17 age cohort represents a significantly higher proportion of the total population than the other age cohorts. 3.51 Table PR-2 Population and Population Characteristics by Census Tract Census Tract 4410 4417 4404 4310 4319 4311 4312 940900 4322 4321 4320 5100 2605 2505 Totals 2000 Population 8,214 8,035 2,981 1,234 4,142 3,634 5,899 2,053 5,132 3,735 2,771 3,315 5,873 5,632 62,650 2004 Population 2004 % Change Population 2000 to 2004 per Square Mile 9145 11.3 65.5 9465 17.7 153.8 3085 3.4 2,142.3 1187 -3.8 321.7 4532 9.4 214.5 3873 6.5 913.4 6338 7.4 3,122.1 2188 6.5 19.6 5633 9.7 2,761.3 4607 23.3 4,346.2 2932 5.8 852.2 3680 11.0 1,621.0 7386 25.7 3,312.1 5922 5.1 6,300.0 69,973 11.6 Notes Children 0-17 Years (2000) 2,293 1,648 76 305 1,489 975 1,848 672 1,783 1,237 966 1,541 1,897 1,948 18,678 Households (2000) 2,968 3,231 1,734 488 1,226 1,186 1,911 616 1,536 1,132 842 745 1,924 1,884 21,423 Household Size (2000) 2.77 2.48 1.72 2.53 3.38 3.06 3.08 3.32 3.33 3.28 3.29 4.44 2.98 2.99 Nearest Park Site Tucson Mountain Park Tucson Mountain Park Tucson Mountain Park Robles Pass Vesey, Star, Branding Iron Manzanita Manzanita Tohono O’odham Ebonee Marie Mission Ridge Lawrence District Pascua Yaqui Manzanita Manzanita Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-2 Title Population and Population Characteristics by Census Tract Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. PR-3 Title Census Tract Demographics Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 The study area population does not reflect the standard bell curve distribution with the highest concentration of population in the mid-point age groups. Combining the three youngest age groups reveals that the study area’s youth (persons 21 and under) make up 1 of every 3 persons. The proportion of the population under 21 years of age is 34.8 percent of the total population, a ratio which exceeds the Pima County figure (30.9 percent). The retired population, ages 65 and up, represents a slightly smaller percentage of the total population in the study area when compared to Pima County’s retired population (12.0 percent versus 14.3 percent). In short, there were proportionately more youth and fewer retirees residing in the study area in 2000 than in Pima County as a whole. Map PR-5 illustrates the population per square mile. As expected, the east side of the study area contains the highest concentration of residents, as compared to the largely undeveloped west side. However, when you examine Maps PR-5 and PR-6 side by side, it becomes evident that some of the more densely populated tracts in terms of persons per square mile are not populated with children ages 0-17. Tract 4404 on the north side of Kinney Road is one of the denser census tracts with a population ranging between 913 – 2,761 persons per square mile; but it falls into the lowest population interval with only 76 children ages 0-17. The median age of the population residing in tract 4404 is 70.7 years. However, the opposite is true of census tract 4410: it contains the lowest population density of 65.5 persons per square mile but the highest number of children ages 0-17 of all tracts within the study area. This localized demographic information will be important when considering the appropriate locations for new parks to serve existing and future development. In order to estimate population in 2007 for the study area, we used the Pima County Assessor’s data for residential dwellings and the PAG estimate of 2.77 persons per household (PPH). According to this information, there are approximately 17,250 residential units within the study area.2 Using PAG’s PPH figure, the estimated population within the study area in 2007 is approximately 47,782 persons. One measure of how well a parks department performs in providing developed park sites for the community is by a park land standard. A standard is the minimum acceptable spatial allocation that has been demonstrated to adequately meet customer needs and preferences. Park and recreation planning was historically based on the practice of communities adopting a uniform national standard of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 population. “This was held to be the goal every community should strive for to have an exemplary park and recreation system.”3 A standard, however, should reflect a community’s needs. To assess need, a community needs to conduct resident surveys to accurately gauge participation rates and interest levels in recreation activities. Participation rates and interest levels are used to develop an appropriate park land and recreation amenity standard for a community. 2 This number does not include residential units located within the Tohono O’odham Nation or Pascua Yaqui Tribal lands. Exact information is not available on the number of units located at a particular multiple residence location. For purposes of this study, we assumed 100 units at each location. 3 Mertes, James D., Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines (1996). 3.52 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 In 2003, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation staff adopted the Recreation Area Design Manual to establish park and recreation design standards for new park construction and dedication requirements. Residential developers are required to construct park sites in conjunction with the subdivisions in an amount of land area and amenities based on the number residential units approved for development. Pima County currently requires a minimum of 871 square feet of constructed park land per residential unit for all new construction.4 This figure translates into a park dedication standard of 8 acres per 1,000 population. To understand the equivalence of 871 square feet per dwelling to approximately 8 acres per 1,000 population, the following conversion equation is presented: 871 sq.ft. x 1 Household x 1 Acre = 0.00721 Acre / People = 7.21 Acres / 1,000 People Household 2.77 People 43,560 sq.ft. Based on the 2007 population estimate of 47,782 from existing residential dwelling units multiplied by a park land standard of 8 acres per 1,000 population, the number of acres of developed park land required to satisfy the recreation needs of existing residents is 382.2 acres. According to the park and recreation inventory included in Table PR-1, the seven developed park sites total 113.8 acres. This amount translates into an estimate of 1.13 acres per 1,000 population; significantly lower than the 8-acre standard per 1,000 population. The difference between current developed park land and the County’s goal is a shortfall of 268 acres of developed park land. The shortfall is more than twice the amount of current developed park acreage. The difference between existing and needed park land is due to the fact the Recreation Area Demand Manual was not adopted until 2003. Until the document was approved by the Board of Supervisors, residential development was permitted without dedicating park land or constructing physical park improvements. A current shortfall of this magnitude can be appreciated when compared to the County’s park area requirements: 268 acres equals the total of 26 neighborhood parks, or six community parks, or three district parks or two regional parks. The Recreation Area Design Manual also identifies park service area standards. According to the definition on Page 26, “a ‘service-area’ is the region that is typically served by a recreation area of a given size.” Service areas are generally considered guidelines and not strict standards. Map PR-4, Park Service Area Boundaries, illustrates how the existing supply of neighborhood, district and regional parks is distributed throughout the study area. Ideally, park service radii would overlap and no residential areas would be outside a service radius. The service area of the four types of parks within Pima County recreation system is: neighborhood parks, ¼ - ½ mile radius; community parks, 1-2 mile radius; District parks, 2.5 mile radius; and regional parks, 7 mile radius. Map PR-4 shows that the majority of the study area currently lacks service from one or more of the types of parks within the recreation system. Neighborhood parks over an acre in size provide park and recreation amenities to a population living within a 0.5 mile radius. Based on this service area radius, a neighborhood park is necessary for nearly every concentrated area of residential development, particularly 4 Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department, Recreation Area Design Manual (2003). 3.53 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 subdivisions with small lot sizes. There are many areas that lack this type of recreation amenity and it is visually apparent that a large portion of the 268 acre shortfall in current park land could be made up with the addition of 26 neighborhood park sites. The residential areas south of Ajo Highway are generally served by Lawrence District Park, which has a 2.5 miles service radius. The area north of Ajo Highway lacks both neighborhood parks and a district park within their service area. A portion of the residential development north of Ajo Highway is served by Manzanita District Park. Residents west of San Joaquin Road generally have to drive several miles to the closest neighborhood or district park site. Residents living north of Ajo Highway and in the more undeveloped western portion of the study area are included in the 7-mile service radius of Tucson Mountain Park. 3.5.4 Future Park Needs Based on Build Out Assumptions The demand for future park and recreation facilities will depend on the population growth rates for the study area over the next 20 to 50 years. Table PR-2 provides the total growth rates by census tracts between the years 2001 and 2004. Growth in the Tucson area has been steady and there is no indication that trend will change in the near future. Table PR-3 examines the potential shortfall in park land acreages based on our estimate of current population as well as the potential future population based on three assumptions of residential density provided by Pima County. Assuming the land use plan with the mid-range residential dwelling unit per acre figure is adopted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors, the amount of required park land would total approximately 1,220.7 acres. The park land deficiency, assuming no parks are added, would total approximately 1,107 acres. The land use density assumptions greatly impact the amount of park land that will be needed as development within the study area continues. Map PR-7, Residential Density Allocation Model, illustrates the land use densities under the mid-range assumption. Vacant private land within the study area totals approximately 9,828 acres. The average size of a vacant, private parcel is 1.9 acres; however, there are 33 vacant private parcels with acreages over 50 acres and 13 parcels over 100 acres in size. Large vacant parcels are predominately located in the western portion of the study area. Two of these larger parcels are currently in process seeking approval of a planned unit development on the south side of Valencia Road. Numerous smaller vacant parcels are scattered throughout developed parcels. There are also significant public land holdings that could be either be sold under public auction to private interests or sold to public entities for identified facilities and infrastructure to serve the area and / or region. Specific public parcels have been identified as future park sites for the purpose of meeting the projected park and recreation demand based on planned growth. All of the subject parcels are owned by the federal government. Average annual growth varied widely between tracts but the average annual rate overall was 2.9 percent. If we apply the 2.9 percent average annual growth rate to the three population estimates based on Pima County’s land use build-out assumptions, the low estimate of future residential dwelling units would build-out between years 2036 and 2037. If the mid-range land use plan were implemented, the build-out scenario would occur in between the years 2047 and 3.54 Table PR-3 Park Land Demand for Current and Build-Out Assumptions Scenario Total Dwelling Units Population Estimate Current Development (2007) Lower Density Scenario Medium Density Scenario Higher Density Scenario 17,250 39,559 55,088 70,613 47,782 109,578 152,593 195,598 Park Land Acreage Demand 382.2 876.6 1,220.7 1,564.8 Notes Population estimated based on 2.77 persons per household. Park need calculated at 8 acres per 1,000 population. Shortfall of park land acreage at build-out assumes no additional parks are developed Shortfall of Park Land Acreage -268.5 -762.8 -1,106.9 -1,451.0 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-3 Title Park Land Demand for Current and Build-Out Assumptions Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 2048. The high-range land use plan would realize a build-out scenario in approximately 50 years. Table PR-4 lists the build-out population in five year increments based on an average annual growth rate of 2.9 percent over the time period, the projected shortfall in park land based on the Pima County dedication standard and assuming no new parks are constructed. 3.5.5 Recommended Improvements and Costs per Dwelling Unit The existing public resources throughout the study area offer numerous possibilities for improving the current deficiency in the number of developed park sites. As shown in Table PR4, the current shortfall is approximately 268 acres. The real need is for additional neighborhood park sites to serve existing residential neighborhoods and for more district parks that offer more active recreation facilities e.g., lighted ball fields and soccer fields. An effort was made to identify 10-acre publicly owned parcels throughout existing residential areas to address the service area gaps for neighborhood parks. Parcels owned by the federal government were targeted to satisfy existing and future park and recreation service demands. Map PR-7, Residential Density Allocation Model, illustrates the mid-range assumption for residential dwelling units per acre for all parcels within the study area. The Pima County Department of Development Services provided a land use model for the study area that included three land use density alternatives. For planning purposes, all three alternatives and their impact on the demand for park acreage, are shown in Table PR-5. Table PR-5 identifies the current residential development and the future estimates of dwelling units based on a low range, a mid range and a high range density assumption. These assumptions were applied predominately to vacant residential parcels. A majority of the existing residential development will remain at its current developed densities of 0.6 dwelling units per acre. Table PR-5 allocates the costs for park improvements to the potential dwelling unit count based on the land use assumption. The cost figure per dwelling unit assumes a development cost, excluding land acquisition, of $100,000 per acre. This figure was provided by Pima County Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation. This number is a rough estimate for planning purposes only. It is difficult to estimate park construction costs because the types of improvements in each park vary significantly. In general, district parks cost more than neighborhood parks, and neighborhood parks cost more than park sites left in a natural setting augmented only by trail systems and parking areas. For this reason, an alternate cost of $150,000 per acre has been added to Tables PR-5 and PR-6 for comparative purposes. The higher development cost per acre is more representative of the park construction costs in Pima County. An alternate per dwelling unit figure has been provided. The alternative number assumes all developed parcels and future development share equally in the financial costs of constructing needed park sites. The alternate dwelling unit figures reflect the two cost options for park construction. It is noted that the Star Valley Phase 2 project will likely be funded with developer contributions. Map PR-8, Existing and Proposed Park Sites, illustrates the recommended locations for acquiring public land for the purposes of developing additional neighborhood, district and regional park sites. A total of five neighborhood park sites have been identified, all south of Ajo 3.55 Table PR-4 Park Land Acreage Shortfall Based on Population Estimates, 2007 - 2055 Notes Year Residential Dwelling Units Population Estimate 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 17,250 18,974 21,682 25,014 28,858 33,292 38,407 44,309 51,117 58,972 68,033 47,782 52,061 60,060 69,289 79,936 92,218 106,389 122,736 141,595 163,352 188,453 Shortfall of Park Land Acreage -269 -303 -367 -441 -526 -624 -737 -868 -1,019 -1,193 -1,384 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-4 Title Park Land Acreage Shortfall Based on Population Estimates Table PR-5 Per Dwelling Unit Costs Based on Land Use Assumptions Scenario Dwelling Units1 Park Acreage2 Current Future Lower Density Range Future Medium Range Future Higher Density Range 17,250 39,559 55,088 70,613 268.5 494.3 838.4 1182.5 Park Park Alternative Improvement Improvement Per DU Cost3 Costs @$100K/ac Costs @$150K/ac @ $100k per acre Per DU Per DU $1,557 $1,250 $1,522 $1,675 $2,335 $1,874 $2,283 $2,512 Notes 1 - Dwelling unit figures represent existing residential units based on Pima County Assessor’s data; future unit figures represent new units at build-out and do not include existing units 2 - Park land demand figures reflect assumption current development (existing residents) will be financially responsible for the cost of eliminating existing park acreage deficiencies. Park land demand figures for the buildout scenarios reflect the adopted standard of 8 ac per 1,000 residents 3 - The per unit cost for park improvements is shared equally among existing and future residents; the amount varies depending on the future land use scenario adopted. Total dwelling unit figures identified in Table PR-3 $1,557 $1,928 $2,009 $2,056 Alternative Per DU Cost3 @ $150k per acre $2,335 $2,892 $3,014 $3,084 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-5 Title Per Dwelling Unit Costs Based on Land Use Assumptions Table PR-6 Estimated Costs for Additional Park Facilities Park Name Facility Type Star Valley Phase 2* To Be Determined Ryan Park Tucson Mountain Park Tucson Mountain Park Expansion** Manzanita Park Portion of BLM Parcel To Be Determined Portion of Planned Detention Area Saginaw Hill** To Be Determined To Be Determined New Facility Proposed Park In Discussion New Facility Proposed Expansion Proposed Expansion New Facility New Facility New Facility New Facility New Facility New Facility Totals Map Label Park Type P5 P7 P8 P9 P12 P6 P3 P10 P4 P11 P2 P1 District District District District Regional District Neighborhood District Neighborhood Regional Neighborhood Neighborhood Size Estimated Cost (acres) @ $100k per acre 16 52 77 83 944 18 17 240 21 529 13 10 2,020 $1,600,000 $5,186,000 $7,739,000 $8,263,000 $4,720,000 $1,829,000 $1,665,000 $24,005,000 $2,122,000 $2,646,000 $1,287,000 $998,000 $62,060,000 Estimated Cost @ $150k per acre $2,400,000 $7,778,000 $11,608,000 $12,394,000 $9,440,000 $2,743,000 $2,498,000 $36,007,000 $3,183,000 $5,293,000 $1,930,000 $1,497,000 $96,771,000 Notes Land acquisition costs are not included * Estimated costs may be developer funded ** Estimated costs for the two Regional Parks have been reduced to $5,000 and $10,000 per acre Average Planning and Design Costs (15%) $300,000 $972,300 $1,451,025 $1,549,275 $1,062,000 $342,900 $312,225 $4,500,900 $397,875 $595,425 $241,275 $187,125 $11,912,325 Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2014 2017 2021 2025 2027 2029 2031 Average Construction Costs (85%) $1,700,000 $5,509,700 $8,222,475 $8,779,225 $6,018,000 $1,943,100 $1,769,275 $25,505,100 $2,254,625 $3,374,075 $1,367,225 $1,060,375 $67,503,175 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2015 2018 2022 2026 2028 2030 2032 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. PR-6 Title Estimated Phased Costs for Additional Park Facilities Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Highway to serve existing residential uses. One of the sites, east of Valhalla Road, is also proposed for a regional flood control facility. Due to the intensity of existing residential uses in the immediate area, a neighborhood park should also be incorporated into the design of any flood control improvements slated for this area. The site is part of an existed platted subdivision that has not been developed and will be dedicated back to Pima County. Another neighborhood park site should be created from a small portion of the property referred to as the “Saginaw Hill” site. Other than Vesey Park and Lawrence District Park, there are no recreation amenities to serve existing residents living in the area of Mark Road, Valencia Road, Irvington Road and Cardinal Avenue. Locating potential neighborhood park sites north of Ajo Highway proved more challenging. There are a few parcels owned by the federal government, but they are not located in areas that would serve existing residential uses well. One large public parcel that could be acquired for a park site north of Ajo Highway is located off of San Joaquin Road, approximately two miles west of existing residential. The parcel size dictates that it be designated as a future district park. District parks offer greater numbers of amenities than neighborhood parks as well as athletic fields, and possibly community swimming pools. A total of six (6) publicly owned sites have been identified for future district parks. Saginaw Hill is included as a future regional park site. Since there are environmental issues associated with this parcel, future development as a regional park is considered possible, but not likely in the near term. A 944-acre expansion to Tucson Mountain Regional Park is also planned. The proposed parks are shown on Map PR-8. The parks included on Map PR-8 total 2,020 acres; however approximately 1,440 acres of the total identified sites are for the two regional parks. Current park demand based on the existing population is 268 acres which could be satisfied by any number of the sites identified on Map PR-8. The demand for parks to accommodate future growth, based on the mid-range dwelling unit per acre assumption, totals 838 acres. The neighborhood and district park sites identified on Map PR-8 and Table PR-6 total 547 acres. Development of all these sites will address the park and recreation needs of the planned growth since the standard adopted by Pima County includes regional park land acreage. Concurrent with Pima County acquiring these parcels from the federal government, park land deficiencies can also be addressed as new development continues. Major projects are planned in the study area and every effort should be made to incorporate larger park sites that include athletic fields, particularly lighted facilities in order to extend usage, in addition to the family oriented play areas and picnic ramadas. The adopted Recreation Area Design Manual provides excellent guidelines to ensure that new development provides its fair share of park and recreation resources to help offset existing deficiencies and fund facilities in existing parks identified by staff and discussed in this report. 3.5.6 Phasing of Park Improvements and Costs Table PR-6 also contains the currently anticipated phasing of the recommended parks and recreation improvements, as well as the apportionment of total costs into planning / design and construction phases. The improvements are sorted in order of their anticipated year of construction. 3.56 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.6 TRANSPORTATION 3.6.1 Special Planning Area The area near the Ajo Road / Valencia Road intersection is currently the subject of intense planning pressure. Two major development projects are proposed here, and both require amendment to the Pima County Comprehensive Plan. Tucson Airport Authority proposes changes to nearby Ryan Field’s master plan. A revised plan could have a direct impact on the types of land uses compatible with current and future airport uses. For example, airfield operations on a new crosswind runway could cause Ajo Highway to be shifted to the south. The amount and location of the shift, if any, would have an effect on the private developments’ opportunities and constraints. TAA proposes to amend its master plan in the near future and is working with the developers, ADOT, and Pima County on that plan. Realignment of Ajo Highway is not likely to appreciably increase construction costs beyond the costs of improving it in-place. This is because the existing two-lane facility has little apparent value in reconstructing the corridor from a two-lane rural route to an urban multi-lane state highway. The current right-of-way could be exchanged for new right-of-way for a future realignment. Due to the uncertainty of the future development in this area and the nominal impact on roadway reconstruction costs, it is designated a Special Planning Area in this study. Continuing coordination between the private parties and public agencies will likely continue beyond the completion of this study. The results will be reflected in Pima County’s Comprehensive Plan update for the Southwest Area. 3.6.2 Recommended Transportation Projects The following section describes the recommended projects that will increase motor vehicle capacity on roadways within and through the project area. These projects are not included in existing plans or programs, and funding for these improvements has not been identified in any other planning document. The projects listed in Table TR-4, shown in Map TR-3 and described below will provide for additional east-west lanes and additional lanes for north-south travel. The addition of these projects will not meet the expected needs for a fully built-out area based on the existing developable area. 1 - SR 86: Upgrading to a Higher Classification Roadway. Although Valencia Road has been projected to be a more essential east-west roadway in the project area in previous transportation planning studies, SR 86 will operate more efficiently than Valencia Road in the future if limited access considerations are included in its future design. The SWIP recommends that SR 86 be upgraded to an Urban Principal Arterial FHWA classification, and that it eventually have a six-lane cross section with a limited number of driveways and access points between Sandario Road and Mission Road. Because there is much committed development on Valencia Road, it would be difficult to upgrade Valencia Road to a similar functional classification and this is why SR 86 is recommended for this classification. 3.57 Table TR-4 Recommended Transportation Projects 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Project Description Current Projects Requiring Additional Funding 1 a) Ajo Highway - Widen two additional lanes b) Ajo Highway - Three grade separations at locations to be determined Camino de Oeste - New 2-lane connection to Kinney Road (Wal-Mart) Joseph Road / Mark Road - Widen to 4 lanes from Ajo Highway to Los Reales Irvington Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) Drexel Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) Valhalla Road - Extension from Valencia Road to Drexel Road (2 lanes) 2 Valencia Road - Widen to 6 lanes from Ajo Highway to Mark Road San Joaquin Road - Extension south of Ajo Highway to Los Reales (4 lanes) San Joaquin Road - Widen to 4 lanes from Ajo Highway north to Sandario Los Reales - Construct 4-lane arterial from San Joaquin to I-19 Public Transit Service - Capital Costs 12 Travel Demand Management Program - 4 Carpool Lots at Locations to be Determined 13 a) Interchange I-19 at Drexel 3 b) Interchange I-19 at Los Reales c) Interchange Auxiliary Lanes / Capacity Map I.D. n/a 1 Project Length No. of Added Lane (miles) Lanes Miles 3 Totals 14.50 N/A 1.00 3.70 4.00 7.00 1.00 5.75 3.80 7.30 6.10 N/A 2 29 N/A 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 14.8 16 28 2 23 15.2 29.2 24.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.25 59.40 N/A N/A 10.5 196.1 2 Average Total Project Cost per Lane Mile New EDUs in Benefit Area Estimated Costs Per EDU Notes 1 - Propose 6 lane parkway from Sandario Road to Kinney and 8 lanes from Kinney to I-19. Ajo Highway data assumes that ADOT is funding construction of all other Ajo Highway improvements and these costs do not need to be included in this tabular summary 2 - Calculation for Project No. 7 on Valencia Road assumes that roadway will widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes and that only 2 new lanes will be constructed. Calculations for all other projects assume that the entire new roadway will be constructed 3 - Assumes $40M for each interchange with a 25% cost allocation to the SWIP area Estimated Total Costs $80,041,000 $57,420,000 $60,000,000 $7,920,000 $29,304,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $3,960,000 $45,540,000 $30,096,000 $57,816,000 $48,312,000 $19,063,000 $5,200,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,790,000 $585,462,000 $1,980,000 28,699 $20,400 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-4 Title Recommended Transportation Projects Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Table TR-4 separates this recommended improvement into two components; 1 a) is the widening and upgrading to a higher classification and 1 b) estimates the provision of three grade separations on SR 86 to limit access to and from this roadway. 2- Camino de Oeste to Kinney Road: New Road north of SR 86) This connection was originally considered when a large retail development on the northwest corner of SR 86 / Kinney Road was proposed. This roadway would provide direct access from a new intersection on Kinney Road, north of SR 86 to the intersection of SR 86 / Camino de Oeste which is about ½ mile east of Kinney Road. The new intersection on Kinney Road would provide direct access to the retail development on the west side of Kinney Road. This new connection would reduce projected traffic congestion at the SR 86 / Kinney Road intersection and would connect through an area zoned for commercial uses. A study would need to determine whether it should be a two or four lane road. 3 - Joseph Road / Mark Road: Widen to 4 Lanes from SR 86 to Los Reales Road These connections would provide a continuous route from Kinney Road north of SR 86 to Los Reales Road. Kinney Road would need to be realigned on its approach to Irvington Road to connect with Joseph Road which continues south to its connection with Mark Road. This northsouth route would provide access to the expanded east-west corridors along SR 86, Irvington Road, Drexel Road and Valencia Road. 4 - Irvington Road Extension and Widening to 4 Lanes: SR 86 to Mission Road This connection would complete a connection from SR 86 to Irvington and would provide access to residential areas within the study area and allow for another east-west connection to I-10. The road would be a four-lane facility. 5 - Drexel Road Widening and Extension: SR 86 to Mission Road This connection would provide another east-west access through the project that could ultimately provide access to I-19 via a new traffic interchange. This connection would require a location report to establish the best route in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding topography as there are several hills along the current projected alignment. Right of way for this project should allow for a four-lane roadway. 6 - Valhalla Road Extension: Valencia Road to Drexel Road This would be a new north-south connection which would provide access from projected residential uses to either Drexel Road or Valencia Road. Because this would be in the vicinity of a high level of development, it would provide a “relief valve” for traffic on Valencia Road as it would connect to Drexel Road. 3.58 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 7 - Valencia Road: Widen to 6 Lanes from SR 86 to Mark Road Current plans and programs have Valencia Road as a six-lane road from Mark Road to the east. Because of the potential development activity in the project area, Valencia Road may need to be widened to six lanes west of Mark Road through to its connection with SR 86. Although Valencia Road has been envisioned as a “parkway” which would constrain direct access onto Valencia Road, it may be difficult to reclassify this roadway due to the number of committed developments requiring specific access locations onto Valencia Road. However, the amount of developable land in the vicinity of the intersection of Valencia Road and SR 86 would seem to require the consideration of Valencia Road to a six lane facility beginning at SR 86 and continuing east. 8 - San Joaquin Extension South of SR 86 to Los Reales Road This connection would directly connect the Star Valley master planned community area south of Valencia Road to SR 86. The alignment would be from the current Wade Road to north of Irvington Road. This connection would be a four-lane facility which would serve the Star Valley area. 9 - San Joaquin Road: Widen to 4 Lanes from SR 86 north to Sandario Road This connection would provide access to Sandario Road from SR 86 along a northwest / southeast alignment. This alignment would enhance the corridor from northwest Pima County and the Town of Marana to the project area, and would also act as a bypass route to I-10 for travelers wishing to avoid travel on the freeway through the downtown area. Drivers traveling south on this route could access I-19 following a turn onto SR 86, or could continue south on the San Joaquin Road extension (see project #8) to connect to I-19 via Drexel Road or Valencia Road. 10 - Los Reales Road Extension from Current Terminus near Camino Verde to I-19 Los Reales Road would be widened to a four lane road. This project would go through a section of the Pascua Yaqui Nation jurisdictional area. This connection would make complete a continuous corridor from Sandario Road to San Joaquin Road to Wade Road and then Los Reales Road. 11 – Public Transit Service – Capital Costs New routes provided in the SWIP area would connect to existing transit service within the Sun Tran area. Facilities for the necessary storage and maintenance of the rolling stock would also be required. These services and projects would be planned and programmed by the City of Tucson’s SunTran program. Partial funding would be generated by the SWIP’s transit element and transferred to the City of Tucson through an intergovernmental agreement. 3.59 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 12- Travel Demand Management Program – 4 Carpool Lots at Locations to be Determined Four lots for park-and-ride and carpool uses would be constructed at locations to be determined. The lots would each have 200 parking spaces and could be implemented as part of roadway projects. 13 – I-19 Traffic Interchanges (Drexel and Los Reales) New traffic interchanges would be constructed on I-19 for new connections at Drexel Road and Los Reales Road. Additionally, capacity and access improvements would be added on I-19, such as auxiliary lanes. Tables TR-4 separates these into three projects labeled 13 a), 13 b) and 13 c). 3.6.3 Project Phasing Growth in the study area will need to have new and expanded arterial roadways to carry traffic to activity centers in the urban area as well as within the SWIP area. Capacity projects include widening current routes, building new routes, and improving intersections of arterial roadways. The recommended transportation projects can be implemented in a prototypical seven year development cycle. This is in addition to the planning process, which can take three or more years. The first two years of the cycle are for planning and route location, and are assigned 5% of the total project cost. The third through fifth years are for project design, permitting, and clearances, and are assigned 15% of project costs. The final two years are for construction, using 80% of project capital costs. Therefore, for a project that needs to be in-place at 2020, the cycle would begin no later than 2013. Table TR-5 provides a phasing plan for the implementation of the recommended transportation projects. Note that the projects from TR-4 have been re-ordered in Table TR-5 by their anticipated finish years. 3.60 Table TR-5 Phasing Plan for Transportation Projects (Ordered by Finish Year) Map I.D. 2 3 6 8 4 5 7 9 11 12 13 1 10 n/a Project Description Camino de Oeste - New 2-lane connection to Kinney Road (Wal-Mart) Joseph Road / Mark Road - Widen to 4 lanes from Ajo Highway to Los Reales Valhalla Road - Extension from Valencia Road to Drexel Road (2 lanes) San Joaquin Road - Extension south of Ajo Highway to Los Reales (4 lanes) Irvington Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) Drexel Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) 2 Valencia Road - Widen to 6 lanes from Ajo Highway to Mark Road San Joaquin Road - Widen to 4 lanes from Ajo Highway north to Sandario Public Transit Service - Capital Costs Travel Demand Management Program - 4 Carpool Lots at Locations to be Determined 3 a) Interchange I-19 at Drexel c) Interchange Auxiliary Lanes / Capacity 3 b) Interchange I-19 at Los Reales 1 a) Ajo Highway - Widen two additional lanes b) Ajo Highway - Three grade separations at locations to be determined Los Reales - Construct 4-lane arterial from San Joaquin to I-19 Current Projects Requiring Additional Funding Totals Average Total Project Cost per Lane Mile New EDUs in Benefit Area Estimated Costs Per EDU Estimated Planning Cost Start Design Cost Start Construction Start Total Costs (5%) Year (15%) Year Cost (80%) Year $7,920,000 $396,000 2008 $1,188,000 2010 $6,336,000 2013 $29,304,000 $1,465,200 2010 $4,395,600 2012 $23,443,200 2015 $3,960,000 $198,000 2010 $594,000 2012 $3,168,000 2015 $30,096,000 $1,504,800 2010 $4,514,400 2012 $24,076,800 2015 $40,000,000 $2,000,000 2015 $6,000,000 2017 $32,000,000 2020 $60,000,000 $3,000,000 2015 $9,000,000 2017 $48,000,000 2020 $45,540,000 $2,277,000 2015 $6,831,000 2017 $36,432,000 2020 $57,816,000 $2,890,800 2015 $8,672,400 2017 $46,252,800 2020 $19,063,000 $953,150 2015 $2,859,450 2017 $15,250,400 2020 $5,200,000 $260,000 2015 $780,000 2017 $4,160,000 2020 $10,000,000 $500,000 2015 $1,500,000 2017 $8,000,000 2020 $20,790,000 $1,039,500 2015 $3,118,500 2017 $16,632,000 2020 $10,000,000 $500,000 2020 $1,500,000 2022 $8,000,000 2025 $57,420,000 $2,871,000 2020 $8,613,000 2022 $45,936,000 2025 $60,000,000 $3,000,000 2020 $9,000,000 2022 $48,000,000 2025 $48,312,000 $2,415,600 2020 $7,246,800 2022 $38,649,600 2025 Costs Evenly Distributed from 2010 to 2029 $80,041,000 $25,271,050 $75,813,150 $404,336,800 $585,462,000 Finish Year 2015 2017 2017 2017 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2027 2027 2027 2027 2029 $1,980,000 28,699 $20,400 Notes 1 - Propose 6 lane parkway from Sandario Road to Kinney and 8 lanes from Kinney to I-19. Ajo Highway data assumes that ADOT is funding construction of all other Ajo Highway improvements and these costs do not need to be included in this tabular summary 2 - Calculation for Project No. 7 on Valencia Road assumes that roadway will widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes and that only 2 new lanes will be constructed. Calculations for all other projects assume that the entire new roadway will be constructed 3 - Assumes $40M for each interchange with a 25% cost allocation to the SWIP area Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-5 Title Phasing Plan for Transportation Projects Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 3.7 OTHER SERVICES As possible, other service providers in the SWIP area provided their currently anticipated future servicing plans. These plans are continuously evolving, and are provided for general information purposes. Changing contextual conditions, development patterns and timelines, customer preferences, governmental and regulatory processes, and funding availability (among other variables) may considerably alter the plans as described below. 3.7.1 Future Plans for Other Services Fire Districts: Drexel Heights: A new facility located within Block 14 of Star Valley, near Wade and Los Reales, is currently in the engineering phase of development. It would be desired by the District if a station could be located within the Pomegranate development along West Valencia Road. This would be dependent upon the population growth within the area. Three Points: The Fire District owns approximately 5.69 acres located at the northwest corner of West Ajo Highway and Sandario Road, which will be developed by the District if the population growth justifies. A 29.67-acre site located in the northeast corner of West Ajo Highway and Sandario Road, currently owned by the Arizona Board of Regents, may also be considered a potential future site within the five to ten year plan. Pima County Libraries The most immediate need according to Tucson-Pima Public Library Administration is to replace this existing facility with a larger facility of at least 15,000 square feet. This need has been included in the County’s 2008 Bond Election Proposal. The administration recommends a 3mile service area for new library facilities. Considering the projected growth in the area, library administration anticipates the need for land to accommodate at least two new facilities planned for a minimum of 15,000 square feet with potential expansion to 20,000 square feet. The administration anticipates the vicinity of the Ajo / Valencia intersection as an ideal location for a future facility. Location within a master-planned community, such as those currently in the planning stages in the western region of the study area may also be considered as ideal locations. Pima County staff indicated that these needs could be partially met with the inclusion of a library in the proposed government service center discussed below. Pima County Government Service Center Pima County has developed a conceptual template and plan for government service centers / complexes / campuses intended for outlying areas such as Picture Rocks, Vail, and the Catalina area. One such government service center has been assumed for the SWIP area, containing a library, Sheriff’s sub-station, and community center. The cost for this project is estimated at $19,000,000 based upon recent estimates for the Vail project. 3.61 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 School Districts Tucson Unified School District (TUSD): Although recent building permit data reflects a downward trend, this will change as planned developments increase permit activity over the coming years. Using typical student generation rates, the District anticipates 1,500 new students (district-wide) per year over, at least, the next few years. Many of the schools that will be experiencing an increase in the number of students are already in an over-capacity situation. New legislation designed to equalize school funding limits the District’s ability to construct schools for new development. Given that voter-approved bonds are no longer used for school construction, decisions regarding new construction fall within the authority of the School Facilities Board (SFB). The SFB does not provide funding for new facilities until every school within the district is filled to capacity based upon SFB standards. In virtually every case, these standards lead to schools that are considered too small by TUSD standards, as well as school staff and parents of children attending the schools. Additionally, the available capacity is typically not located in areas experiencing new development. In the past ten (10) years, TUSD has constructed two elementary schools in the areas west of Mission Road. An existing bond program will provide one additional middle school, one elementary school, and additions to other existing schools. According to preliminary TUSD studies, the District will still need to provide at least one other additional elementary school, and numerous additions to existing facilities. Map O-1 also depicts vacant TUSD-owned properties which are likely to be used for future school facility development. The cost of a new school facility ranges from $15,000 to $27,000 per student depending upon the grade-level of the facility. Additions to existing facilities typically cost between $5,000 and $9,000 per student assuming the common areas in the facility have remaining capacity. These figures translate to approximately $10,000 per housing unit for new facilities, and $3,500 per housing unit for facility additions. TUSD is also planning a new “green” transportation facility near the southeast corner of Valencia Way and Cardinal Ave. It will be designed to initially accommodate up to 62 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, and may also be used for alternative fuel related engineering magnet classes and vocational and technical education curricula. The facility is expected to serve as a model of energy efficiency and low impact design. The goal is for the facility to meet LEED™ Silver specifications. Altar Valley School District: The district anticipates the need for two new school facilities in the area, likely by the year 2010 or 2011. It anticipates that these facilities will be necessitated by the development of currently planned master-planned communities. The School Facilities Board projects new home occupancies within the school district to total approximately 1,470 by 2014. Although the school district currently does not own land for school site development within the study area, it is likely that a K-8 school facility designed to initially accommodate 350 to 400 students will be constructed within the proposed Montecito development along Valencia Road. There is potential for such facility to expand in order to accommodate up to 850-900 students. 3.62 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan The Southwest Infrastructure Plan May 9, 2007 Natural Gas Plans for future high-pressure feeder expansion by SWG were not available at the time of this study. Similarly, El Paso Natural Gas is currently planning for additional pipelines and facilities within the study area; however, plans were not yet available at the time of this study. Electrical Power Southwest Transmission Cooperative (SWTC) and Central Arizona Project (CAP): At the time of this study, plans for new CAP facilities were not available. SWTC’s proposed 115 kV lines and substations are illustrated on Map O-1. Also of relevance is a SWTC 345 kV substation just outside the study area, which is required to supply electrical power to the area. Tucson Electric Power (TEP): TEP is evaluating corridor options along Valencia Road from the existing line at the West branch of the Santa Cruz westwards towards a proposed substation on the south side of the West Ajo Highway across from the Ryan Airfield. This is shown on Map O1. A proposed substation is also being evaluated for a site on the south side of West Ajo Highway near its intersection with Irvington Road. Another proposed corridor under evaluation is located along the east side of Sandario Road from beyond the northern boundary of the study area extending south to Snyder Hill Road, and west Snyder Hill Road. TEP is also evaluating a proposed corridor extending north from approximately Irvington Road and generally west of the La Cholla Boulevard alignment to beyond the northern boundary of the study area. TRICO Electric: The SWTC substations serve TRICO loads. At the time of this study plans for the new TRICO distribution facilities were not available. Water Tucson Water’s Capital Improvement Projects are illustrated on Map O-2. This map contains currently planned 5-year and 10-year projects and anticipated dates of construction. 3.63 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.0 Opinions of Probable Cost 4.1 OVERVIEW OF PROBABLE COSTS The provided opinions of probable cost are based on the following assumptions: • • • • 4.2 Project capital costs are provided for planning purposes only in the form of 2007 dollar "probable estimates" which include all project components and necessary contingencies for non-described items Stated opinions of probable capital costs will probably each range anywhere from +/50% to +/- 20% of declared capital costs. The overall program of projects will aggregate these costs, some of which will be over-estimates and some of which will be underestimates resulting in a total approximating the sum of the "probable estimates" Operation and maintenance (O&M) items are not capital expenditures and are mentioned for informational uses only – they have not been rolled up in any summary numbers since they are handled on a yearly basis by the tax revenue derived operating budgets of the County Existing facilities are in operable and good to excellent condition - no capital costs are included for rehabilitation due to potential deteriorated conditions of the facilities FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE COSTS Opinion of probable costs has been analyzed as either stormwater conveyance and attenuation facilities or roadway drainage structures. 4.2.1 Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance Seven regional flood control basins have been proposed within the SWIP study area. The stormwater facilities are located on public lands, private lands, and Pascua Yaqui Tribal lands. The regional stormwater basins are anticipated to be either multi-use facilities or flood control only facilities. Within the SWIP study, land acquisition costs associated with the regional facilities has been assumed at $16,000 per acre, regardless of current ownership. Regional Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are proposed as flood control only facilities; therefore, design, construction, maintenance, and operations of these facilities will lie with the Pima County Regional Flood Control District. Regional Basins 6 and 7 will likely include multi-use facilities incorporating various park amenities; therefore, design, construction, maintenance, and operations will likely rest with both the Regional Flood Control District and the Pima County Parks & Recreation Department. Opinion of probable costs for the seven regional detention basins has been estimated at approximately $40,000,000. Probable costs associated with the regional stormwater basins are included as Table H-5, Probable Capital Costs for Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance. 4.1 Table H-5 Probable Capital Costs for Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance Land Acquisition/ Rights-of-Way 1 Easements 2 Earthwork/ Excavation 3 Drainage Structures 4 Design (15%) Contingencies (25%) Total Basin 2 Basin 35 $1,472,000 $3,488,000 $96,000 N/A N/A N/A $2,684,500 $6,357,000 $175,500 $268,500 $635,700 $17,600 $663,800 $1,572,100 $43,400 $1,272,200 $3,013,200 $83,100 $6,361,000 $15,066,000 $415,600 Basin 45 $576,000 N/A $1,163,500 $116,400 $278,400 $533,600 $2,667,900 Basin 55 $1,152,000 $2,896,000 $1,200,000 N/A N/A N/A $2,099,500 $2,099,500 $845,000 $210,000 $210,000 $84,500 $519,200 $780,800 $319,400 $995,200 $1,496,600 $612,200 $4,975,900 $7,482,900 $3,061,100 $1,360,000 $28,000 $2,119,000 $211,900 $553,600 $1,061,100 $5,305,600 $12,240,000 $28,000 $17,543,500 $1,754,600 $4,730,700 $9,067,200 $45,336,000 Facility Basin 15 Basin 6 Basin 76 Channels (Sections 1 & 2) Total Notes Basins 1 and 2 are included within the Pima County 2008 Draft Bond Program Project Requests Results include flood control costs only 1 - Based on $16,000 / acre 2 - Based on $4,000 / acre 3 - Based on $6,500 / acre-foot ($4 / cubic yard) 4 - Estimated at 10% of Earthwork/Excavation (includes potential inlets/outlets, structures, rip-rap, erosion control) 5 - Pascua Yaqui Tribe property 6 - Private property Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. H-5 Title Costs for Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 Land Acquisition for Drainage Corridors Land acquisition has been divided into lands purchased for riparian habitat preservation (natural drainage corridors) and lands purchased for engineered flood control structures (collector / conveyor channel). Natural / Riparian Flood Corridor: The complex networks of braided channels throughout the Black Wash basin offer both the opportunity to provide critical wildlife habitat and connectivity as well as formation of a flood control corridor similar to a designated floodway (Greenway). Currently, the Pima County Regional Flood Control District is in the process of acquiring floodprone lands adjacent to the Black Wash. Land purchases have been achieved via the Floodprone Land Acquisition Program (FLAP); therefore, land acquisition costs associated with preserving the Black Wash drainage corridors, or Greenways, has not been included within this section. Engineered Collector / Conveyor Channel: Approximately 18,500 linear feet of collector / conveyor channel has been proposed to intercept discharges within the upstream portion of the study area. The proposed collector channel would be located along the southern boundary of Section 19, T15S, R12E, and a portion of Section 24, T15S, R11E (Hermans Road alignment). The downstream conveyor channel would be located along the western boundary of Section 19 and would convey peak discharges associated with the one in 100-year storm to Regional Basin 7. The proposed collector / conveyor has been conceptually designed with the intent of minimizing drainage expenditures associated with rip-rap, soil cement, concrete, or other channel armoring techniques. However, due to potential one in 100-year peak discharges ranging between 4,500 cfs to 6,000 cfs, “structural” channel treatment alternatives are anticipated at critical channel segments such as points of runoff interception, channel bends, and channel confluences. Land acquisition associated with the 18,500 linear foot channel has been assumed at $16,000 / acre. It has also been assumed that a 16-foot maintenance easement may also be required along the length of the drainage way; therefore, acquiring an easement adjacent to the drainage way has been assumed at $4,000 / acre. Similar to regional stormwater facilities, probable costs for earthwork / excavation has been established at $6,500 / acre-foot, drainage structure costs at 10% of earthwork / excavation costs, design costs at 15% of earthwork costs, and contingencies at 25% of total costs. Probable costs associated with Channel Section 1 and 2 have been calculated at approximately $5,300,000. Opinion of probable costs associated with Channel Section 1 and 2 are included within Table H-5, Probable Capital Costs for Stormwater Attenuation and Conveyance. 4.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.2.2 Roadway Drainage Crossings Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts (RCBC) The complex drainage network consisting of braided channels and large areas of sheet flooding throughout the Black Wash watershed results in frequent road closures of many major roadways including Valencia Road and Camino Verde. Providing all-weather access along the major transportation corridors, both existing and proposed, is an essential element of the SWIP. Major transportation corridors, both existing and proposed, identified as requiring all-weather crossings include: Ajo Highway, North San Joaquin Road, Valencia Road, Camino Verde, Mark Road, Valhalla Road, Drexel Road, and South San Joaquin Road. As previously noted, a potential exception is Valhalla Road between Valencia Road and the Drexel Road extension. The crossings at the Black Wash and Snyder Hills Wash could potentially be designed for smaller, more frequent storm events. No land acquisition needs are assumed for the proposed all-weather drainage crossings. Land acquisition requirements are assumed part of transportation design element (rights-of-way). Currently, Ajo Highway is the only transportation corridor that includes roadway crossings that provide some measure of all-weather access. However, the existing culverts have capacity to convey approximately the 10-year to 25-year storm events. Within the SWIP study, thirty-eight roadway crossings have been identified as either new or improved drainage structures. New or improved drainage structures have been conceptually designed to convey the one in 100-year storm event. A one in 100-year peak discharge of 1,000 cfs was the minimum threshold for all-weather access consideration. The all-weather crossings recommended within this study are primarily grouped to coincide with the proposed transportation roadway improvements. Ajo Highway: Roadway improvements along Ajo Highway include a six lane parkway from Sandario Road to Interstate-19. For this transportation segment, seven drainage structures are identified as having one in 100-year peak discharges of 1,000 cfs or greater and require new or improved drainage crossings. Note that there are two bridge sections on Ajo Highway over the Black Wash and Snyder Hills Wash that are assumed “all-weather” and have therefore not been analyzed within this study. Probable costs associated with the seven Ajo Highway new or improved drainage structures have been projected at $16,500,000. Opinions of probable costs associated with the roadway drainage crossings are included within Table H-6, Probable Capital Costs for Roadway Drainage Crossings. Valencia Road: A second transportation improvement element is the Valencia Road widening from Ajo Highway to Mark Road. Along this roadway segment, seven points of concentration have been identified as having one in 100-year peak discharges of 1,000 cfs or greater and require drainage structure crossings. The proposed drainage crossing vary from four 10’ x 5’ RCBC’s (Q100=1,370 cfs) to twelve 12’ x 5’ RCBC’s (Q100=5,407 cfs). Probable costs associated 4.3 Table H-6 Probable Capital Costs for Roadway Drainage Crossings Crossing Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Description (5) 10' x 5' x 110' RCBC's (18) 10' x 5' x 110' RCBC's (5) 10' x 4' x 110' RCBC's (15) 10' x 5' x 110' RCBC's (7) 10' x 4' x 110' RCBC's (5) 10' x 4' x 110' RCBC's (15) 10' x 5' x 110' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 135' RCBC's (5) 10' x 5' x 135' RCBC's (6) 10' x 4' x 135' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 135' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 135' RCBC's (4) 12' x 4' x 135' RCBC's (12) 12' x 5' 135' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (5) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (5) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (6) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (3) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (10) 10' x 6' x 100' RCBC's (9) 12' x 7' x 50' RCBC's (5) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's (4) 10 x 4' x 50' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's Potential Bridge Site Potential Bridge Site (7) 12' x 6' x 100' RCBC's Potential Bridge Site (5) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 100' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's (4) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's (12) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's (7) 10' x 6' x 100' RCBC's (3) 10' x 5' x 50' RCBC's Total Earthwork & Excavation $4,100 $14,700 $3,300 $12,300 $4,600 $3,300 $12,300 $12,000 $5,000 $4,800 $12,000 $4,000 $3,900 $14,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,700 $3,700 $4,500 $2,200 $8,900 $5,600 $1,900 $1,200 $1,500 $4,500 $1,500 $1,500 $7,500 $1,500 $3,700 $3,000 $8,900 $4,500 $1,500 $4,500 $6,200 $1,400 $200,200 Drainage Structures $825,000 $2,970,000 $770,000 $2,475,000 $1,078,000 $770,000 $2,475,000 $2,430,000 $1,012,500 $1,134,000 $2,430,000 $810,000 $864,000 $2,754,000 $600,000 $600,000 $750,000 $750,000 $900,000 $450,000 $1,600,000 $855,000 $375,000 $280,000 $300,000 $900,000 $1,700,000 $2,000,000 $1,260,000 $2,000,000 $750,000 $600,000 $1,800,000 $900,000 $300,000 $900,000 $1,120,000 $225,000 $44,712,500 Design (15%) $124,400 $447,700 $116,000 $373,100 $162,400 $116,000 $373,100 $366,300 $152,600 $170,800 $366,300 $122,100 $130,200 $415,300 $90,500 $90,500 $113,100 $113,100 $135,700 $67,800 $241,300 $129,100 $56,500 $42,200 $45,200 $135,700 $255,200 $300,200 $190,100 $300,200 $113,100 $90,500 $271,300 $135,700 $45,200 $135,700 $168,900 $34,000 $6,737,100 Contingency (25%) $238,400 $858,100 $222,300 $715,100 $311,300 $222,300 $715,100 $702,100 $292,500 $327,400 $702,100 $234,000 $249,500 $796,000 $173,400 $173,400 $216,700 $216,700 $260,100 $130,000 $462,600 $247,400 $108,400 $80,900 $86,700 $260,100 $489,200 $575,400 $364,400 $575,400 $216,700 $173,400 $520,100 $260,100 $86,700 $260,100 $323,800 $65,100 $12,913,000 Total $1,191,900 $4,290,500 $1,111,600 $3,575,500 $1,556,300 $1,111,600 $3,575,500 $3,510,400 $1,462,600 $1,637,000 $3,510,400 $1,170,100 $1,247,600 $3,979,800 $866,900 $866,900 $1,083,500 $1,083,500 $1,300,300 $650,000 $2,312,800 $1,237,100 $541,800 $404,300 $433,400 $1,300,300 $2,445,900 $2,877,100 $1,822,000 $2,877,100 $1,083,500 $866,900 $2,600,300 $1,300,300 $433,400 $1,300,300 $1,618,900 $325,500 $64,562,800 Pima County Public Works Notes Land acquisition costs assumed to be part of transportation design/concept element costs Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. H-6 Title Costs for Roadway Drainage Crossings Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 with the seven drainage structures proposed along Valencia Road have been estimated at $16,500,000. Camino Verde: Camino Verde has not been identified as a transportation improvement element within the SWIP; however, the approximate two-mile segment of road from Ajo Highway south to Valencia Road experiences significant flooding following storm events. Five drainage crossings have been identified where one in 100-year peak discharges are equal to 1,000 cfs or greater. All-weather access can be provided via structures ranging from 4-10’ x 4’ RCBC’s to 9-12’ x 7’ RCBC’s. One in 100-year peak discharges vary from 1,061 cfs to 5,400 cfs, respectively. Opinion of probable cost associated with the Camino Verde drainage improvements are estimated at $3,900,000. Drexel Road: Drexel Road is proposed to be widened and extended from Ajo Highway to Mission Road. In conjunction with this transportation improvement element, two drainage crossings are proposed for critical all-weather access. The two drainage crossings with one in 100-year peak discharges in excess of 1,000 cfs will include 4-10’ x 5’ RCBC’s to convey 1,123 cfs and 12-10’ x 5’ RCBC’s to convey 3,992 cfs. Opinion of probable cost for the Drexel Road drainage crossings is approximately $1,700,000. Valhalla Road Extension: A fifth transportation improvement element is the Valhalla Road extension between Drexel Road and Valencia Road. Three points of concentration have been identified as having one in 100-year peak discharges of 1,000 cfs or greater. The one in 100year peak discharges range from 3,748 cfs to 6,878 cfs. The proposed Valhalla Road extension will traverse the Black Wash and Snyder Hills Wash; therefore, two of the three crossings will likely require bridge sections similar to the bridges at Ajo Highway (just downstream of the Valhalla Road extension). Potentially, the two bridge crossings could be omitted and replaced with less expensive crossings designed to convey the smaller, more frequent storm events, if directed by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District. Probable cost associated with a seven-cell RCBC and two bridge sections along Valhalla Road are estimated at $7,000,000. San Joaquin Road: Widening San Joaquin Road from Ajo Highway north to Sandario Road is also proposed within the transportation improvements. Along this roadway corridor, one in 100year peak discharges of 1,000 cfs or greater have been identified at seven drainage crossings. One in 100-year peak discharges vary from 1,000 cfs to 4,788 cfs. Probable cost associated with seven all-weather RCBC’s along San Joaquin Road are estimated at $5,200,000. San Joaquin Road is also proposed to be widened and extended south to Los Reales Road. Four points of concentration have been identified as having one in 100-year peak discharges of 1,000 cfs or greater. In order to meet all-weather access, three box culvert crossings and one potential bridge crossing has been proposed. The proposed bridge crossing will traverse the Black Wash. Note that the bridge crossing could be omitted and substituted with a less expensive crossing designed to convey smaller more frequent storm events if opted for by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District. One in 100-year peak discharges vary from 1,123 cfs (4-10’ x 5’ RCBC’s) to 6,496 cfs (potential bridge location). The San Joaquin Road probable cost associated with four all-weather crossings are estimated at $4,000,000. 4.4 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 Other Drainage Crossings: In addition to the roadway crossings identified above, three other drainage crossings have been proposed in conjunction with transportation improvements or critical all-weather access points. One proposed crossing is on Mark Road just north of the Los Reales alignment. Currently, the one in 100-year peak discharge at this location is 3,926 cfs. 12-10’ x 5’ RCBC’s are proposed at this crossing to provide all-weather access. A second drainage crossing improvement is at Irvington Road, between Ajo highway and Sunset Boulevard. 7-10’ x 6’ RCBC’s are proposed at this location to convey the one in 100-year peak discharge of 3,273 cfs. The third drainage crossing is located along Calle Don Miguel, west of Camino De Oeste. The one in 100-year peak discharge at this location is 1,000 cfs. 3-10’ x 5’ RCBC’s can provide all-weather access at this location. Probable costs associated with the Mark Road, Irvington Road, and Calle Don Miguel drainage crossings are estimated at $1,300,000, $1,600,000, and $325,500, respectively. Design Considerations / Contingencies Opinion of probable costs relating to design and engineering of the stormwater conveyance system, stormwater attenuation facilities, and roadway drainage crossing structures has been estimated at 15% of the construction costs. Due to the conceptual level of the SWIP study, 25% contingencies have been assumed in conjunction with the proposed flood control facilities. 4.5 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.3 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COSTS Costs have been broken down into wastewater treatment and collection / conveyance categories. All of the planning-level purpose costs presented herein are present values as of the year 2007. 4.3.1 Future Treatment and Conveyance System Unit Costs Unit costs for future wastewater treatment and conveyance system components include: • • • 4.3.2 An acceptable and proven “rule of thumb” unit cost ranging from $12.50 to $15.00 per gallon of treated ADWF was used to estimate capital costs for new treatment facilities Environmental permitting costs was estimated as 1% of the capital costs The assumed unit costs for various sizes of pipes were (assuming an average depth of cover of ten feet) 12-inch diameter at $149 / foot, 15-inch diameter at $155 / foot, 18inch diameter at $161 / foot, 24-inch diameter at $183 / foot, 30-inch diameter at $213 / foot, and 36-inch diameter at $243 / foot. Probable Costs for Conveyance System The existing conveyance system must be both expanded (strategically extended in length to reach and service new growth areas) and augmented (by twinning pipes along existing backbone sewers alignments) to support the various levels of anticipated future growth. Pima County staff members have indicated that the costs associated with expanding and augmenting new trunk sewers to support private developments are and will be paid in the entirety by private developers through various means. As such, Pima County is only responsible for costs spent to remedy capacity and / or condition deficits in the existing sewer network. With the existing network meeting the demands of current flows, no conveyance costs are anticipated to accrue to Pima County. The identified bottlenecks could be investigated in detail to examine whether or not a surgical O&M based improvement is warranted. Two capital costs are provided for each growth scenario. One cost reflects the needs to expand the backbone, or trunk sewer conveyance system, into new service areas while the other cost reflects the augmentation needs related to twinning existing trunk sewers. Table W-5 displays these costs. 4.3.3 Probable Costs for Septic System Conversions This study identified three potential areas for conversion of existing septic field systems to gravity sewer servicing. The locations of these areas are shown on Map W-4. For Location 1 (T14S, R12E, Section 30) and Location 2 (T15S, R12E, Section 2), current development densities are higher than the minimum threshold suitable for continued servicing with septic field systems. The conversion to gravity sewer servicing for these two areas will be contingent upon an emerging trend of septic field failures. For Location 3 (T14S, R12, Section 34), the current 4.6 Table W-5 Probable Capital Costs for Conveyance System Scenario and Type of Project Capital Costs Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Notes Lower Density Scenario Augmented New Trunks Trunks $4,949,000 $9,208,000 $24,000 $54,100 Medium Density Scenario Augmented New Trunks Trunks $5,914,000 $14,184,000 $25,900 $81,700 Higher Density Scenario Augmented New Trunks Trunks $5,990,000 $15,705,000 $25,900 $85,000 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-5 Title Probable Capital Costs for Conveyance System Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 development density is low enough to justify continued use of septic field systems. However, under the higher density growth scenario, this area should transition to gravity sewer servicing. The probable costs associated with these conversion projects are presented in Table W-6. The costs include the probable connection costs, septic system closure costs, and construction costs to collect wastewater from the existing lots and convey it to the nearest interceptors. 4.3.4 Probable Costs for Required Treatment Capacity Under the proposed 4.0 MGD expansion, the tertiary filtration and disinfection systems will be equipped to handle an ADWF of 4.0 MGD and produce Class A+ effluent. PCWMD has included within its CIP documents a capital budget of $44,900,000 for the currently proposed 4.0 MGD expansion, equivalent to a treatment unit cost of $11.23 per gallon. These existing funds are notably excluded from the probable SWIP costs, however the probable SWIP costs and subsequent financial analysis contain an additional funding allowance related to this project to reflect the higher assumed treatment unit costs which range from $12.50 to $15.00 per gallon of treated ADWF. As shown in Table W-4, a total capacity of 6.5 MGD is required to support the lower density scenario, while a total capacity of 9.5 MGD is required to support the medium density scenario, and a total capacity of 12.0 MGD is anticipated for the higher density scenario. Opinions of probable capital costs for these scenarios are listed in Table W-7 along with probable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Assuming the land currently owned by Pima County adjacent to the existing Avra Valley WWTF can be used for the future expansion, no cost components for land acquisition are required. As indicated by Pima County staff, treatment capacity expansion costs will be derived from connection fees, while O&M costs will be paid by user fees. 4.3.5 Probable Costs for Effluent Disposal The probable costs for effluent utilization were developed based on three options. The first option assumed 100% of the treated effluent is recharged using on-site percolation ponds. The second option used a combination of percolation ponds and riparian restoration. The third option maximized urban re-uses in combination with either percolation or both percolation and habitat restoration. Under option three, three major regional parks were included. Table W-8 outlines the anticipated capital and O&M costs for the proposed effluent utilization scheme, while Table W-9 provides additional details for the urban re-uses in particular. 4.7 Table W-6 Probable Capital Costs for Septic System Conversions Locations Capital Costs 1 T14S, R12E, Section 30 $5,947,000 2 T15S, R12E, Section 2 $4,347,000 Notes 3 T14S, R12, Section 34 $2,903,000 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Locations 1 and 2 converted under all development scenarios Table No. Location 3 only converted under Higher Density development scenario W-6 Title Probable Capital Costs for Septic System Conversions Table W-7 Probable Capital Costs for Wastewater Treatment Scenario Capital Costs Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Lower Density Scenario $37,200,000 - $53,400,000 $3,227,000 Medium Density Scenario $75,000,000 - $98,800,000 $4,716,000 Notes Higher Density Scenario $106,600,000 - $136,600,000 $5,957,000 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Assumes probable treatment costs will range from $12.50 to $15.00 per treated gallon Table No. Costs do not include the $44,900,000 which has been allocated to the 4.0 MGD expansion from the 2004 Bond Program W-7 Existing oxidation ditch was designed as a temporary facility which needs to be eventually replaced Probable Capital Costs for Wastewater Treatment Title Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Lower Density Scenario does not produce enough effluent to irrigate all the proposed major park sites, therefore the largest park site was selected Existing percolation ponds have a reliable or firm area of 25.6 acres - this accounts for one of the large ponds (13.8 acres) being temporarily offline or otherwise out of service Table No. W-8 Title Probable Capital Costs for Effluent Utilization Table W-9 Details of Probable Capital Costs for Urban Re-uses Project Components North San Joaquin Road Site (5.0 MGD) South Ryan Park Site (2.0 MGD) Valencia and Mark Site (2.5 MGD) Total for Three Sites Transport Treated Effluent to Site Provide On-site Storage Capital Costs Sub-totals Annual O&M Costs $1,400,000 $550,000 $1,950,000 $128,000 $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 $60,000 $2,650,000 $300,000 $2,950,000 $130,000 $5,800,000 $1,100,000 $6,900,000 $318,000 Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. W-9 Title Details of Probable Capital Costs for Urban Re-uses Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.3.6 Summary of Wastewater Capital Costs Table W-10 provides a summary of the SWIP-related wastewater capital projects to be funded by Pima County (that is, developer-borne conveyance costs have been omitted), which depending upon the density scenario represents a range of total approximate cost between $49,883,000 and $165,067,000 in today’s dollars. This wastewater capital cost cannot be divided by the number of anticipated connections and compared to the current connection fee which spreads a wide variety of system-wide wastewater management costs over the entire Pima County wastewater system operation. The current connection fee is currently increasing via a series of four 6% increases from $178.89 per fixture unit equivalent to $213.06 per fixture unit equivalent between December 31, 2006 and January 2008. 4.8 Table W-10 Summary of Pima County Funded SWIP-Related Wastewater Capital Costs Project Type Cost Type Wastewater Treatment (Avra Valley WWTF Upgrades) Capital Capital Effluent Utilization Capital Potential Septic System Conversions Opinion of Total Probable Wastewater Costs Lower Density Scenario $37,200,000 - $53,400,000 $2,389,000 - $4,400,000 $10,294,000 $49,883,000 - $68,094,000 Medium Density Scenario $75,000,000 - $98,800,000 $5,370,000 - $12,289,000 $10,294,000 $90,664,000 - $121,383,000 Notes Higher Density Scenario $106,600,000 - $136,600,000 $7,855,000 - $15,270,000 $13,197,000 $127,652,000 - $165,067,000 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Treatment costs vary with assumed unit cost per treated gallon as per Table W-7 Table No. Effluent utilization costs vary with solution selected as per Table W-8 W-10 Capital costs to increase conveyance system capacities as required will accrue to land developers and do not enter into Pima County’s Capital Improvement Plans Summary of Wastewater Management Capital Costs Title Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.4 PARKS AND RECREATION COSTS Table PR-6 lists information on location, name, park type and the range of estimated construction costs for the proposed future park site sizes. The total predicted cost for just over 2,000 acres of new and / or expanded parks ranges between $62,060,000 and $96,771,000. 4.5 TRANSPORTATION COSTS Prior sections contained Table TR-4, which provided a summary of the transportation capital projects to be funded, which represents a total approximate cost of $585,462,000 in 2007 dollars. Similarly, Table TR-5 provided a further level of detail by breaking down project costs into their development cycle components. Table TR-5a consolidates a number of overlapping projects, summarizes and updates the project information from Tables TR-3a and TR-3b, and documents the composition of the $80,041,000 in funding which is estimated to be required for current projects. 4.5.1 Basis of Transportation Unit Costs For these proposed transportation capital projects, an average total project cost per lane mile of $1,980,000 was used based on a review of costs of twenty-one recently completed roadway projects in Pima County, including right-of-way and planning and design project costs. Table TR-6 contains the collected cost per lane mile statistics for these projects. This average total project cost was applied to each project and multiplied by the number of lane-miles to be constructed or reconstructed. With the exception of the Valencia Road project (Project No. 7), the calculations of costs for the roadway projects assume that the entire new roadway will be constructed. For the Valencia Road project, the assumption is that the roadway will go from four lanes to six lanes and that only two new lanes will be constructed. 4.5.2 Transportation Costs per EDU An equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) is the amount of traffic impact created by a single family home. The approximate and preliminary fee per EDU (assuming the presence of 28,699 EDU in the SWIP area under the medium density scenario) is $20,400 per EDU. For reference purposes, the County’s current fee per EDU is $4,400. 4.9 Table TR-5a Additional Funding Required for Planned and Programmed Projects Funding Project Component Description Sponsor Cost Valencia Road - Ajo Highway to Mark Road Ajo Highway to Mt. Eagle Road Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $14,000 Mt. Eagle Road to Wade Road Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $16,000 Wade Road to Mark Road Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $20,000 Project Subtotal $50,000 Valencia Road - Mark Road to Camino de la Tierra Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $20,498 Valencia Road - Mark Road to Mission Road Widen to 6 lanes Pima County $25,100 Valencia Road - Mission Road to I-19 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Pima County $18,225 Ajo Highway - Sandario Road to Valencia Widen to 4 lanes ADOT $34,000 Ajo Highway - Valencia to Kinney Road Widen to 4 lanes ADOT $17,600 Ajo Highway - Kinney Road to Mission Road Widen to 6 lanes ADOT $18,000 Ajo Highway - Mission Road to I-19 Widen to 6 lanes ADOT $65,000 Camino de Oeste - Calle Torin to Valencia Widen to 3 lanes Pascua Yaqui $8,500 Ignacio Bumea Road - Los Reales to Valencia Build new 2 lane roadway Pascua Yaqui $5,000 Drexel Road - Mission Road to I-19 Drexel Road - Mission Road to I-19 Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $17,600 Midvale Park to Calle Santa Cruz New 2 lane road + bridge Tucson $16,500 Project Subtotal $34,100 Irvington Road - Ajo Way to Joseph Road New 2 lane road Pima County $25,100 Kinney Road - Ajo Way to Tucson Estates Ajo Way to Bopp/Sarasota Road Widen to 4 lanes Pima County $22,000 $9,010 Sarasota to Tucson Estates Widen to 4 lanes Pima County Project Subtotal $31,010 Totals $352,133 County HURF Bonds County HURF County DIF RTA Other ADOT City of Tucson Pascua Yaqui $0 $3,130 $0 $0 $0 Unspecified Additional SWIP Funding Required $14,000 $16,000 $0 $5,800 $0 $2,364 $5,726 $34 $30,000 $9,204 $15,056 $15,056 $5,068 $4,944 $4,944 $4,944 $4,944 $25,100 $7,397 $34,000 $25,100 $7,397 $17,600 $18,000 $65,000 $8,500 $5,000 $0 $7,000 $0 $3,800 $3,800 $22,326 $0 $0 $7,000 $10,000 $0 $2,397 $10,000 $49,204 $0 $22,056 $0 $0 $6,400 $1,800 $6,400 $14,598 $1,800 $19,400 $0 $0 $17,600 $16,500 $34,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,010 $9,010 $211,051 $8,500 $17,600 $16,500 $34,100 $0 $80,041 Pima County Public Works Notes Funding Amounts Expressed in Thousands of Dollars ($ 000) Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-5a Title Additional Funding Required for Planned and Programmed Projects Table TR-6 Recently Completed Roadway Project Costs Project River Road: First to Campbell Ave Sunrise Drive: Swan to Craycroft River Road: La Cholla Blvd. to La Cañada Dr. River Road: Campbell to Alvernon Alvernon: Fort Lowell to River Skyline: Chula Vista to Campbel Ajo: Country Club to Alvernon Wetmore/Ruthrauff Rd: La Cholla-Fairview River Road: Thornydale Road to Shannon Road River Road: Shannon to La Cholla Thornydale Road: Orange Grove to Ina Thornydale: Ina to Cortaro Farms Catalina Highway: Tanque Verde Road to Houghton Sabino Canyon at Kolb Pistol Hill Road: Colossal Cave to Old Spanish Trail Valencia Road: South 12th Avenue Intersection S. 12th Avenue: Los Reales Road to Lerdo Road La Cholla: River to Magee Golf Links Road: Bonanza Ave. to Houghton Rd. Shannon Road: Ina to Magee First Avenue: River Rod to Orange Grove Average Costs per Lane Mile Average Costs per Lane Mile (Rounded) Notes Total Costs $21,968,507 $15,305,331 $4,629,489 $21,951,230 $7,857,753 $22,790,509 $6,758,819 $24,773,760 $9,253,622 $4,947,274 $3,052,353 $16,772,469 $9,038,915 $6,402,049 $1,712,613 $1,262,212 $6,890,131 $25,081,311 $2,701,282 $7,669,166 $15,227,125 Total Lane Project Costs Miles Total Costs Construction Costs Only Constructed w/o ROW $17,095,349 $14,746,402 6.4 $14,965,744 $12,820,665 4.8 $4,611,461 $4,481,095 5.0 $14,222,327 $10,782,403 10.0 $7,510,316 $5,878,123 2.6 $21,931,903 $16,865,541 12.0 $6,533,369 $5,399,746 5.4 $16,749,448 $13,795,287 7.2 $9,020,480 $8,507,877 5.5 $4,939,434 $4,502,743 3.6 $3,039,339 $2,769,576 1.2 $14,657,919 $12,931,776 8.0 $8,502,117 $6,061,445 6.4 $5,728,732 $5,201,897 2.0 $1,687,635 $1,563,907 4.2 $1,210,451 $1,030,344 1.6 $6,833,437 $4,812,743 3.6 $22,534,327 $18,516,036 18.0 $2,641,040 $2,128,416 2.1 $6,964,673 $6,025,947 3.6 $14,458,880 $13,231,096 7.6 Cost per Lane Mile Total Costs Construction Total Costs Costs Only w/o ROW $3,411,259 $2,654,557 $2,289,814 $3,215,406 $3,144,064 $2,693,417 $925,898 $922,292 $896,219 $2,195,123 $1,422,233 $1,078,240 $2,976,422 $2,844,817 $2,226,562 $1,899,209 $1,827,659 $1,405,462 $1,251,633 $1,209,883 $999,953 $3,440,800 $2,326,312 $1,916,012 $1,676,381 $1,634,145 $1,541,282 $1,374,243 $1,372,065 $1,250,762 $2,543,628 $2,532,783 $2,307,980 $2,096,559 $1,832,240 $1,616,472 $1,407,931 $1,324,317 $944,150 $3,201,025 $2,864,366 $2,600,949 $407,765 $401,818 $372,359 $788,883 $756,532 $643,965 $1,913,925 $1,898,177 $1,336,873 $1,393,406 $1,251,907 $1,028,669 $1,298,693 $1,269,731 $1,023,277 $2,130,324 $1,934,631 $1,673,874 $2,003,569 $1,902,484 $1,740,934 $1,978,670 $1,777,477 $1,504,154 $1,980,000 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-6 Title Recently Completed Roadway Project Costs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Opinions of Probable Cost May 9, 2007 4.6 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER DWELLING UNIT Table C-1 summarizes the total costs for each considered infrastructure type and also provides the expected range of probable costs per undeveloped dwelling unit in each growth scenario. The total cost ranges from $826.3 million to $976.2 million, while the probable costs per undeveloped dwelling unit drop from a high of $55,172 for the lower density scenario to a low of $21,817 for the higher density growth scenario. 4.10 Notes Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. C-1 Title Summary of SWIP-Related Infrastructure Costs Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 5.0 Funding Analysis Land development in Arizona is planned and approved by local municipal and county governments in accordance with Arizona state statutes. Urban infrastructure serving new development is provided by myriad entities including school districts, fire districts, local government, public and private utilities. There is often a significant time lag between land development and the arrival of the majority of a developed area’s infrastructure. During this interim period newly developed areas’ infrastructure demands can stress or even exceed local capacities. As a result, maintenance on existing infrastructure may be deferred to create financing for new infrastructure projects. The result for a region’s finances can be a constant struggle between its need for infrastructure to catch up to land development and the need to maintain existing infrastructure. This struggle can result in an overall deterioration in the quality of life for existing and future residents. The intent of this study is to recommend viable strategies for the Southwest area to develop concurrently with infrastructure improvements, and to establish a template for concurrency planning throughout the County. Tables FA-1a and FA-1b outline Pima County’s total 2006/07 adopted existing revenue sources, as well as sources of funding for the adopted Capital Funds Project for 2006/07. This data was obtained from Pima County FY 2006/2007 Adopted Budget pages 5-8 and 5-21. 5.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The SWIP area financial analysis models the infrastructure categories and capital requirements in response to the population forecasts. The challenge is to determine the optimal funding strategy that meets the needs of Pima County residents, Southwest Infrastructure Plan (SWIP) residents specifically, and enables and encourages potential developers to invest in the SWIP area. The model presented here only examines the financial impacts of infrastructure development. The model allows Pima County to determine the financial impact of policy decisions. The model does not determine policy, but should be used as a tool in policy setting and decision making in conjunction with other political, social, and environmental factors. 5.1.1 Methodology The methodology focuses on solving the infrastructure needs of the SWIP area based upon three primary forms of input: • • • Project parameters Policy constraints Growth assumptions The medium density scenario’s growth assumptions were held constant throughout this funding analysis. 5.1 Table FA-1a Existing Sources of Revenue Revenue Source Charges for Services Taxes Intergovernmental Memo Revenue Licenses & Permits Miscellaneous Interest Fines and Forfeits Special Assessment Totals 2006 / 07 as Adopted $430,412,081 $350,439,566 $299,571,012 $20,000,000 $19,705,867 $18,101,949 $9,422,527 $6,904,517 $291,456 $1,154,848,975 % of Plan 37.3% 30.3% 25.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0% Table FA-1b Existing Sources of Capital Funding Funding Source Bond Proceeds Operating Transfers Charges for Services / Impact Fees Intergovernmental Interest Miscellaneous Totals 2006 / 07 Amount $91,747,504 $28,947,600 $17,407,915 $11,881,420 $4,176,652 $1,740,695 $155,901,786 % of Plan 58.8% 18.6% 11.2% 7.6% 2.7% 1.1% 100.0% Pima County Public Works Notes Taken from: Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. Pima County FY 2006/2007 Adopted Budget pages 5-8 and 5-21 FA-1a, FA-1b Title Existing Sources of Revenue and Capital Funding Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 Each project was defined by four parameters: • • • • Capital cost in 2007 dollars Start date or population trigger Design and construction durations Capital financing sources Where capital costs were assigned a range of values to reflect an uncertainty of probable costs, the simple mid-point of the range was utilized, assuming it to be the most likely capital cost. Each project was defined in relation to its project parameters which are constrained on a macro level by policy, fiscal constraints and growth assumptions. Once all of the project parameters were selected, a corresponding solution set was generated. By adjusting different aspects of the projects’ parameters, the outputs change to create a new and different solution set. These project parameters can be adjusted in conjunction or independently. 5.1.2 Key Financial Model Assumptions Growth Funds Growth The SWIP study area will be treated as if it were its own tax district, with a self funding structure generating those financial resources required to support future infrastructure growth. In other words, the area’s residents will create an asset base for borrowing, and a tax base for debt servicing. In the financial model, this translates into a zero base assumption – currently no one lives in the undeveloped portions of the SWIP area, hence there are no taxable assets nor are there any pre-existing liabilities. This is referred to as the growth funds growth assumption. Population Drives Taxable Asset Base The only driver of taxable property was population. It was assumed that the SWIP area and the rest of Pima County will have identical ratios of net secondary taxable assets at $6,974 per person. The assumed population density of the SWIP area was 2.7 people per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). All dollar amounts are shown in real 2007 dollars. No cost escalation or time value of money assumptions were made. Balance Sheet Approach to Capital Finance The model utilized a balance sheet approach for capital finance, matching the demand for capital from infrastructure projects with viable sources. Projects were treated as finished capital assets that were funded through a series of singular, year-end financing events. It was assumed that by staying within its statutory financing limits, Pima County will always have the operating cash flow (tax revenue, fees, utility rates, agency funding) to service all outstanding debt. It was also assumed that bonds can be issued in precise dollar amounts as required with zero transaction costs. 5.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 Ongoing cash flow items that would appear on an income statement or statement of change of financial position, such as operating activities, revenue streams, debt servicing, etc., were ignored. The model does not allow for accumulated budget surpluses or annual deficits that could have an effect on balance sheet activities – “saving up” for an asset was not allowed. In reality, there will be timing issues, meaning that Pima County will likely have to provide bridge financing and leverage short-term borrowing or “save up” by accumulating surpluses to meet actual cash flow requirements. It was assumed that these short term cash flow issues will be dealt with during the normal course of Pima County’s financial activities and are outside the scope of this project. Of particular interest to the SWIP area is the potential for a Community Finance District (CFD). A CFD allows developers to issue bonds while leveraging County interest rates - typically lower than commercial interest rates - in order to advance capital funding to the County for off-site infrastructure. The developer carries and finances the debt which is secured by the CFD and its assets. Since the developer carries the debt and debt servicing burden, these bonds do not affect the County’s debt capacity. This allows early access to development impact fees and reduces the County’s bridge financing requirements. A comparison between capital financing events and cash flow events is shown in Table FA-2. Sources of capital funding can be described by two dimensions: • • Source of the capital funds Ownership of the capital asset The way these two dimensions interact defines the nature of the capital funding strategy as illustrated in Table FA-3a. Capital Financing Options The model allowed for five sources of capital funding as shown in Table FA-3b. Assumptions for Presented Solution Set The presented solution set which follows uses the capital financing assumptions shown in Table FA-3c. Basis of Capital Project Timelines The recommended capital project timelines were formed on the basis of adequately meeting service needs arising from the proposed medium density population forecast. In scheduling and phasing projects, it was assumed that funding constraints (if any) would not impact project timelines. 5.3 Table FA-2 Comparison Between Capital Financing and Cash Flow Events Balance Sheet or Capital Finance Events Bond Issue Development Impact Fee Community Finance District (CFD) Federal / State Government Grants Connection Fees Public Donations Private Sector Investment / Privatization Public-Private Partnership for Finance Notes Income Statement or Operations Cash Flow Events Bond Release or Buy-back Property Tax Collection Debt Servicing Costs Bond Transaction Costs Not Applicable Federal / State Operating Grants or Programs Utility Rates User Fees Fines and Penalties Not Applicable Public-Private Partnership for Operations Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. FA-2 Title Capital Financing and Cash Flow Event Comparison Table FA-3a Dimensions of Capital Funding Source of Capital Funding Public Private Some P3's Privatization User Fees Bonds Development Impact Fees Connection Fees Community Financing Districts Grants Some P3's Donations Ownership of Asset Private Public Table FA-3b Five Model Options for Capital Funding Capital Financing Option Description Bonds Bonds reflect the variety of debt vehicles that Pima County can engage in. As a general rule, the total debt is limited to 15% of the area’s assessed full cash value. Bonds will be typically presented as General Obligation Bonds (GOB), although certain asset classes are allowed to have specialty bonds with their own - typically lower - debt limits Development Impact Fees Fees levied against developers to fund off-site infrastructure. This category includes CFDs Agency Funding Capital funds provided by levels of government other than Pima County, such as state or federal funding Private Pima County would engage a corporation to construct and own an infrastructure asset along with the rights to charge citizens for the use of that asset. An example of this would be a toll road or natural gas utility company. This category includes private donations, community fund raising and one-time connection fees directed at end users Pima County can issue three types of special purpose bonds: Regional Flood Control Bonds, Highway Bonds Special (supported by HURF revenues) and Sewer Revenue Bonds Purpose Bonds Table FA-3c Capital Funding Assumptions for Presented Solution Set Source of Capital Funding Infrastructure Asset Class or Category Transportation Flood Control Other / Facilities Parks and Recreation Wastewater Management Notes General Obligation Bonds (GOB) Development Impact Fees 0% 54% 100% 18% 0% 4% 46% 0% 82% 0% Agency Private Funding 66% 0% 0% 0% 0% Special Purpose Bonds Totals 30% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. FA-3a, FA-3b, FA-3c Title Capital Funding Dimensions, Model Options, and Assumptions Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 5.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS There is a wide range of possible solution sets to the capital funding issues for Pima County. A solution set is defined as all of the variables, assumptions and constraints that culminate into a given solution. This analysis and report examines several options and presents one particular solution set illustrated by a series of graphs. The presented solution set is for illustrative purposes only and is not the ideal solution. The presented solution set is only one of many possible viable solutions. The creation of additional alternatives will be discussed at the end of the section. 5.2.1 Pima County Debt Capacity Figure FA-1 illustrates Pima County’s total debt capacity, including all completed, current and proposed bonds as well as all the bonds required for the presented SWIP infrastructure development solution set. All debt has a twenty year amortization schedule. It is assumed that Pima County’s operating budget will not only service the interest portion of the debt but also retire 5% of the original principal annually. Note that Figure FA-1 is the only graph that relates to the whole of Pima County. Pima County’s 2007 General Obligation Bonds (GOB) debt capacity is approximately $1.075 B which is 15% of the current Net Secondary Assessed Valuation of $6.8 B. There are asset categories that have different, typically lower, debt maximums. There are three types of special purpose bonds (Regional Flood Control Bonds, Transportation Bonds, and Sewer Revenue Bonds) which are detailed in Table FA-4 along with CFD Bonds. It should be noted that special purpose bonds are not mutually exclusive to General Obligation Bonds. It is noted here that the County has sufficient debt capacity to finance all of its completed, current and proposed SWIP area bonds identified in the presented solution set. The smallest difference between proposed debt and debt capacity occurs in 2013, at a difference of approximately $406 million. This analysis does not factor in the demand for bonding from other areas of Pima County. It should be noted that the complete list of proposed candidate projects for the 2008 bond program has a total of almost $3.5 billion. Pima County will not have $3.5 billion of debt capacity until the year 2043. It is assumed that this proposed list of projects will be significantly rationalized during the 2008 bond program selection process to keep within Pima County’s debt capacity limits. This graph indicates that should the working assumption of growth funds growth be altered, additional funding options exist. The extent of these options is unknown as there are likely other demands on Pima County’s debt capacity beyond the information shown and the limited time horizon of the proposed bonds. Even if the SWIP area utilized the entire debt capacity of Pima County, additional sources of funding would be required. 5.4 Millions $6,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 e- 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 17 20 19 20 21 20 23 20 25 20 27 20 29 20 31 20 33 20 35 20 37 20 39 20 41 20 43 20 45 20 47 20 49 20 51 20 53 20 55 20 57 $0 Pr Capital Funds $4,000 Pima County Public Works Legend Candidate Projects for Bonding SWIP GOB Bonds- Current Bonds- Completed Funding Ceiling (Bond Limits) Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-1 Title Pima County Total Debt Capacity Table FA-4 Details of Special Purpose Bonds Type of Special Purpose Bond Regional Flood Control Bonds Transportation Bonds Sewer Revenue Bonds * Limits 5% of Net Secondary Assessed Value Usable for Flood Control Only Transportation Project Only Limited by Revenue Supported by HURF Funding Wastewater Projects Only No Statutory Limits Funded by Sewer User Fees SWIP Model Notes Will Not Be Used in the Model Model Does Not Forecast Transportation Revenue Notes Pima County Public Works * Southwest Infrastructure Plan Community Finance Districts (CFDs) can also issue bonds against assets such as projected assessments, taxes or revenue streams. These instruments are not considered Pima County Debt and have no impact on Pima County’s debt capacity. Therefore Pima County does not have a limit to the amount or extent that this form of financing. CFDs are treated by the SWIP Funding model as a form of Development Impact Fee. Table No. FA-4 Title Details of Special Purpose Bonds Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 5.2.2 Debt Capacity of SWIP Area Figure FA-2 shows the assumed population growth of the SWIP area, which is the only assumed driver of taxable assets and hence overall debt capacity. In keeping with the growth funds growth assumption, only incremental population growth after 2007 enables debt capacity. Each person within the SWIP area is associated with the same $6,974 of net secondary assessed (taxable) assets as individuals in Pima County. 5.2.3 Capital Funding Sources Each individual project has its own capital funding sources, however projects within a given infrastructure category will tend to have similar funding allocations. Figure FA-3 shows the weighted average capital funding mechanisms for each infrastructure category in the provided solution set. The presented (and many of the possible solution sets) will have wastewater projects 100% funded by special purpose bonds, i.e. sewer revenue bonds. 5.2.4 Annual and Cumulative Capital Requirements Figure FA-4 shows the annual SWIP area capital project funding requirements by asset class and year. The wave of capital investment in the SWIP area is clearly evident as it peaks in the year 2020. Figure FA-5 displays the cumulative capital requirements by asset class for the SWIP area. Transportation consumes over 60% of the capital funding, with the remaining 40% split relatively evenly between wastewater management, parks and recreation, and flood control. 5.2.5 SWIP Capital Financing by Source vs. GOB Debt Capacity Figure FA-6 shows the current value of SWIP area derived capital financing requirements by source. It should be noted that debt is assumed to be retired at a rate of 5% per year, hence its declining balance is compared to the other four sources. Debt is shown in this manner so it can be related to the debt capacity of the SWIP area, which changes over time. This graph clearly shows that over 80% of the required funding in the presented solution set comes from development impact fees. The magnitude of the required capital financing greatly exceeds the SWIP area’s debt capacity. 5.2.6 Current GOB Values by Asset Category vs. GOB Debt Capacity Figure FA-7 shows the current value of bonds outstanding and the assets that they funded against the debt capacity of the SWIP area. In order to stay within the SWIP area’s debt capacity under the growth funds growth assumption, the total GOB requirements must stay under the red line at all times. This graph shows that under the current presented solution set the majority of GOB debt is used to finance flood control projects. 5.5 140,000 Incremental Population 120,000 Existing Population 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 20 05 20 07 20 10 20 13 20 16 20 19 20 22 20 25 20 28 20 31 20 34 20 37 20 40 20 43 20 46 20 49 20 52 20 55 20 58 Population 100,000 Year Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-2 Title Assumed Population Model for Funding Analysis Flood Control Transportation GOB $59.7 Other / Facilities GOB GOB Impact Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee Agency Funding Agency Funding Agency Funding Private Private Private Special Purpose Bond Special Purpose Bond $50.2 $8.6 $19.0 $576.8 Values in millions Values in millions Values in millions Parks and Recreation Wastewater $14.0 $65.4 Values in millions GOB GOB Impact Fee Impact Fee Agency Funding Agency Funding Private Private Special Purpose Bond Special Purpose Bond $106.0 Values in millions Special Purpose Bond Pima County Public Works Legend See Labels Above Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-3 Title Weighted Average Capital Funding Mechanisms of Presented Solution Set $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Pr e20 05 20 08 20 11 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23 20 26 20 29 20 32 20 35 20 38 20 41 20 44 20 47 20 50 20 53 20 56 Thousands Annual SWIP Capital Funding Required $120,000 Pima County Public Works Legend Wastewater Management Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Regional Flood Control District Transportation Other / Facilities Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-4 Title Annual SWIP Capital Funding Requirements by Asset Class $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Pr e20 05 20 08 20 11 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23 20 26 20 29 20 32 20 35 20 38 20 41 20 44 20 47 20 50 20 53 20 56 Millions Cumulative Capital Funding Requirement $1,000 Pima County Public Works Legend Wastewater Management Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Regional Flood Control District Transportation Other / Facilities Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-5 Title Cumulative Capital Requirements of SWIP Area Millions $1,000 $900 $800 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 20 08 20 11 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23 20 26 20 29 20 32 20 35 20 38 20 41 20 44 20 47 20 50 20 53 20 56 $0 Pr e20 05 Capital Funding $700 Pima County Public Works Legend SWIP Special Purpose Bonds SWIP Private SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Impact Fees SWIP GOB Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-6 Title Capital Financing Sources vs. GOB Debt Capacity Millions $90 $80 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 Pr e20 05 20 08 20 11 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23 20 26 20 29 20 32 20 35 20 38 20 41 20 44 20 47 20 50 20 53 20 56 Capital Bond Funding $70 Pima County Public Works Legend Wastewater Management Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Regional Flood Control District Transportation Other / Facilities Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-7 Title SWIP GOB Values by Asset Category vs. Debt Capacity Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 5.2.7 Bond Ceiling Surplus and/or Deficit Figure FA-8 shows the SWIP area’s surplus (or deficit) debt capacity for the presented solution set. In order to comply with the assumptions, a solution set that includes a deficit is not acceptable. In order to create a viable solution set, any non-zero annual debt capacity deficit needs to be eliminated by adjusting project parameters, operating constraints, or assumptions. Ideally these adjustments would level the peaks and troughs of the graph and thereby effectively utilize the area’s debt capacity over a longer period of time. This graph clearly shows that the presented solution set is viable, however it should be noted that a viable solution set may not indicate the optimal solution set. 5.2.8 Additional Discussion of Flood Control Funding Regional Flood Control District revenues are primarily generated through property tax levy along with general obligation bonds authorized by the electorate. In addition, the District may receive financial assistance from state and federal agencies to plan, design, and construct capital improvements. The primary funding mechanism for proposed flood control improvements identified within the SWIP study would therefore be the county wide property tax levy and optional general obligation bond sales. Another potential funding source option is to assign flood control facility costs to new development within the SWIP study area. Flood control costs would be assigned to new development based upon an equivalent demand unit (EDU). One EDU is equal to 1 new dwelling unit. Utilizing a medium density growth scenario, approximately 28,699 dwelling units are anticipated to be added to the area at build-out. Through these EDU’s, additional funding could be obtained by assigning costs evenly to all future 28,699 dwelling units. A third potential funding source, not currently adopted by Pima County, would assign flood control improvement costs to only those future dwelling units receiving benefit from a particular flood control structure (i.e., stormwater basin, engineered channel, etc.). This funding mechanism would require a much greater level of study in order to adequately identify EDU subsets in addition to the evenly distributing EDU funding process. Flood control facilities proposed/identified within the SWIP study include stormwater conveyance elements (collector/conveyor channels), stormwater attenuation elements (detention basins), and roadway drainage crossings (bridge or box culvert crossings). Stormwater conveyance and stormwater attenuation typically benefit existing and proposed developments located within the watershed incorporating the flood control improvement. Proximity to a flood control structure may also determine potential benefit. That is, property owners located nearer to a flood control structure will be accorded greater benefit from the facility or structure than a property owner located substantially downstream. Funding mechanisms associated with stormwater conveyance and stormwater attenuation would typically be addressed via property tax levy and/or general obligation bonds. However, based upon the proposed densities and population forecast, additional funding could be obtained through the application of EDU’s to all new development. Also, since engineered channels and 5.6 Millions $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 20 08 20 11 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23 20 26 20 29 20 32 20 35 20 38 20 41 20 44 20 47 20 50 20 53 20 56 05 ($10) Pr e20 Bond Ceiling Surplus (Deficit) $70 Legend Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. FA-8 Title General Obligation Bond Ceiling Surplus or (Deficit) Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 detention basins tend to be regional with respect to benefit received, the drainage improvements could also be funded by an additional EDU subset whereby only those property owners receiving benefit from the flood control improvement would be assessed. 5.2.9 Additional Discussion of Transportation Funding Pima County uses transportation revenues to fund its annual capital budget as well as its operations and maintenance budget. Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and the non-HURF Vehicle License Tax (VLT) revenues are the largest sources of recurring County transportation funds. HURF and VLT funds are the almost exclusive source for annual operating expenses and will continue to be the primary source. The following discussion focuses first on historical and identified future transportation fund sources for transportation. The next section describes Pima County transportation funding specifically allocated to projects within the SWIP study area. 5.2.9.1 Historical and Identified Future Transportation Capital Project Funding The data in this section is based upon information provided by the County’s Capital Improvement Program Division. The database used includes all completed capital projects and all projects active in the Fiscal Year 2007 – 2012 CIP. The data base begins with Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and includes projected funding for active projects through FY 2013 and beyond. This database does not include transportation projects that are scheduled to become active in FY 2013 or later. The information is inclusive enough to provide a good general overview of County transportation capital funding sources. Table TR-7 summarizes this data. For completed and active County capital projects, it shows that total projected funding is $1.1 billion. In a period defined as “prior years” (that is, between FY 1998 and 2006) $364.8 million was expended. Another $351.4 million is scheduled for expenditure in the 5-Year CIP and $357.4 million will be expended in the years beyond FY 2013. Figure TR-6 presents Pima County transportation capital expenditures by funding source percentages. Figure TR-6 distinguishes between “prior years” and the period following FY 2007 in order to highlight the impact of Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) funding on County transportation funding sources. Prior to voter approval of the RTA plan and its associated sales tax, HURF revenues accounted for 71.6% of County transportation capital funding. From FY 2007 onward, HURF funds will account for 50.1% and RTA funds 36.1% of County transportation capital funds. 5.7 Table TR-7 Pima County Transportation Capital Funding Sources Funding Source HURF Revenues Impact Fees / Improvement Districts / Private RTA Funding Federal State Miscellaneous Totals Notes Prior Years $261,142,163 $21,356,771 $52,569,284 $12,184,646 $17,502,002 364,754,866 FY 2007 - 2012 $217,471,871 $42,093,049 $65,178,826 $23,692,000 $2,544,343 $447,524 351,427,613 FY 2013 and Beyond $137,603,579 $18,369,123 $190,389,000 $11,004,000 $0 $0 357,365,702 Total $616,217,613 $81,818,943 $255,567,826 $87,265,284 $14,728,989 $17,949,526 1,073,548,181 Pima County Public Works Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-7 Title Pima County Transportation Capital Funding Sources 100% 50.1% 70% 60% 36.1% 50% 40% % Prior Years 0.1% 4.9% 0.4% 0% 8.5% 0.0% 10% 4.8% 20% 3.3% 14.4% 30% 5.9% Percent of Total Revenue 80% 71.6% 90% % FY 2007 and Beyond Pima County Public Works Legend HURF Revenues Impact Fees / Improvement Districts / Private Southwest Infrastructure Plan RTA Funding Federal Figure No. State Miscellaneous TR-6 Title Pima County Transportation Capital Funding Sources Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 HURF Revenues Pima County receives allocations from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and from a sub-allocation of Vehicle License Taxes (VLT) transferred to Arizona counties for transportation purposes. In FY 2006, Pima County received $43.3 million in HURF funds and $13.7 million in non-HURF VLT funds. Since FY 1998, Pima County has received a total of $424.0 million in HURF and VLT funds. The County uses these revenues to fund the annual operating budget, debt service on HURF Revenue Bonds, and transfers of HURF funds to the capital budget (referred to as “County HURF” in the County’s CIP). In the years prior to FY 2007, HURF Revenue Bonds (47.1%) and County HURF (16.5%) accounted for a combined 63.6% of all transportation capital expenditures, but the relative importance of these two funding sources will decline over time as shown on Figure TR-7. In the “prior years,” HURF Revenue Bonds accounted for 47.1% of total transportation funds, but that will decline to 30.6% in the period of FY 2007 to 2012, and to 13.2% in FY 2013 and beyond. The 1997 HURF Revenue Bond Program identified fifty-seven projects to be constructed with these funds and when the program is completed, there is no current indication that Pima County would seek voter approval for a second HURF Revenue Bond package. Impact Fees Pima County collects transportation development impact fees in ten benefit areas. As of November 2006, the County has collected $74 million in impact fees, completing twelve projects, with six projects currently under construction and eleven in design. The County’s current CIP data base shows a total of $54.1 million in impact fees scheduled for expenditure from FY 2007 onwards: $35.7 million in the period FY 2007 – 2012 and $18.4 million for FY 2013 and beyond. 5.2.9.2 Funding Sources for Identified SWIP Transportation Improvements The County’s FY 2007 – 2012 CIP lists four projects active in the SWIP study area. Table TR-8 contains summary data for these four projects and indicates that three of the projects are HURF Revenue Bond projects and the fourth is an RTA project. A total of $89.1 million is scheduled for these four projects; $45.1 million for the RTA project and the remainder for the HURF projects. Three of the projects are on Valencia Road and the fourth is on Kinney Road. The largest single funding source is County HURF, at $32.4 million, with $30.0 million allocated to the RTA Valencia Road project, with an additional allocation of Urban HURF (12.6% funds) of $8.2 million for a combined allocation of $40.6 million. Impact Fees ($12.5 million) and a Developer Contribution ($5.1 million) are the second largest funding sources with a combined $17.6 million. HURF Revenue Bonds account for $15.4 million and RTA funds for another $15.1 million. 5.8 100% 90% 70% 40% 3.2% 20% 11.9% 16.5% 30% 13.2% 50% 30.6% 60% 47.1% Percent of Total Funding 80% 10% 0% % Prior Years % FY 2007 - 2012 % FY 2013 and Beyond Pima County Public Works Legend HURF Revenue Bonds County HURF Southwest Infrastructure Plan Figure No. TR-7 Title HURF Revenue Bond and County HURF Portions of Transportation Funding Table TR-8 Transportation Funding for Active Projects in SWIP Area Project DOT-17: Valencia Road, Mark Road to Camino de la Tierra DOT-49: Valencia Road, Mission Road to Interstate-19 DOT-50: Kinney Road, Ajo Highway to Bopp Road RTA #21: Valencia Road, Ajo Highway to Mark Road Totals HURF Revenue Bonds $5,800.00 $5,726.00 $3,800.00 County HURF Impact Fees $2,363.80 $9,204.00 $33.60 $0.20 $3,327.60 $30,000.00 $15,326.00 $32,397.60 $12,531.60 Developer Contribution Urban HURF RTA Funds $3,130.00 $5,033.00 $5,125.30 $5,125.30 $15,056.00 $8,163.00 $15,056.00 Other Totals $20,497.80 $35.20 $10,827.80 $500.00 $12,753.10 $45,056.00 $535.20 $89,134.70 Pima County Public Works Notes Funding Amounts Expressed in Thousands of Dollars ($ 000) Southwest Infrastructure Plan Table No. TR-8 Title Transportation Funding for Active Projects in SWIP Area Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 The County lists several other Impact Fee projects that are not included in the FY 2007 – 2012 CIP. These projects, in the Avra Valley Benefit Area, are: • • • • Sandario Road: Rudasill Road to Ajo Highway Camino Verde: Valencia Road to Ajo Highway Irvington Road: Joseph Road to Ajo Highway San Joaquin Road: Sandario Road to Calle Cibeque 5.2.9.3 SWIP Transportation Funding Summary The Transportation element of the SWIP identifies transportation capacity improvements of $585.5 million to support development in the study area: $80 million to augment funding for current projects, $305 million to County Roads and $117.5 million to Ajo Highway, $40 million for I-19, $24 million for travel demand management projects, and $19 million for public transit service. All of these proposed capacity improvements will need an identified funding source. However, County HURF Revenue Bonds and RTA funding are not available, because they are project-specific allocations that do not include these projects. County HURF revenues are constrained by the overall demand placed upon County HURF for operations and debt service, as well as capacity improvement needs elsewhere in the community. Other HURF revenues, federal funds, or state funds have never been major source of County transportation capital funding and are subject to competition among the PAG member jurisdictions for allocation. The only fund sources over which Pima County has implementation authority are impact fees and development exactions. We recommend the County consider creating a new benefit area for the SWIP, with a benefit area plan that includes previously identified development impact fee projects and includes all of the newly identified capacity projects. The County should collaborate with ADOT on options for getting impact fee revenues and / or developer contributions allocated to the additional improvements to Ajo Highway, and with the City of Tucson for transit services and roadway projects within their corporate limits. Note that the city limits may change through annexation prior to build-out of the study area. 5.9 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 5.3 FUNDING CONCLUSIONS This initial solution set presented meets the challenge of determining a funding strategy to meet the needs of Pima County residents, SWIP residents, and potential developers. This solution set is not necessarily the ideal or final recommended solution set. In order to develop the most desired solution set stakeholders would have to have a direct say in its creation. 5.3.1 Developer Impact Fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit A range of Developer Impact Fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) was identified under three simple scenarios: Scenario 1: This scenario has 100% of off-site infrastructure is financed through impact fees. The highest possible impact fee is presented in this scenario. Result: 100 % Development Impact Fee per EDU of $31,353 Scenario 2: In this scenario Pima County funds 100% of the wastewater capital requirements through sewer revenue bonds and issues general obligation bonds up to the SWIP area’s maximum GOB debt capacity in the year 2024. The remaining capital requirements are funded by development impact fees. The year 2024 is the final year of GOB funded capital requirements under the provided solution set. Result: Maximized 2024 SWIP GOB Debt & Sewer Revenue Bond with balance from Development Impact Fee per EDU of $25,790 Scenario 3: Is the presented solution set which includes a combination of general obligation bonds, special purpose bonds, agency funding, and development impact fees. Result: Presented Solution Set mandates a Development Impact Fee per EDU of $24,791 The presented solution set for Scenario 3 has not been subjected to exhaustive alternative and sensitivity analysis and is therefore not necessarily the optimal solution set. The primary difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is the issuance of GOB Debt for 68% of the parks and recreation capital funding, and the use of sewer revenue bonds instead of impact fees for wastewater management capital funding. The primary difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 is the partial optimization of the utilization of Pima County’s debt capacity with respect to time. For instance, in Scenario 2 once the debt capacity in 2024 is reached no additional GOB debt is issued even though Pima County’s debt capacity continues to grow after this year. Scenario 3 issues debt periodically both before 2024 and after 2024. Figure FA-9 summarizes the key input assumptions for Scenario 1, 2, and 3. 5.10 Transportation Flood Control Other / Facilities Parks and Recreation Wastewater SCENARIO 1 $79 $106 $110 $110 $19. SCENARIO 2 $585 $19. $54 $585 $50.2 $59.7 $14.0 SCENARIO 3 $8.6 $106.0 $26 $19.0 $576.8 Pima County Public Works Note Legend GOB Impact Fee Agency Funding Private Special Purpose Bond $106.0 $65.4 Values in Millions Southwest Infrastructure Plan Results are Weighted Averages Figure No. FA-9 Title Summary of Funding Analysis Input Assumptions Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Funding Analysis May 9, 2007 Comparison to Currently Collected Fees The approximate rates of currently collected development impact related fees per EDU in Pima County by asset category are: • • • • • $4,400 for Transportation $5,113 for Wastewater Management $0 for Regional Flood Control District $1,597 for Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation $0 for Other / Facilities These figures and total of $11,110 per EDU are approximate for 2007/2008 because certain fees are in the middle of a series of rate increases; others vary with the consumer price index; actual costs vary by EDU nature; some fees are provided in lieu; and some fees are paid according to connection fee formulas. Capital Costs per Equivalent Dwelling Unit The predicted capital costs per SWIP EDU by asset category are: • • • • • $20,400 $3,881 $3,829 $2,767 $662 for Transportation for Wastewater Management for Regional Flood Control District for Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation for Other / Facilities This demand for capital funding of $31,353 per SWIP EDU is nearly three times greater than the currently collected fee amount per EDU. The total number of EDUs for the SWIP area upon complete build-out of the medium density scenario is 28,699. The benefiting area for wastewater management is comprised solely of newly serviced customers connected to the sewer network draining to the Avra Valley WWTF, and amounts to 27,318 new EDUs upon build-out. Note that due to the differences between total EDUs and the number of wastewater EDUs, the actual cost per EDU will vary slightly and totals will not always match. As mentioned previously in Section 4.3.6, the predicted wastewater capital cost per SWIP EDU of $3,881 cannot be compared to the current approximate impact fee rate of $5,113 per EDU which includes a wide variety of system-wide wastewater management costs related to the entire Pima County wastewater system operation. 5.11 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 6.0 Implementation Process In addition to the preceding technical outputs, many project process-related lessons were learned during the completion of the SWIP activities. This report section documents these recommended process improvements and describes the tasks which should come next in the ongoing SWIP implementation. 6.1 RECOMMENDED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS 6.1.1 Benefit of Comprehensive Planning The SWIP effort is a significant step toward comprehensive regional planning within the Southwest area. This study also recognizes the inherent overlap between various disciplines such as transportation, wastewater management, parks and recreation, and flood control. Identifying related infrastructure components early in the process is critical to strategic growth planning. It is highly recommended that this infrastructure plan be regularly updated every five years; with future investments this report and outputs can continue to be useful living documents. To the best abilities of the participants, the SWIP effort has identified locally optimal solutions. Pima County should consider conducting similar comprehensive studies for other major identified development areas within Pima County using comparable planning criteria. Eventually, a master infrastructure plan for the entire County would be created yielding an interactive decision-making model capable of determining the best County-wide development and infrastructure servicing strategies. Coordination of Population Projections and Timelines SWIP population projections and timelines necessarily deviated from existing PAG population projections on the basis of observed developments and data derived from a land use and development intensity / phasing model developed by Pima County’s Planning Department. Given the rapid project schedule, these new SWIP area assumptions were not reviewed and agreed upon with PAG. Given that there is an agreement between PAG and local utility agencies (such as PCWMD and Tucson Water) to use PAG population projections to develop conforming and compatible longterm infrastructure servicing plans, the anticipated deviations should be discussed by Pima County and PAG. Collaborative outputs could then be shared with other local utility agencies for their planning purposes. 6.1 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 6.1.2 Project Management Improvements Three Week Rolling Schedule The three week rolling schedule was an unqualified success which allowed for several significant schedule alterations without affecting the overall progress. This progress management mechanism should be used on all fast-track planning processes. In combination with the short 30-minute weekly project leader meetings, the three week rolling schedule helped deliver the SWIP project on time by regularly monitoring, identifying, and resolving potential schedule delay issues. Decision Log The decision log was applied primarily as a project management tool, and proved very effective in the documenting of decisions made by the team, particularly those decisions made early in the project. The decision log was not successfully deployed at the technical task level. Decision logs may be used more if the responsibility for the maintenance of the decision log was split up amongst the various technical team leads. Each team would have their own decision log and the team leads would then have the responsibility of tracking the important decisions made within their group and then sending their team’s decision log to the project leaders on a weekly basis for dissemination. Buzzsaw Project Collaboration Site The online Buzzsaw site created for the SWIP project proved to be an effective platform for sharing information. Stronger efforts to utilize the joint authorship and document creation collaboration abilities of Buzzsaw would have aided in the preparation of the pre-draft, draft, and final reports. Dedicated Project FTP Site / GIS File Management The permanent internet FTP site created for the SWIP project was useful, particularly for sharing excessively large digital files. In hindsight, this platform should have become the data warehouse, online presence, and single source of truth for the SWIP project’s numerous GIS files. This project used many digital documents from different sources that could have been more easily managed had they been kept in one dedicated location. It is suggested that the dedicated project FTP site contain an "in" and "out" box for digital data. Project participants would load inbound materials to the "in" box while produced output documents would be shared via the "out" box. This would help prevent cross-contamination between old and new document versions. Document Production The pre-draft, draft, and final report document inputs from the numerous authors proved difficult to assemble, edit, and revise. It is recommended that future comprehensive planning efforts place more emphasis on the early establishment of common document formats and procedures. 6.2 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 Stakeholder Meetings The SWIP stakeholder meetings were somewhat ineffective at information gathering and proved to be venues better used in the sharing of information. Understandably, several private stakeholders seemed hesitant to share or reveal their project information in a group setting. Individual stakeholder meetings are recommended as they will likely prove more effective in gathering information. These individual stakeholder meetings should be limited in number (wherever possible) to one initial meeting and one follow-up meeting if necessary. A concerted effort should be made on the behalf of the participants to exchange information as early and as efficiently as possible. Allowances for extenuating circumstances and additional meetings should be anticipated within project timelines and budgets. Contact Lists The project contact lists should be categorized into primary and secondary contacts. The SWIP project created and used a comprehensive contact list however it may be possible that some individuals received excessive emails sent to the entire contact list. This may result in email fatigue; with the end result being individuals may not take the time to open each email thus increasing the chances for a communications failure. Meeting Calendar A calendar established at the beginning of the project, showing all the regularly scheduled meetings and who is invited, would help improve attendance of the meetings and eliminate any question of who should be attending. Other invitees can always be added. 6.3 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 6.2 NEXT STEPS 6.2.1 Capital Project Funding The model allows three methods for adjusting variables to create a viable solution set. These variables need to be adjusted in a manner that meets the needs of Pima County residents, SWIP residents specifically, and enables and encourages potential developers to invest in the SWIP area. The optimal solution set can only be created through the active engagement of all stakeholders. Changes can be made by adjusting any or all of the following parameters: • • • • • • Recommended list of projects Project scope and estimated cost Project start date Project duration Capital financing sources Policy constraints The model tracks capital funding by individual projects, which are defined by four parameters: desired start dates; known costs; construction duration; and capital financing source(s). Since each project is a portion of the solution set, adjusting these four project parameters for each project may provide a more viable or optimal solution set. Should these adjustments not produce a viable solution set, the operating constraints of the model should be reviewed such as the growth funds growth policy. Tasks It is recommended that the consultant team present the fully functioning model to Pima County financial policy officials to ensure understanding, provide validation, and advise on any modifications. It is recommended that a working session with Pima County leadership be scheduled to adjust model parameters, operating constraints and assumptions. With minor adjustments, the model can accommodate live feedback with instant verification of the validity of a given solution set. The final recommended task is to review and adjust SWIP area’s growth assumptions. The model’s population growth curve triggers all infrastructure project start dates. It would be advisable to examine each viable solution set under a variety of population and growth assumptions. 6.4 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 6.2.2 Flood Control Implementation This SWIP effort has inventoried existing drainage infrastructure and identified future improvement requirements based upon proposed land uses and a medium density growth pattern of 28,699 additional new dwelling units at full build-out. The majority of the proposed roadway drainage crossings will likely be designed and constructed in conjunction with planned transportation improvements. However, there are several proposed drainage crossings located along roadway corridors that have not been recommended for transportation improvements. In these instances, the current transportation surface may be sufficient to accommodate future growth, yet the existing roadway corridor does not meet all-weather access requirements. Implementation of the various flood control improvements recommended within the SWIP study will be impacted by various aspects. The first component is project timing. Consideration must be given to determine which projects can be planned, designed, and constructed congruently with transportation improvements and which projects should be planned, design, and constructed independently from other public works projects. Similarly, project lead time must also be considered. For the purpose of this study, flood control project lead time has been assumed at approximately two years. That is to say, the majority of the flood control facilities (engineered channels, detention basins, and all weather roadway crossings) are assumed operational within a two year period from planning stage through construction completion. Available funding and potential funding mechanisms is another critical aspect to project implementation. As previously noted, additional studies will be warranted to determine: what projects can or should depend on revenues generated through property tax levy and / or general obligation bonds, what projects can be targeted for alternative funding sources such as assigning flood control costs evenly to new development within the SWIP study area (EDU’s), or, what projects can implement special assessments whereby flood control costs are assigned only to those dwelling units that are accorded benefit from a particular drainage improvement. The later option has not been adopted by Pima County. However, this funding concept is currently being investigated in conjunction with other regional flood control projects within Pima County. Tasks Introduce all of the projects identified in the SWIP (along with their timeline and funding sources) into the capital planning process and relevant documents. Complete a southwest area basin management study which would include detailed flood plain delineations, identify floodplain management criteria and regulations, other associated flood control alternatives and development guidelines. Specialized studies consisting of comprehensive plans or rezoning requests will likely be required to ensure that growth is being administered and implemented consistent with the SWIP recommendations. Other project considerations that may require additional studies and / or 6.5 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 analyses may include: responses to community input / involvement, adapting to large scale developer driven master planned communities, potential changes in jurisdictional boundaries, and coordination with other public works or tribal jurisdictions. 6.2.3 Wastewater Management Project Implementation This study quantified the impending consequences of the proposed land uses in the study area by developing a proposed interceptor sewer sizing and alignment plan. In addition, this study has refined Pima County’s ongoing and future planned upgrades at the Avra Valley WWTF and evaluated the potential effluent utilization mechanisms. A computerized hydraulic model was constructed to assess the residual capacity in the backbone network, consisting of those pipes with 12-inch and larger diameters. In general, the great majority of the wastewater collection system has enough capacity to handle the existing flow during peak wet weather flow periods. However, the residual capacity in the existing system is not sufficient to accommodate the proposed future flows in many locations. For the three growth scenarios, those reaches in the backbone system requiring capacity augmentation have been determined for planning purposes. A new interceptor is proposed to service the development in the southwest corner of the study area. The current Avra Valley WWTF is a biological nutrient removal oxidation ditch with a design capacity of 1.2 MGD. The facility is in the process of being upgraded to an interim facility with a design capacity of 2.2 MGD. Pima County has also authorized a proposed plant expansion of 4.0 MGD capacity to replace the 2.2 MGD oxidation ditch. The ultimate capacities required to support the three potential growth scenarios are 6.5 MGD, 9.5 MGD and 12.0 MGD, respectively. Three potential effluent utilization mechanisms were evaluated. They are: groundwater recharge, habitat restoration, and urban re-uses. The cost of re-uses varies depending on which mechanism to use. Tasks As the southwest area defined in this study continues to develop, the following tasks are proposed from a wastewater management point of view: • • • • • Include all of the wastewater management projects identified in the SWIP (along with their timeline and funding sources) in current CIP planning documents Confirm the ongoing validity of the assumed medium density growth scenario and timeline Confirm the preferred effluent utilization mechanisms Use the SWIP documents and products including the proposed timeline to guide the area developments through the permitting process Systematically monitor actual wastewater flow rates from the identified sub-basins (and the total flows influent to the Avra Valley WWTF) as growth occurs to validate key assumptions and trigger necessary infrastructure plan updates 6.6 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 • • 6.2.4 Use the SWIP as a guide to acquire those necessary development-based funding contributions for collection system expansion Allocate the funds required for the treatment facility expansions and septic system conversions in accordance with the anticipated timeline Parks and Recreation Project Implementation Given the 268-acre shortfall in current park land, and the identified recommendation to ultimately add over 2,000 acres of new park lands, Pima County should pursue the creation of additional park sites to serve the existing and proposed SWIP area residents. Tasks Introduce all of the parks and recreation projects identified in the SWIP (along with their prioritized timeline and funding sources) into the capital planning process and relevant documents. Pursue the acquisition of public land suitable for new neighborhood park sites as recommended. Undertake a community needs assessment by conducting resident surveys to accurately gauge participation rates and interest levels in recreation activities. Once identified, participation rates and interest levels would be used to develop an appropriate park land and recreation amenity standard for the community. 6.2.5 Transportation Project Implementation This section describes the procedures and strategies necessary to effectively implement the transportation projects identified for the SWIP study area. Several factors must be considered, such as project timelines and lead time, funding sources and their availability, jurisdictions and jurisdictional boundary changes, project planning and design, coordination with other public works, and community input, to name only a few. Similar to the other infrastructure addressed in the SWIP, this section describes capital improvements only, and not long term operations and maintenance which are programmed and funded separately. The project list also provides new and expanded capacity beyond that which is needed to cure current deficiencies. Existing deficiencies are resolved by projects that are already planned and programmed, and these are excluded from the project listing. The study also assumes that collector and local streets within the study area will be built as a condition of land development. Therefore these lower classification streets are not addressed by the SWIP transportation element. When planned and programmed in a systematic manner, capital project implementation will be a major long-term effort for County staff. Implementation need not be onerous, however, because many of the projects will have a long lead time. This is because land development in the area is expected to continue for many years. This will allow enough time to deliver projects 6.7 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 when they are needed if the planning studies and engineering design efforts occur well in advance of construction and funding is available when needed. The transportation system operates as a complex multimodal, multi-jurisdictional network, which the public expects to operate efficiently. The SWIP identifies several projects that are not owned by Pima County, but are equally necessary to support development in the study area. Some projects are in Tucson and others are along ADOT corridors. Line-haul transit service and carpool facilities are also identified, and these are not typical County services. This adds an additional level of complication for project funding, but is not problematic for scheduling since many projects will be coordinated through the Regional Transportation Plan. All of the jurisdictions, including the Tribal governments, have similar planning processes that include long range planning and capital improvement programming. These existing processes will become the foundation for implementing all of the transportation projects identified by the SWIP. However, the current planning processes tend to view individual infrastructure elements, and yet the SWIP identifies overlap between infrastructure, such as transportation and flood control. This is being adequately addressed through Pima County’s integration of capital project programming activities, which may be placed in Development Services or the Public Works Department. Alternatively, the County might consider establishing an infrastructure oversight committee, similar to several other rapidly growing jurisdictions. 6.2.5.1 Arterial Capacity Projects Growth in the study area will need to have new and expanded arterials to carry traffic to activity centers in the urban area as well as within the Southwest area. Capacity projects include widening current routes, building new routes, and improving intersections of arterial roadways. For the purposes of this study a prototypical seven year development cycle was used. This is in addition to the planning process, which can take three or more years. The first two years of the cycle are for planning and route location, and are assigned 5% of the total project cost. The third through fifth years are for project design, permitting, and clearances, and are assigned 15% of project costs. The final two years are for construction, using 80% of project capital costs. Therefore, for a project that needs to be in-place at 2020, the cycle would begin no later than 2013. Tasks Include all of the projects identified in the SWIP (along with their timeline and funding sources) on the PAG Long Range Plan; begin the project planning and design according to the SWIP schedule; enter into inter-governmental agreements (IGA’s) with ADOT, City of Tucson, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and the San Xavier District on a project-specific basis and as appropriate. New corridors should be added to the Major Streets and Routes Plans of the jurisdictions. Roadway Widening: Widening current routes beyond what is already planned is identified for many existing corridors, including SR 86 and Valencia Road. These improvements provided most of the new capacity, at the least cost. 6.8 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 Intersection Improvements and Signalization: There are few signalized intersections in the study area, and this will change as the area grows in population and density. All of the arterial intersections will need to be signalized and the costs are included in the roadway capital unit costs. Corridor Extensions: Extension of existing corridors is identified for several routes, including Drexel, Irvington, Los Reales, Camino de Oeste, and San Joaquin Road. In many cases, additional right-of-way will be needed. The right-of-way should be reserved with development and acquired well in advance of construction. This is one of the primary purposes of the Major Streets and Routes plans. Interchanges and Freeway Capacity: New interchanges will be needed for connecting Drexel Road and Los Reales extensions to I-19. ADOT also suggests including service lanes along the mainline to help weaving movements associated with the new interchanges. These costs are identified in the project listing. Implementation would be through partial funding by the SWIP, made available to ADOT for I-19 improvements via the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP. 6.2.5.2 New Arterial Roadways New Arterial Corridors No completely new arterial corridors are planned for the Southwest Area. Instead, expansion and extension of current alignments are identified. New Traffic Interchanges Two new interchanges are identified for I-19, which would be partially funded by the SWIP and implemented by ADOT. Additional Freeway Capacity Mainline capacity is not include as a funded element, although cost sharing of auxiliary lanes is included for implementation by ADOT. 6.2.5.3 Alternate Modes – Public Transit Public transit is an important and necessary service in urban and suburban areas. It should never be considered just an amenity, or purely a social service. Transit provides an alternative for those who do not drive or have a vehicle available, and can replace a second or third vehicle in a household. Transit is particularly important to lower income communities, such as the study area, and to evolving communities where transit can help support mixed–use development. Viable transit also can support homeownership though innovative mortgage programs which consider household costs savings attributable to alternate modes. The SWIP identifies funding necessary for transit service connection to the urban area and for vehicle storage and maintenance. These services and projects would be planned and 6.9 Pima County Southwest Infrastructure Plan Implementation Process May 9, 2007 programmed by the City of Tucson’s SunTran, through their short-range and long-range transit program. Partial funding would be generated by the SWIP’s transit element, and transferred to the City through an intergovernmental agreement. Funding for transit service expansion is not currently available, and state law does not authorize use of impact fees or transit capital or operating expenses. Funding would be provided through a per-rooftop development exaction, estimated at $664, which covers capital equipment such as new coaches and storage / maintenance facilities. Tasks Establish a discrete SWIP Transit Funding Element; create and enter into an IGA with the City of Tucson for SWIP Transit service extension; and coordinate transit service extension, transit center, and maintenance facility with SunTran staff. 6.2.5.4 Alternate Modes – Travel Demand Management Facilities These facilities (such as park-and-ride lots and carpool lots) help encourage carpool formation and support transit utilization; both of which reduce the demand for roadway construction to serve the study area. The plan includes four facilities with an average of 200 parking spaces each for a total of 800 spaces. Their location is subject to further planning and analysis. They could be implemented as part of roadway projects and may be eligible for funding with development impact fees if so structured. The estimated cost per new dwelling unit would be $181. Alternatively, a development exaction of $181 per rooftop would be required for the capital costs. Tasks If the travel demand management facilities are not included on roadway projects, establish a discrete SWIP HOV Funding Element; include the projects in the PAG RTP and TIP; and coordinate their location and design elements with PAG’s travel demand management office. 6.10 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. ___________________________________________________________________________ I would hope that all (or most stakeholders) have an opportunity to review the draft report before approval of a Final. It would have been nice if all the infrastructure concerns would have been addressed years ago……..especially before all the “scattered” development…..but this study is a great start to play catch up. You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-1 Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. ______________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for the info and the time & efforts to display the planning efforts and measures. Water, wastewater and transportation departments must be complemented on a fine job. Everyone was very polite and helpful. Thank you! You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-2 Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. ______________________________________________________________________________ Pascua Yaqui Tribal gov’t would like to see the boards on: Flood Control Waste Water Density Transport and have someone explain them. Carl Russell You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-3 Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. ______________________________________________________________________________ I am working on a study for ADOT – The Southwest Regional Transportation Profile Study. I would like to receive a copy of the draft report. Mary Rodin Kimley – Horn Associates Thank you! You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-4 Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. _______________________________________________________________________________ Presentation was extremely well done! Excellent charts - everything clearly marked. We need Valencia improved sooner than 2012 – 2016 from Mark Road to Ajo Highway. It would be nice to have a speaker and have question and answer aired to all in attendance. Maybe at the next meeting? You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-5 Comment Form Your comments are important to us. Please let know your thoughts and concerns on any of the project you saw here today. ______________________________________________________________________________ Informative. Some things need better explanation or more informed Stantec people. Please keep me informed of future drafts, hearings, or reports. D. Booth You may mail comments to 201 N. Stone 3rd floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 ATTN: Community Relations Office Or Fax them into (520) 838-7537 Thank you APPENDIX D-6 Appendix E R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd W Valencia Rd V V R11E R12E Map DC-1 Density Assumptions for Low Growth Scenario Density Assumptions for Low Growth Scenario Up to 0.6 RAC Greater than 0.6 to 1.0 RAC Greater than 1.0 to 2.0 RAC Greater than 2.0 to 4.0 RAC R13E 0 Unimproved Private Parcel (Shaded) Developed Parcels per Assessor's Tax Records, Jan 2007 R12E Pima County Index Map 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Southwest Infrastructure Plan Greater than 4.0 to 6.0 RAC Greater than 6.0 RAC Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary 0.5 Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd W Valencia Rd V V R11E R12E Map DC-2 Density Assumptions for High Growth Scenario Density Assumptions for High Growth Scenario Up to 0.6 RAC Greater than 0.6 to 1.0 RAC Greater than 1.0 to 2.0 RAC Greater than 2.0 to 4.0 RAC R13E 0 Unimproved Private Parcel (Shaded) Developed Parcels per Assessor's Tax Records, Jan 2007 R12E Pima County Index Map 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Southwest Infrastructure Plan Greater than 4.0 to 6.0 RAC Greater than 6.0 RAC Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary 0.5 Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E 1973 1801 1976 1985 1802 21 ! 1991 1986 1951A 20 ! 1921 CP1976 Q100= 1,000 CP1974A Q100= 3,099 1924 1974 1923 19 ! 3 74 ,1 19 = 2 CP 00 Q1 7 1954 1709A ! 1961 CP1956 Q100= 2,071 1941 Rd 43 19 1929 1903 303 ! 11 ! 10 ! !9 2022 13 12 505 50 % 108 703 606 4601 MISSION RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CP2013 Q100= 3926 Existing Park Proposed Drainage Corridor Black Wash Floodway Existing Pima County Maintained Detention Basin Pima County Parcel Purchase Priorities for Regional Flood Control Facilities 605 904 30 % 104 1 1002 5 1108 4 3 1001 502 50 % 811 1107 604 R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary " ! 2013 2015 2020 2014 2012 2019 V Proposed Park HEC-1 Model Boundary EBONEE MARIE MOODY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 2016 V R11E Subbasin Boundary S Mission Rd 5 Map H-1 Proposed Flood Control Facilities Proposed Detention Basin (Multi-Use Facility) 812 % 10 1 Proposed Detention Basin (Flood Control Only) 1003 40 % 4505 2021 % 1004 213 4207 LAWRENCE DISTRICT PARK 36 ! 0 10 702 503 405 6 3901 2 W Valencia Rd CP2021 Q100= 5,407 1109 905 50% 4217 ! 14 813 107 105 1201 1202 22 ! 907 % 50 4218 23 ! 906 301 4002 SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER 100 2 4602 1401 1301 814 504 WINSTON REYNOLDS-MANZANITA DISTRICT PARK 1402 1006 908 214 ! 1706 1501 S Cardinal Av " 30 RYAN PARK 1601 24 ! 31 ! 2023 MANZANITA POOL PARK VESEY NEIGHBORHOOD1705 PARK 1403 BRANDING IRON PARK 29 ! W Irvington Rd 37 ! S Mark Rd " ! 23 Q1 0 6,8 0= 75 !7 ! 1720 35 32 28 CP20 !5 4509 Private Flood Control Facilities 34 ! 5,703 CP2023A Q100= 9,204 !6 106 20 % Basin Number Q100= 27 302 3707 1 ! 1404 406 10% 3902 1502 25 2024 215 S Tucson Estates Pkwy CP1730 Q100= 12,577 S Camino Verde T14S V S Sandario Rd 26 ! 1730 33 ! W Valencia Rd 3806 1710 CP1810 Q100= 1,291 " !4 !8 Ajo ROBLES PASS TRAILS PARK 1704 T15S 15 ! CP215 Q100= 4,578 st We 38 ! 1810 4219 4401 1707B 1708 CP2024A Q100= 16,442 7 Highway 1703C 1709D 16 ! CP1730 Q100= 6,373 Ryan Field Ajo 1701 V T15S 2026 West 1702 1912 CP1720 !1 1703B 1703A T14S CP1904A Q100= 2,157 2025 4301 1707A 19 28 ! CP1904 Q100= 2,747 CP2025 Q100= 16,643 !2 Rd W Bopp Rd 1933 1904 !3 1709C ey 1902 2027 CP4219 Q100= 7,900 Kin n 1803 17 CP2026 Q100= 18,097 1804 1927 1932 1931 CP1956A Q100= 317 CP2027 Q100= 18,374 S 1911 Jo aq 18 uin 50% Sa n % 50 S 1709B 1926 1942 1956 ay hw Hig 4101 1901 1953 1977 2028 1922 TUCSON MOUNTAIN PARK 1925 1951 1952 1955 30 % CP1985 Q100= 4,788 New or Improved Drainage Culvert Road Crossing Probable New Bridge Crossing Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Seperation Distance - 5,000' (Piston Aircraft) Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Seperation Distance - 10,000' (Jet Aircraft) R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E 0" -3 " 03 6 11 0-2 0 11 S S Sa n Jo aq ui n Kin ne yR Banks Elem. Public (TUSD) Rd Drexel Heights Station #4 3195 S. Kinney Rd d Wes t 5-1 101 Spreader Yard (CAP) T14S Valencia Middle Public (TUSD) V W Irvington Rd T15S Desert Mosaic HS (Charter) T14S V Highway 0.7 S Tucson Estates Pkwy 11 3-30 00 " -2 6" Ajo 5" W Bopp Rd San Joaquin 2012 11 0 TEP, CAP, SWTC 2011 Drexel Heights Station #1 5030 S. Camino Verde Vesey Elem. Public (TUSD) S Sandario Rd T15S San Xavier P.P. CAP Pistor Middle Public (TUSD) White Elem. Public (TUSD) A Child's View Private Tucson Airport Authority Police Station 9400 W. Ajo Way Three Points Fire Dept. Station #92 Drexel Heights Fire Station #2 6340 S. Mark Rd TUSD Westside Transportation Facility (Planned) .Valencia ! st hw ay Ajo Drexel Heights Fire District (Planned Facility) S Cardinal Av Southwest Alternative Middle Public (TUSD) 6855 S. Mark Rd S Mark Rd 2143-8.625" Library Southwest Branch 6855 S. Mark Rd Hig We San Xavier Annex Post Office 4700 W. Valencia Rd W Valencia Rd Miller Elem. Public (TUSD) Lawrence Intermediate Public (TUSD) 4850 W. Jeffrey Rd S Missio n Rd W Valencia Rd Drexel Heights Station #3 5960 S. Cardinal Ave Johnson Primary Public (TUSD) 6060 S. Joseph Ave 1015-10.75" S Camino Verde Warren Elem. Public (TUSD) 11 0 11 3-30 00 -2 " 6" 1103-30" 1100-26" Hohokam Middle Public (TUSD) 7400 S. Settler Rd Maldonado Elem. Public (TUSD) Edge Charter HS (Charter) Three Points Fire District (Proposed Facility Location) Pascua Pueblo Fire Dept. Station #27 4631 W. Calle Torim Pascua Yaqui Tribal Police 4881 N. Tarook V ) " R11E Existing Substation ) " Existing TEP Substation Proposed New Substation ) " ! R12E EPNG Meter Proposed TEP Substation # EPNG Station Regulator Station (SWG) Existing TEP Line § # * # * V Map O-1 Other Public Services and Facilities EPNG Valve Existing CAP 115 Kv Transmission Line Proposed TEP Line Existing SWTC 115Kv School Proposed New SWTC 115 Kv Transmission Line (2012) Post Office TRICO Primary Overhead SWG Existing High Pressure Feeder (>60 ps.i.) Police Station TRICO Primary Underground Ryan Airfield Ultimate Property Fire Station TRICO ServiceTerritory Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Proposed Fire Station TUSD Property El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline . ! TRICO Electric Station R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E + $ ) È ! -! ! -! + $ ! -! ! -! ! -! ) È ) È ) $+ È Sa n Jo aq uin ) " ) ) " " + $ ) È ) " Ajo Highway ! -! ! -! ! -! ! -! T15S ! -! W Irvington Rd ) " V ) " T14S ) " ) È S Sandario Rd ! -! Rd West " ) ) " T14S V ey W Bopp Rd ) È T15S Kin n ) " Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S S ! -! ) " ) È ) -!! È a hw Hig ) È st We ) È ) È ! ) -! " ) " W Valencia Rd y ) È Ajo W Valencia Rd ! -! ) -! " ! ! -! + $ + $ S Mark Rd + $ ! -! + $ S Mission Rd ) È S Cardinal Av S Camino Verde ) È ) È ! -! ! -! ) È ! -! V V R11E R12E Map O-2 Tucson Water Infrastructure Existing Major Mains ! -! ) " + $ ) È Existing Boosters Existing PRVS Existing Reservoirs Proposed CIP Mains ! -! ) " + $ Proposed CIP Boosters Proposed CIP PRVS Proposed CIP Reservoirs Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Existing Wells R12E R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Southwest Infrastructure Plan Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E R12E R12E S Ki nn ey 23 Rd 00 West 20 S Cardinal Av 6100 Los Reales Rd 9300 9500 V V R11E R12E Street 2 Lanes Over LOS D Capacity 4 Lanes Over LOS D Capacity 2 Lanes Under LOS D Capacity R12E R13E 0 Map TR-1 Existing Transportation System Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Pima County Index Map Reservation Tucson Mountain Park xxxxx ADT Southwest Infrastructure Plan 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com 4 Lanes Under LOS D Capacity CAP Alignment 41000 S Mission R d 9400 29100 24800 8000 S Mark Rd 3900 ay 10800 S Camino De La Tierra 3700 W Valencia Rd 18400 6100 Drexel Rd 12300 Bilby Rd 12200 24900 6300 7400 2500 st We S Camino Verde 6300 Sunset Rd 2500 W Valencia Rd 5200 W Irvington Rd 6600 4800 2900 S Sandario Rd 0 840 wa y H igh 00 345 0 00 157 W Snyder Hill Rd Ajo T15S T15S 15 V T14S V 30 00 6400 T14S Tucson Estates Pkwy 5900 W Bopp Rd 6900 4300 4600 Jo 5900 Sa n aq 15 uin 00 R d hw R13E S Joseph Av 3700 S Camino De Oeste 1200 S Hig Ajo 600 8 V r W Milky D ay W V Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E Dr S 33 ! Rd 31 ! 32 ! 34 ! T14S V 5 ! 1 ! ! W Valencia Rd Sunset Rd S Camino Verde S Sandario Rd T15S 35 ! ! Hig st We 29 ! 36 ! 9 ! Bilby Rd 18 15 ! 17 ! ! 16 ! 10 13 ! 14 ! ! 27 ! ay V V R11E R12E R12E R13E 0 Pima County Index Map Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary 2 Lanes Pima County DIFO Project 4 Lanes (Future) PAG RTA Project 6 Lanes (Future) PAG RTP Project CAP Alignment Southwest Infrastructure Plan Project Number (See Exhibit 3-x) 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Tucson Mountain Park 1 21 20 ! ! 22 ! 23 ! ! Los Reales Rd Map TR-2 Planned or Programmed Capacity Projects Reservation W Valencia Rd 19 24 ! Ajo PAG TIP, Pima County CIP, or ADOT TFCP Project 25 ! 24 ! Drexel Rd 2 hw W Irvington Rd Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t T15S 4 11 ! 6 ! V 3 ! ! 8 ! ! 28 ! W Snyder Hill Rd 12 30 ! West Ajo Hig hway 7 T14S Tucson Estates Pkwy W Bopp Rd d n S Mission R aq ui S Cardinal Av Jo d S Camino De La Tierra Sa n ey R S Camino De Oeste S Ki nn S Joseph Av y W W Mi l ky S Mark Rd a 37 ! R11E V R12E R12E V R13E a 12 11 ! ! y Dr W W Mi l 4 Irvington Road Extension and Widening: SR 86 to Mission Road (4 lanes) 9 ! W Bopp Rd 5 Drexel Road Widening and Extension: SR 86 to Mission (4 lanes) 6 Valhalla Road Extension: Valencia Road to Drexel Road (2 Lanes) 7 Valencia Road - Widen to 6 lanes from SR 86 to Mark Road 8 San Joaquin Extension south of SR 86 to Los Reales (4 lanes) Sunset Rd 13 I-19 TIs at Drexel, Los Reales 3 ! 6 ! S PA W Valencia Rd st We hw ay Drexel Rd Bilby Rd 7 ! 8 ! W Valencia Rd 10 ! o Aj V R11E R12E Los Reales Rd R12E R13E 0 Map TR-3 Future Transportation Conditions Pima County Index Map Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Future SR 86 Interchange Street Special Planning Area Improvement Area Tucson Mountain Park CAP Alignment Reservation 13 ! S Mark Rd S Camino Verde 5 ! V T14S V S Sandario Rd 12 Travel demand management (4 carpool lots) T15S T15S W Irvington Rd 4 ! 11 New public transit Hig 1 ! High w a y 1 ! W Snyder Hill Rd 1 ! Ajo V 10 Extend Los Reales Road to I-19 West 2 ! T14S 9 San Joaquin Road: Widen to 4 lanes from SR 86 north to Sandario Rd d Rd ey S Mission R n Ki nn S Cardinal Av 3 Joseph Road/Mark Road: Widen to 4 lanes from SR 86 to Los Reales aq ui S Camino De La Tierra 2 New Camino de Oeste Connection to Kinney (Wal-Mart) (2 lanes) Jo S Camino De Oeste 1 SR 86 Widen to 6 lane Parkway from Sandario to I-19 S Sa n Tucson Estates Pkwy S 1 Proposed Roadway Improvements S Joseph Av ky Southwest Infrastructure Plan 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com xxxxx Year 2030 ADT Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd 8" 12" 15" 18" 21" 24" Pipes <12" Pipes draining to Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plant Avra Valley Sub-basin Boundary Land Parcel Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary S Cardinal Av V Modeled Backbone Network ay hw Ajo R11E Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Seperation Distance - 10,000' (Jet Aircraft) Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Seperation Distance - 5,000' (Piston Aircraft) V Map W-1 Existing Wastewater Collection System W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd Hig st We S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S W Valencia Rd R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t Average Dry Weather Flow Kin S ne y Rd S Jo aq u in Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy Sa n W Bopp Rd Sa n Jo aq u in Rd Kin ne y Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S S Peak Wet Weather Flow W Bopp Rd S Camino Verde W Valencia Rd W Irvington Rd W Valencia Rd W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd S Mark Rd W Valencia Rd S Camino Verde W Irvington Rd 0 Map W-2 Existing System Residential Capacity Analysis Results Simulated Depth Over Diameter (d/D) Ratio: Less Than 0.200 0.200 to 0.399 0.400 to 0.599 Pima County Index Map Southwest Infrastructure Plan 2,000 4,000 8,000 1" = 2000' Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com 0.600 to 0.799 0.800 to 1.000 Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E Not Serviceable by Gravity S S Sa n Jo Kin ne y Rd Sub-basin No.6 aq uin Rd West W Bopp Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy Sub-basin No.7 Highwa y T14S Roger Road WWTP Sub-basin V T14S V Not Serviceable by Gravity Ajo W Irvington Rd T15S T15S Sub-basin No.5 Rd S Sandario Rd Indeterminate Treatment Destination Area S Camino Verde W Valencia Rd W Valencia Rd Sub-basin No.2 Sub-basin No.1 Sub-basin No.8 S Cardinal Av Sub-basin No.3 ay hw Ajo S Mark Rd Hig st We S Miss ion Sub-basin No.4 V Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary 3 Modeled Sewers 4 All Pipes 5 Street Network 6 Tucson Mountain Park 7 Sub-basin 8 Not Serviceable by Gravity Roger Road Sub-basin 1 Indeterminate Treatment Destination Area 2 V R11E Map W-3 Proposed Wastewater Collection System Sub-basins R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy 1 S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y V T14S V T14S 3 W Irvington Rd T15S T15S Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd W Valencia Rd S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd 2 V Existing pipes Existing Septic Fields Avra Valley Sub-basin Boundary Land Parcel Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Septic Requirement V R11E Map W-4 Potential Areas for Septic System Conversion R12E R12E R13E 0 Pima County Index Map Southwest Infrastructure Plan 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Conversion Potential for Higher Density Scenario Conversion Required Under All Scenarios 0.5 Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E V R13E TUCSON MOUNTAIN PARK S S Sa n Jo aq uin Kin n ey Rd Rd West W Bopp Rd Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility Ajo Highway ROBLES PASS TRAILS PARK T14S V S Tucson Estates Pkwy T14S V S Sandario Rd T15S MANZANITA POOL PARK WINSTON REYNOLDS-MANZANITA DISTRICT PARK SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER W Valencia Rd LAWRENCE DISTRICT PARK S Mark Rd EBONEE MARIE MOODY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK a hw Hig st We MISSION RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK y S Cardinal Av RYAN PARK W Valencia Rd S Mission S Camino Verde Rd BRANDING IRON PARK Ryan Field T15S W Irvington Rd VESEY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Ajo 1 V Conceptual Re-use Piping Land Parcel Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary Proposed Parks Existing Recharge Basin Existing Parks Habitat Restoration Area Urban Re-use Area V R11E Map W-5 Proposed Alternatives for Treated Effluent Recharge/Re-use R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West A jo Highway V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We S Camino Verde S Mi ss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S W Valencia Rd V Existing Pipes Proposed Backbone Network (>12 Inch) Existing to Remain New Trunk Conveyance Augmentation Required Avra Valley Sub-basin Boundary Wastewater Servicing Areas Areas Not Requiring Wastewater Services Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary V R11E Map W-6 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Lower Density Scenario) R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S W Valencia Rd V Existing Pipes PHASE Existing to Remain New Trunk Conveyance Augmentation Required Avra Valley Sub-basin Boundary Areas Not Requiring Wastewater Service Wastewater Servicing Areas Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary V R11E Map W-7 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Medium Density Scenario) R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t R11E V R12E R12E S Sa n Jo aq uin Rd Kin ne y R13E Rd S Tucson Estates Pkwy S V W Bopp Rd West Ajo Highwa y V T14S V T14S W Irvington Rd W Valencia Rd S Mark Rd Hig ay hw Ajo S Cardinal Av st We S Camino Verde S Miss ion Rd S Sandario Rd T15S T15S W Valencia Rd V Existing Sewers Proposed Backbone Network (>12 Inch) Existing to Remain New Trunk Conveyance Augmentation Required Avra Valley Sub-basin Boundary Areas Not Requiring Wastewater Service Wastewater Servicing Areas Southwest Infrastructure Plan Boundary V R11E Map W-8 Proposed Wastewater Servicing Plan (Higher Density Scenario) R12E R12E Southwest Infrastructure Plan R13E 0 Pima County Index Map 0.5 1 2 Miles Stantec Consulting, Inc 201 North Bonita Avenue Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745-2999 www.Stantec.com Index Map Scale 1:2,250,000 t Appendix F Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) Pre-2005 173,241,826 173,241,826 173,241,826 1,001,815,128 828,573,302 2006 396,497,734 396,497,734 1,007,144,399 $610,646,665 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 2007 376,672,848 86,317,335 462,990,183 1,030,493,319 567,503,136 2008 7,575,767 7,575,767 357,839,205 213,112,097 7,575,767 570,951,303 1,074,639,791 $503,688,488 2009 16,151,533 16,151,533 339,947,245 352,608,279 16,151,533 692,555,524 1,119,855,047 $427,299,524 2010 39,609,317 39,609,317 322,949,883 436,542,949 39,609,317 759,492,831 1,166,158,483 $406,665,652 2011 59,328,083 59,328,083 306,802,389 439,308,719 59,328,083 746,111,108 1,213,569,728 $467,458,620 2012 2013 93,921,200 124,741,282 91,347,700 110,891,600 2,573,500 13,849,682 291,462,269 276,889,156 424,107,669 407,802,286 3,497,633,042 93,921,200 124,741,282 715,569,938 4,182,324,484 1,262,108,645 1,311,795,331 $546,538,707 ($2,870,529,153) Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 167,869,814 206,140,745 234,685,477 273,724,259 293,503,559 376,844,237 461,174,832 555,225,228 654,746,590 805,940 1,571,583 1,493,004 10,293,754 23,673,506 36,384,271 39,584,097 39,855,342 45,583,992 141,938,010 168,126,820 187,968,870 209,429,570 215,314,430 284,760,668 353,629,005 434,985,733 516,342,460 25,125,864 36,402,045 45,104,727 53,807,409 53,807,409 53,807,409 64,250,627 74,693,845 85,137,064 263,044,698 249,892,463 237,397,840 225,527,948 214,251,551 203,538,973 193,362,024 183,693,923 174,509,227 388,683,164 369,514,124 442,829,056 430,809,603 409,269,123 388,805,667 369,365,384 350,897,114 333,352,259 3,322,751,390 3,156,613,820 2,998,783,129 2,848,843,973 2,706,401,774 2,571,081,686 2,442,527,601 2,320,401,221 2,204,381,160 167,869,814 206,140,745 234,685,477 273,724,259 293,503,559 376,844,237 461,174,832 555,225,228 654,746,590 3,975,285,192 3,777,591,991 3,680,503,029 3,515,475,278 3,353,595,954 3,199,810,596 3,044,839,106 2,894,847,601 2,757,826,638 1,362,650,113 1,414,693,549 1,467,946,429 1,522,429,766 1,578,164,804 1,635,173,008 1,693,476,065 1,753,095,881 1,814,054,580 ($2,612,635,080) ($2,362,898,442) ($2,212,556,601) ($1,993,045,511) ($1,775,431,149) ($1,564,637,588) ($1,351,363,042) ($1,141,751,720) ($943,772,058) 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) 2023 2024 2025 2026 674,662,825 738,512,060 787,773,360 837,034,660 48,775,759 53,961,188 54,742,628 55,484,997 520,344,510 566,126,310 611,908,110 657,689,910 95,580,282 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 165,783,766 157,494,577 149,619,849 142,138,856 316,684,646 300,850,413 285,807,893 271,517,498 2,094,162,102 1,989,453,997 1,889,981,297 1,795,482,232 674,662,825 738,512,060 787,773,360 837,034,660 2,625,406,272 2,501,760,175 2,380,151,667 2,264,623,583 1,876,374,499 1,940,078,185 2,005,188,394 2,071,728,082 ($749,031,774) ($561,681,990) ($374,963,273) ($192,895,501) 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 2027 886,954,460 56,848,747 703,471,710 106,023,500 135,031,913 257,941,623 1,705,708,121 886,954,460 2,155,530,404 2,139,720,407 ($15,809,997) 2028 892,941,260 55,991,060 707,473,760 106,023,500 128,280,318 245,044,542 1,620,422,715 892,941,260 2,049,738,634 2,209,188,722 $159,450,088 2029 897,747,560 53,995,757 711,475,810 106,023,500 121,866,302 232,792,315 1,539,401,579 897,747,560 1,948,055,952 2,280,156,568 $332,100,616 2030 898,551,810 52,100,219 711,475,810 106,023,500 115,772,987 221,152,699 1,462,431,500 898,551,810 1,851,457,405 2,352,647,674 $501,190,269 2031 899,175,560 50,118,958 711,475,810 106,023,500 109,984,337 210,095,064 1,389,309,925 899,175,560 1,759,508,284 2,426,685,946 $667,177,662 2032 899,799,310 48,236,760 711,475,810 106,023,500 104,485,120 199,590,311 1,319,844,429 899,799,310 1,672,156,620 2,502,295,467 $830,138,847 Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 45,824,922 43,533,676 41,356,992 39,289,142 37,324,685 35,458,451 33,685,529 32,001,252 30,401,190 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 99,260,864 94,297,821 89,582,930 85,103,784 80,848,594 76,806,165 72,965,856 69,317,564 65,851,685 189,610,795 180,130,256 171,123,743 162,567,556 154,439,178 146,717,219 139,381,358 132,412,290 125,791,676 1,253,852,207 1,191,159,597 1,131,601,617 1,075,021,536 1,021,270,459 970,206,936 921,696,590 875,611,760 831,831,172 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 1,167,729,333 1,109,342,866 1,053,875,723 1,588,548,789 1,509,121,350 1,433,665,282 1,361,982,018 1,293,882,917 1,229,188,771 2,579,500,488 2,658,325,419 2,738,794,828 2,820,933,430 2,904,766,080 2,990,317,764 3,077,613,594 3,166,678,793 3,257,538,691 $990,951,698 $1,149,204,069 $1,305,129,546 $1,458,951,412 $1,610,883,163 $1,761,128,993 $1,909,884,261 $2,057,335,926 $2,203,662,968 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 28,881,130 27,437,074 26,065,220 24,761,959 23,523,861 22,347,668 21,230,284 20,168,770 19,160,332 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 62,559,101 59,431,146 56,459,589 53,636,609 50,954,779 48,407,040 45,986,688 43,687,354 41,502,986 119,502,092 113,526,987 107,850,638 102,458,106 97,335,201 92,468,441 87,845,019 83,452,768 79,280,129 790,239,614 750,727,633 713,191,251 677,531,689 643,655,104 611,472,349 580,898,732 551,853,795 524,261,105 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 774,695,498 735,960,723 699,162,687 664,204,552 1,001,181,937 951,122,840 903,566,698 858,388,363 815,468,945 3,350,218,714 3,444,744,369 3,541,141,240 3,639,434,971 3,739,651,254 3,841,815,819 3,945,954,419 4,052,092,817 4,160,256,768 $2,349,036,777 $2,493,621,529 $2,637,574,543 $2,781,046,608 $2,924,182,309 $3,067,120,321 $3,209,993,697 $3,352,930,130 $3,496,052,215 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 Date: 5/16/2007 10:31 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for Pima County Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Function Bonds Bonds- Completed Bonds- Current Candidate Projects for Bonding Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Bond Retirement Rate Minimum Margin (2005-2012) 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 18,202,315 17,292,199 16,427,589 15,606,210 14,825,899 14,084,604 13,380,374 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 711,475,810 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 106,023,500 39,427,837 37,456,445 35,583,623 33,804,441 32,114,219 30,508,508 28,983,083 75,316,123 71,550,317 67,972,801 64,574,161 61,345,453 58,278,180 55,364,271 498,048,050 473,145,647 449,488,365 427,013,947 405,663,250 385,380,087 366,111,083 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 899,799,310 630,994,325 599,444,608 569,472,378 540,998,759 513,948,821 488,251,380 463,838,811 4,270,472,006 4,382,764,230 4,497,159,081 4,613,682,132 4,732,358,861 4,853,214,640 4,976,274,708 $3,639,477,681 $3,783,319,621 $3,927,686,703 $4,072,683,372 $4,218,410,040 $4,364,963,259 $4,512,435,897 5% annually 95% Retirement rate 406,665,652 Printed: 5/16/2007 10:41 AM Data Cells SWIP Capital Spending Category Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Asset Description Government Service Center Sample 3 Sample 3 Sample 3 Sample 3 Location TBD Plan Maximum Lastest Construction Priority Capital Cost Start Delay Year Start Years Year $ 19,000,000 2010 3A 0 2010 2009 4c 0 2012 2009 4c 0 2017 2009 4c 0 2022 2009 4c 10 2037 Actual End Start Year Year 2010 2012 2012 2015 2017 2020 2022 2025 2027 2030 Special Impact Agency Private Purpose Fee Funding Bond 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GOB Printed: 5/16/2007 10:41 AM Data Cells SWIP Capital Spending Category Asset Description Location Transportation Ajo Highway - Widen two additional lanes1 Ajo Highway - Three grade separations at Transportation locations to be determined Camino de Oeste - New 2-lane connection to Transportation Kinney Road (Wal-Mart) Joseph Road/Mark Road - wWiden to 4-lanes Transportation from Ajo Highway to Los Reales Irvington Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Transportation Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) dot-49 Drexel Road - Extension and widening; Ajo Transportation Highway to Mission Road (4 lanes) dot-49 Valhalla Road - Extension from Valencia Road to Transportation Drexel Road (2 lanes) Valencia Road - Widen to 6 lanes from Ajo Transportation Highway to Mark Road2 rta21 San Joaquin Road - Extension south of Ajo Transportation Highway to Los Reales (4 lanes) San Joaquin Road - Widen to 4-lanes from Ajo Transportation Highway north to Sandario Los Reales - Construct 4-lane arterial from San Transportation Joaquin to I-19 Transportation Public Transit Service - Capital Costs Travel Demand Management Program - 4 Transportation carpool lots at locations to be determined Transportation Interchange I-19 at Drexel3 Transportation Interchange I-19 at Los Reales3 Transportation Interchange Auxiliary Lanes/ Capacity Transportation Existing Related Planned Projects carry over Lastest Actual Special Plan Maximum Agency Construction End Year Start Private Purpose Priority GOB Impact Fee Capital Cost Start Delay Funding Years Year Start Bond Year Year $ 57,420,000 2024 4a 0 2024 2024 2027 15% 85% 0% 0% $ 60,000,000 2024 4a 0 2024 2024 2027 100% 0% 0% $ 7,920,000 2012 4a 0 2012 2012 2015 100% 0% 0% $ 29,304,000 2014 4a 0 2014 2014 2017 100% 0% 0% $ 40,000,000 2019 4a 0 2019 2019 2022 100% 0% 0% $ 60,000,000 2019 4a 0 2019 2019 2022 100% 0% 0% $ 3,960,000 2014 4a 0 2014 2014 2017 100% 0% 0% $ 45,540,000 2019 4a 0 2019 2019 2022 100% 0% 0% $ 30,096,000 2014 4a 0 2014 2014 2017 100% 0% 0% $ 57,816,000 2019 4a 0 2019 2019 2022 100% 0% 0% $ 48,312,000 $ 19,062,510 2024 2019 4a 4a 0 0 2024 2019 2024 2019 2027 2022 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% $ $ $ $ $ 2019 2019 2024 2019 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2019 2019 2024 2019 2010 2019 2019 2024 2019 2010 2022 2022 2027 2022 2029 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5,200,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 20,790,000 80,041,000 4 4 4 4 20 a a a a a Printed: 5/16/2007 10:41 AM Data Cells SWIP Capital Spending Category Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control Plan Construction Maximum Lastest Capital Cost Start Priority Years Delay Year Start Year 3a 0 2022 Ajo Highway Ajo Highway - Sandario Road to Intersta $ 16,412,900 2022 Valencia Road Valencia Road - Ajo Highway to Mark R $ 16,517,900 2017 3a 0 2017 San Joaquin Road San Joaquin Road - Ajo Highway north $ 8,163,900 2017 3a 0 2017 South Camino Verde South Camino Verde - Ajo Highway sou $ 3,916,900 2010 3a 0 2010 Valhalla Road Valhalla Road - Valencia Road to Drexe $ 7,145,000 2012 3a 0 2012 San Joaquin Road San Joaquin Road - Ajo Highway south $ 7,427,800 2012 3a 0 2012 Pasqua Yaqui Stormwater Improvements Basin No. 1 (Pascua Yaqui Tribe) and R $ 7,661,300 2008 3A 0 2008 Black Wash Detention Basin Basin No. 2 (south of Valencia, east of C $ 15,066,000 2008 3A 0 2008 Pascua Yaqui Basins Basin Nos. 3,4,5 (adjacent to Hermans $ 8,059,400 2014 2a 0 2014 Detention basins and collector/conveyor chaBasin Nos. 6,7 (Channel sections 1 & 2) $ 15,849,600 2018 3a 0 2018 Drexel Road Drexel Road - Ajo Highway to Mission R $ 1,733,700 2017 3a 0 2017 Irvington Road Irvington Road and Calle Don Miguel $ 1,944,400 2017 3c 10 2027 Asset Description Location Actual End Start Year Year 2022 2024 2017 2019 2017 2019 2010 2012 2012 2014 2012 2014 2008 2010 2008 2010 2014 2015 2018 2020 2017 2019 2017 2019 GOB 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 95% 0% 100% Special Impact Agency Private Purpose Fee Funding Bond 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 5% 100% 0% Printed: 5/16/2007 10:41 AM Data Cells SWIP Capital Spending Category Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Waste Water Asset Description Location Avra Valley WWTF 4.0 MGD Oxidation Ditch Expansion $ Replace the existing 2.2 MGD treatment train (temporary facility) with a new 2.5 M $ Replace the existing 2.2 MGD facility with a new 5.5 MGD facility. $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 4.0 MGD facility $ Add 3.0 MGD to the 6.5 MGD facility $ Replace the existing 2.2 MGD facility with a new 8.0 MGD facility. $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 4.0 MGD facility $ Add 3.0 MGD to the 6.5 MGD facility $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 9.5 MGD facility $ Recharge/re-use treated effluent to support Lower Density Scenario $ Recharge/re-use treated effluent to support Medium Density Scenario $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 4.0 MGD facility $ Add 3.0 MGD to the 6.5 MGD facility $ Recharge/re-use treated effluent to support Higher Density Scenario $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 4.0 MGD facility $ Add 3.0 MGD to the 6.5 MGD facility $ Add 2.5 MGD to the 9.5 MGD facility $ Septic Conversion Section 2, T15S, R12E $ Septic Conversion Section 30, T14S, R12E $ Septic Conversion Section 34, T14S, R12E $ Capital Cost 39,500,000 47,400,000 4,013,409 4,816,091 4,347,000 5,947,000 - Plan Construction Maximum Lastest Priority Start Years Delay Year Start Year 2006 3A 0 2006 2019 4A 0 2019 2014 4A 0 2014 2013 5A 0 2013 2020 5A 0 2020 2011 4A 0 2011 2011 4A 0 2011 2017 4A 0 2017 2035 4A 0 2035 2019 4A 0 2019 2014 4A 0 2014 2013 5A 0 2013 2020 5A 0 2020 2017 4A 0 2017 2011 4A 0 2011 2017 4A 0 2017 2035 4A 0 2035 2012 4C 10 2022 2012 4C 10 2022 2012 4C 10 2022 Actual End Start Year Year 2006 2008 2019 2022 2014 2017 2013 2017 2020 2024 2011 2014 2011 2014 2017 2020 2035 2038 2019 2022 2014 2017 2013 2017 2020 2024 2017 2020 2011 2014 2017 2020 2035 2038 2012 2015 2012 2015 2012 2015 GOB 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Special Impact Agency Private Purpose Fee Funding Bond 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% Printed: 5/16/2007 10:41 AM Data Cells SWIP Capital Spending Category Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Parks & Rec Asset Description To Be Determined To Be Determined Portion of BLM Parcel Portion of Planned Detention Area Star Valley Phase 2 Manzanita Park To Be Determined Ryan Park Tucson Mountain Park To Be Determined Saginaw Hill* Tucson Mountain Park Expansion* Location P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 Capital Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,247,500 1,608,500 2,081,500 2,652,500 2,000,000 2,286,000 6,482,000 9,673,500 10,328,500 30,006,000 3,969,500 7,080,000 Plan Construc Maximu Lastest Start tion Priority m Delay Year Start Year Years 2031 2A 0 2031 2029 2A 0 2029 2017 2A 0 2017 2025 2A 0 2025 2009 2A 0 2009 2014 2A 0 2014 2010 2A 0 2010 2011 2A 0 2011 2012 2A 0 2012 2021 2A 0 2021 2027 2A 0 2027 2012 2A 0 2012 Actual End Start Year Year 2031 2032 2029 2030 2017 2018 2025 2026 2009 2010 2014 2015 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2021 2022 2027 2028 2012 2013 GOB 100% 100% 100% 15% 100% Special Impact Agency Private Purpose Fee Funding Bond 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 0% 100% Printed: 5/16/2007 10:44 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for SWIP Area Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Purpose Bonds Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) Pre-2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 7,575,767 7,575,767 7,575,767 $0 2009 16,151,533 16,151,533 16,151,533 2,505,388 $2,505,388 2010 39,609,317 39,609,317 39,609,317 5,010,776 $5,010,776 2011 2012 59,328,083 93,921,200 59,328,083 91,347,700 2,573,500 59,328,083 93,921,200 8,483,521 11,956,266 $8,483,521 $11,956,266 2013 124,741,282 110,891,600 13,849,682 124,741,282 15,429,011 $15,429,011 2014 167,869,814 805,940 141,938,010 25,125,864 167,869,814 805,940 18,901,756 $18,095,816 2015 206,140,745 1,571,583 168,126,820 36,402,045 206,140,745 1,571,583 22,374,501 $20,802,918 2016 234,685,477 1,493,004 187,968,870 45,104,727 234,685,477 1,493,004 25,847,246 $24,354,243 Printed: 5/16/2007 10:44 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for SWIP Area Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Purpose Bonds Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 273,724,259 293,503,559 376,844,237 461,174,832 555,225,228 654,746,590 674,662,825 10,293,754 23,673,506 36,384,271 39,584,097 39,855,342 45,583,992 48,775,759 209,429,570 215,314,430 284,760,668 353,629,005 434,985,733 516,342,460 520,344,510 53,807,409 53,807,409 53,807,409 64,250,627 74,693,845 85,137,064 95,580,282 273,724,259 293,503,559 376,844,237 461,174,832 555,225,228 654,746,590 674,662,825 10,293,754 23,673,506 36,384,271 39,584,097 39,855,342 45,583,992 48,775,759 29,319,992 32,792,737 36,265,482 39,738,227 43,210,972 46,683,717 50,156,462 $19,026,238 $9,119,231 ($118,789) $154,130 $3,355,630 $1,099,725 $1,380,704 2024 738,512,060 53,961,188 566,126,310 106,023,500 738,512,060 53,961,188 53,629,208 ($331,980) 2025 787,773,360 54,742,628 611,908,110 106,023,500 787,773,360 54,742,628 56,152,294 $1,409,666 2026 837,034,660 55,484,997 657,689,910 106,023,500 837,034,660 55,484,997 58,675,381 $3,190,384 2027 886,954,460 56,848,747 703,471,710 106,023,500 886,954,460 56,848,747 61,198,467 $4,349,720 Printed: 5/16/2007 10:44 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for SWIP Area Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Purpose Bonds Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) 2028 892,941,260 55,991,060 707,473,760 106,023,500 892,941,260 55,991,060 63,721,554 $7,730,494 2029 897,747,560 53,995,757 711,475,810 106,023,500 897,747,560 53,995,757 66,244,640 $12,248,884 2030 898,551,810 52,100,219 711,475,810 106,023,500 898,551,810 52,100,219 68,767,727 $16,667,508 2031 899,175,560 50,118,958 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,175,560 50,118,958 71,290,813 $21,171,855 2032 899,799,310 48,236,760 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 48,236,760 72,199,057 $23,962,297 2033 899,799,310 45,824,922 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 45,824,922 73,107,300 $27,282,378 2034 899,799,310 43,533,676 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 43,533,676 74,015,543 $30,481,867 2035 899,799,310 41,356,992 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 41,356,992 74,923,786 $33,566,794 2036 899,799,310 39,289,142 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 39,289,142 75,832,030 $36,542,887 2037 899,799,310 37,324,685 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 37,324,685 76,740,273 $39,415,588 2038 899,799,310 35,458,451 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 35,458,451 77,648,516 $42,190,065 Printed: 5/16/2007 10:44 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for SWIP Area Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Purpose Bonds Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) 2039 899,799,310 33,685,529 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 33,685,529 78,556,759 $44,871,231 2040 899,799,310 32,001,252 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 32,001,252 78,556,759 $46,555,507 2041 899,799,310 30,401,190 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 30,401,190 78,556,759 $48,155,570 2042 899,799,310 28,881,130 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 28,881,130 78,556,759 $49,675,629 2043 899,799,310 27,437,074 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 27,437,074 78,556,759 $51,119,686 2044 899,799,310 26,065,220 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 26,065,220 78,556,759 $52,491,540 2045 899,799,310 24,761,959 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 24,761,959 78,556,759 $53,794,801 2046 899,799,310 23,523,861 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 23,523,861 78,556,759 $55,032,899 2047 899,799,310 22,347,668 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 22,347,668 78,556,759 $56,209,092 2048 899,799,310 21,230,284 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 21,230,284 78,556,759 $57,326,475 2049 899,799,310 20,168,770 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 20,168,770 78,556,759 $58,387,989 Printed: 5/16/2007 10:44 AM Total Cumulative Capital Spending for SWIP Area Totals Asset Categories SWIP Capital Needed SWIP GOB SWIP Impact Fees SWIP Agency Funding SWIP Private SWIP Special Purpose Bonds Total Capital Required Total Bond Funding Required Funding Ceiling (Bond limits) Funding Margin/(Gap) 2050 899,799,310 19,160,332 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 19,160,332 78,556,759 $59,396,428 2051 899,799,310 18,202,315 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 18,202,315 78,556,759 $60,354,444 2052 899,799,310 17,292,199 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 17,292,199 78,556,759 $61,264,560 2053 899,799,310 16,427,589 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 16,427,589 78,556,759 $62,129,170 2054 899,799,310 15,606,210 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 15,606,210 78,556,759 $62,950,549 2055 899,799,310 14,825,899 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 14,825,899 78,556,759 $63,730,860 2056 899,799,310 14,084,604 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 14,084,604 78,556,759 $64,472,155 2057 899,799,310 13,380,374 711,475,810 106,023,500 899,799,310 13,380,374 78,556,759 $65,176,385