[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6276194,"mediaKeyId","2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f","parentId",2661289,"title","Economic presentation flags risk to sales-tax receipts; retail, accommodation and construction highlighted","audioSeconds",3318,"startMs",2911000,"endMs",6229000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f&start=2911&end=6229","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f/thumbnail_2911000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6276194/Carefree/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Economic-presentation-flags-risk-to-sales-tax-receipts-retail-accommodation-and-construction-highlighted","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276194-aa3316ddd9ad87bf5a7c6774cec03e7a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191882&Signature=gKHO04-AXpOsN-eQ8BrF9jbicfynBXvZ2BHaGfUd4TAqoUD653GbOPVtPT0unaObtyvgDEUqVh3-S-qHfWRjWkQz4OxbxONl4wbOhxXVSlv-RqipJ-F8ZvSAqKVwcZPRuf9N-tnjazfzLpSyUzUN-asUZKvneF~8GvXYOZ2POsr5Vseo-ycaXP7ZSEbhPV8epg92uoBVuEf7R4BfkXUSDMv1y~n7NHKccn8JgyjYFTjXEvnjbIo4vJUjO7ahcY9OyFUxDJcq900FEOYgArEppK5-nn3UWnO3DhC3oPSmW9rgU5OdOiajr9~T4HVSbIDqLgbkWNkEHkXX8zV4Ye7kww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Carefree","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","Staff presented an updated build‑out analysis and economic overview intended to inform the town’s budget projections and capital planning, and recommended caution given recent negative market signals and supply‑chain risks.

“The signs are not good out there,” Staff member said during the presentation, pointing to recent market volatility and possible tariff impacts that could slow construction and retail activity. Staff framed the talk around national and regional headwinds (tariffs, weaker manufacturing and construction spending, and declining retail activity) and local revenue composition.

Why it matters: staff said roughly “60% plus or minus of our revenues is local sales tax,” making the town particularly sensitive to changes in retail, lodging and construction markets. The presentation highlighted three revenue drivers the town relies on most: retail, accommodations and construction; restaurants and internet sales were also identified as important components.

Notable figures and points from the presentation (reported in the meeting):
- Cash balance and investment income: staff cited an $18,000,000 cash balance in the town’s investment pool (LGIP) and noted that the pool generated roughly $650,000 in returns last year; staff said conservative budgeting of investment income is prudent.
- Travel spending and tourism context: staff referenced 2023 figures used in discussion — Arizona direct travel spending of about $29.3 billion and Maricopa County at about $18.0 billion — and said reductions in park and forest staffing or visitor services could reduce travel flows that support local businesses.
- Sales‑tax mix: staff noted retail accounted for about 31% of sales tax in the 2024 data discussed, accommodations around 20%, and restaurants roughly 9.5%; internet sales represent a growing share compared with five years ago.
- Construction volatility: staff reviewed historical construction sales‑tax receipts, noting strong peaks in prior years and that construction revenues are volatile and often held in reserve; staff said construction sales tax is typically treated as less reliable for recurring expenditures.

Staff recommended that the council consider holding reserves and that the advisory board track a set of metrics (square footage available, vacancy rates, retail share of downtown, leasing activity at large properties) to monitor whether planned developments and retail optimization are on track. The presentation also noted the Northeast Corner and several town‑center opportunities as key areas to monitor for potential revenue growth.

Board members discussed how the town’s demographic profile — a relatively older resident base with many on fixed or investment incomes — may change the local elasticity of demand and the potential effects of any national slowdown. Staff said the town’s relatively large cash balance gives it flexibility but urged conservative revenue assumptions in multiyear planning.

Ending: staff said it will refine the forecasts as national and regional data evolve and proposed a follow‑up conversation on circulation and town‑center capital projects; the board did not take formal action on the build‑out presentation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 10 - EDAB Workshop","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented an updated build‑out analysis and economic overview intended to inform the town’s budget projections and capital planning, and recommended caution given recent negative market signals and supply‑chain risks.","taxTitle","Carefree, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",54795,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276204,"Town staff describes amended Northeast Corner agreement; wash maintenance and site-plan timing remain open",2285,3073000,788000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f&start=3073&end=788","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f/thumbnail_3073000.jpg","/articles/6276204/Carefree/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Town-staff-describes-amended-Northeast-Corner-agreement-wash-maintenance-and-site-plan-timing-remain-open","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276204-f15e09283f9c18b8843babed6b11c2a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191882&Signature=H36aS7FnfWjb4ftLsWbKtnPQRXhVyw0ycPWF2WG8MVBpDE58z1lwRg-3Ul~RatZG8T-WD80mJhO4ZSw1ZHWwerGjtGpQu8TMSlSygNVs05gqjnflZaN8uszEpuP82kMMd1uB-CRZxbcqzhy3psbBaX2Q7GmhyyeqGuk3SCKB7Xsr20MrzpP4wpIayxk31oFCsRwUfWpF9GdWJiPlBNL7~0AiJmlFd60V2hxalDnvEikkwWzJ3C1tVxzvwUPFIZn1hp1EXuZM-fCjMH-83TPeSMgREek8bTqsfLTi0tPzGhA1P1nrjESO2s0yFa~~Gi8nujWgV1N4V6kfO5fzB5ocNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Staff described an amended development agreement for the Northeast Corner and said the amendment finalizes an operations-and-maintenance plan for the project’s storm wash, but singled out two unresolved items: the wash itself is not insurable and long-term maintenance responsibilities for the wash bottom will change after the incentive period.

“The biggest update, obviously, is the Northeast Corner. We just had an approval for an amendment to the agreement,” Staff member said, summarizing the board update. Staff said the amendment incorporates a separate wash‑maintenance agreement and an operations‑and‑maintenance (O&M) plan as an exhibit to the development contract.

Why it matters: the wash runs through the project site and will collect sediment and runoff that can affect nearby roads and pipes. Staff said commercial insurers would not offer a standalone flood policy for the wash because “it’s hard to insure something that’s meant to flood,” a constraint the town and developer addressed by allowing the wash to be covered under broader umbrella insurance instead of a dedicated flood policy.

Staff explained how long‑term maintenance will work. During the incentive period the developer will maintain the wash bottom “100%,” including removing sediment before it reaches pipes and maintaining bank areas, trails and irrigation. After the incentive period, responsibility for the wash bottom will transition away from the developer and to town crews, staff said, noting the town has equipment and crews that can handle periodic sediment removal and other upkeep.

Board members asked whether the lack of a standalone wash insurance policy affects tenants; staff answered it does not, saying tenants’ commercial insurance will cover tenant liabilities but not a dedicated wash flood policy. Staff also emphasized that the agreement defines maintenance responsibilities in specific terms and over two time frames: inside and outside the incentive period.

Board members pressed staff on whether the project’s site plan approval or tenant recruitment was causing delays. Staff said a meeting with the developer was scheduled for the following day to discuss the site‑plan process, but reiterated that some requirements are set by existing zoning and “the staff is required to ensure this project meets zoning.” Staff encouraged the developer to address the spelled‑out zoning items if it wanted a quicker path to site‑plan approval.

On cost pressures, staff said higher construction or material costs could lead the developer to seek a longer incentive period to recover public benefits already planned. “If the developer comes back and says the cost of the wash is now 10% more… the only thing you could really consider is extending the agreement time period for the incentive period,” Staff member said, describing the town’s limited options to address cost escalation given existing public‑benefit caps.

Staff also said leasing remains a key variable: one lease was referenced in the developer’s presentation to council, but staff said it did not have a complete list of executed leases and planned to use the upcoming meeting to get a clearer timeline for construction start and tenant commitments.

Board members asked for updates to be shared after the site‑plan meeting; staff said it expected “a lot of clarity” after meeting with the developer. The board did not take formal action during this item.

Ending: staff asked the board to note the amendment’s changes and the scheduled developer meeting, and said it would return with further updates following the site‑plan discussion.","Staff described an amended development agreement for the Northeast Corner and said the amendment finalizes an operations-and-maintenance plan for the project’s storm wash, but singled out two unresolved items: the wash itself is not insurable and long-term maintenance responsibilities for the wash bottom will change after the incentive period.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276198,"Board reviews proposed facade improvement program pilot; staff outlines $50,000 budget, application options",1246,1377000,2623000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f&start=1377&end=2623","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661289-e908a27cbb6ab591e577a19426f0279f/thumbnail_1377000.jpg","/articles/6276198/Carefree/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Board-reviews-proposed-facade-improvement-program-pilot-staff-outlines-50000-budget-application-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276198-42a66df1f9d2cd4f6b59e007f067ba68/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191882&Signature=oMjcSY72JgqdZbruZ9WGWKdzoMVy7JQp0n1B5hJZU3x6SIg1XITIuXZSEBYfsPOLX0cGs~YrkSPnhwvqgbw2pLTWalta6LJl0-ZAoH-vq3DwPFPU1TiWlVWk6IA8F2g-BcrvhOhlRSV-NZnwgmdII~TGJVbHOYLTcSdp84f6sOS-VUrLGD01sMga4YSHsLlsFGTgCy5O9maMXc-cLGNM0yFtDjwgF9qjdKXfUKbZJkv0zkoxQLiulPWoKvf8NQMxu5smIvVn4R0Kl~Fejny3Ho56uZSpq49EEmD9LwTpVhe7vXoqCrJ43ZKof5nWuSu1FGxyzLybP2c6i6G2LMHY2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town staff presented a draft facade improvement program and sought board input on program size, eligibility and administration, describing a $50,000 pilot fund and multiple options for how awards would be distributed.

“The total budget is 50 k,” a Board member said during the discussion; staff confirmed the working figure and described a likely per‑project cap of $15,000 under current thinking, with staff exploring tiered funding or higher match percentages (staff raised 30% currently and suggested up to 50% as a discussion point).

Why it matters: staff said the program is intended to help undercapitalized local property owners make exterior improvements that boost retail vitality and public appearance, and that the town may be able to fund private façades because the target area is a designated redevelopment area. Staff emphasized the program’s goal is revitalization — improving retail sales tax base, restoring building character, addressing public‑facing health and ADA issues, and encouraging reinvestment.

Key program points discussed:
- Budget and awards: staff described $50,000 total for the pilot, with a common example of a $15,000 maximum per project. Board members suggested options including awarding fewer larger projects (one or up to three pilot projects) or dividing funds across multiple small projects. Staff said they will explore tiers and spoke with legal counsel about the mechanics of staff approvals versus council approvals for per‑project limits.
- Matching and percent share: staff proposed a percentage match (previously 30%) and discussed raising that to up to 50% for certain project types while noting the goal is to assist smaller owners where $15,000 makes a difference.
- Application timing: board members preferred either a rolling application process or a short initial application window (for example a multi‑week intake period before moving to rolling awards), rather than a single one‑time round.
- Eligible scope: staff said the program intentionally focuses on exterior improvements but recommended clarifying that “facade” may be interpreted broadly to include courtyards, alleys and other public‑facing areas — while still excluding interior renovations. “We’re not giving money to venues to redo the interior of the restaurant,” Staff member said.
- Decision process and legal risk: staff warned the board to document award criteria to avoid claims of arbitrariness. Board members asked that staff check with attorneys about appealability and whether the board’s or staff’s design decisions could be challenged; staff said they will confirm the legal review and return with language limiting appealability where appropriate.
- Multi‑owner projects and stacking: staff said the program would be flexible enough to allow multiple property owners to combine resources on a single consolidated project and to permit per‑owner maximums to apply across owners when a shared project creates efficiencies.

Board members suggested prioritizing small, high-visibility projects (examples included removing low‑cost eyesores such as pegboard or tacky storefronts) and reserving the pilot year to demonstrate demand and refine program rules. Staff proposed returning to the board with a near‑final draft (a 90–95% complete document) after legal review and after follow‑up calls to other jurisdictions that run similar programs.

Ending: staff said it will incorporate property‑owner feedback, consult the town attorney on decision‑making authority and bring a near‑final program document back to the board for approval. The board did not take a vote; the item was a direction/request for staff to return with a revised program.","Board members discussed a proposed facade improvement program for the town center, including a $50,000 pilot budget, a possible $15,000 per‑project cap, matching share proposals, rolling vs. fixed application periods and whether interior or courtyard work will qualify; staff asked to return with a near‑final draft after legal review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Economic presentation flags risk to sales-tax receipts; retail, accommodation and construction highlighted

Town staff describes amended Northeast Corner agreement; wash maintenance and site-plan timing remain open

Board reviews proposed facade improvement program pilot; staff outlines $50,000 budget, application options