Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/19/2018 City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 z - Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:00 A.M. Special Budget Workshop Meeting Council Chambers City Council Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Bart Turner CALL TO ORDER Mayor Weiers called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Bart Turner Also Present: Kevin Phelps, City Manager Tom Duensing, Assistant City Manager Jack Friedline,Assistant City Manager Michael Bailey, City Attorney Sheryl Rabin, Deputy City Clerk WORKSHOP SESSION 1. FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 BUDGET WORKSHOP Presented by: Vicki Rios, Director, Budget and Finance Ms. Rabin read the item by title. Ms. Rios said staff would follow up on issues raised at the prior budget workshop before continuing with the department budget presentations. Mr. Duensing addressed the School Resource Officer(SRO) Program. The question asked was if employees were only being reallocated from one area to another, why was there a cost for it. He explained that in the prior fiscal year, there were 285 authorized Fire Department full-time employees (FTEs)and 564 authorized Police FTEs, which included 4 SROs. There were also 6 authorized Council Office FTEs. Mr. Duensing said the proposal was to reclassify one of the Fire release positions to the SRO program as well as one of the Police release positions to the SRO program, so the net change in the Police Department was basically zero. It was just going from the release to the SRO program. One position would be moved from the Council Office to the SRO program. The positions being absorbed by the Police Department were one in the Gateway Patrol and one in the Foothills Patrol. There was no net change in the entire Police Department for the two positions and the net impact on the City was basically a wash. Mr. Duensing said the cost was really being funded by the reduction in the merit increase from 2.5% to 2.25%, which saved approximately$85,000. The Council Office position was budgeted at a lower amount, approximately$60,000, than the sworn SRO position. He said the other change was the additional $30,000 in needed equipment for the SRO officers. Councilmember Turner asked if the positions in training were being doubled up. It was his understanding that 5 available positions in the Police Department that were funded were being given up in order to do the SRO program. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 2 of 24 Ms. Rios was not sure what was meant by training positions being doubled up. The positions, even when in training, were authorized FTEs. Staff was not adding or subtracting any FTEs other than the ones on the previous schedule. The fact that there were people in training were counted within the existing FTEs. Councilmember Turner meant that the trainees were working side by side with a training officer and therefore, operationally, might not be counted as a full officer. Operationally, an SRO program was being created and he did not see where 5 positions were being added to the Police Department or to the City as a whole. The 5 positions were not being added to the City budget to operationally conduct the SRO Program. If 5 employees were not being added, he did not see where the budget was impacted. The small dollar amount could be found elsewhere. Councilmember Clark said the release positions were making far more than what an SRO would and the difference would cover the$30,000 required for equipment. Mr. Duensing said the positions were roughly the same and the net budget impact was zero. He said it was the same thing with the officers from Gateway Patrol. The only difference was in the Council Office position, budgeted at a much lower amount than what an SRO position needed to be budgeted for. Councilmember Clark asked if the total budget impact was $89,000 and not the larger number that was previously given to Council. Mr. Duensing said that was correct. The other thing that offset the budget impact was the reduction in the merit increase. The .25% reduction equated to approximately$85,000. Councilmember Clark asked if there would be a surplus of approximately$125,000 this year. If so, could Council take the$89,000 from that surplus. Mr. Duensing said the budget surplus was approximately$120,000 and Council could do whatever it wanted with the money. Councilmember Clark said, even though the .25%was a very small amount, she was getting pushback and was looking for an alternative way to pay the small difference. She would much rather take it out of the$120,000. It was just a suggestion and Council would have to decide if it was appropriate. Councilmember Turner said another aspect was the two release positions. He believed that there was a large amount of overtime associated with them. If the position was at straight time, it would eliminate, for example, $44,500 in overtime. Mr. Phelps said overtime was a separate line item. While there might have been overtime in the current fiscal year, it was not assumed that a person was going to work overtime in the next fiscal year because it all depended on the circumstances. What was transferred was the base compensation and the associated costs but not any overtime. Ms. Rios said there was no reason to believe that overtime would go down. There was a possibility that the SROs would be working overtime. In addition, police officers' salaries had increased for several years but the amount for overtime had not increased. The overtime budget had remained flat even though the amount being paid to individual officers in overtime had gone up as the individual's salary went up. It was a difficult dollar amount for staff to manage and it would be difficult to reduce. Councilmember Turner said public safety was a local responsibility and to share it with the school district was fine, keeping in mind that it was the same taxpayer base. To tax the employees City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 3 of 24 additionally to provide it seemed unfair to him particularly since many of the employees did not reside in the City. Councilmember Turner asked for an explanation of the$30,000 in equipment. It was not discussed in any detail. Mr. Phelps said the employees were not promised a 2.5% increase. Staff had put a placeholder in the budget so that if Council chose to increase the non-represented salaries there would be funding to allow that. It was responsible when doing a forecast to put a placeholder for increases. He said if Council would like staff to change that, they would be more than glad to update and change the forecasts. Councilmember Turner said that it was responsible to put a placeholder in the budget. The City had done the class and compensation study and agreed that it should be at market. It had adjusted the ranges and the people within the ranges. He appreciated City employees and supported the SRO Program. Councilmember Turner said Council had not agreed to across-the-board raises. He said employees had been given that impression, expectations had been created and Council was expected to fulfill them. They were not expectations that Council wanted to create. Mr. Phelps said it was a proposed budget and it had been communicated to all departments and employees that everything in the budget was a recommendation that could be changed at any time. Initially, staff had plugged in an increase of 2.5% but that was being adjusted to 2.25%. No promises were ever made to the employees and the proposal was always subject to Council approval. Councilmember Clark agreed with the concept of a placeholder but asked if it required having specific numbers associated with it. Mr. Phelps replied that the forecast was really about numbers and dollars. Councilmember Clark asked if there was any way to make it more clear that it should not be an automatic assumption by employees that a placeholder was an automatic given. Mr. Phelps said staff would communicate that Council was committed as an organization in making sure all employees were competitive in the marketplace and at the midpoint. It might require, on an annual basis, some adjustment to compensation. The placeholder was there to make sure there were adequate resources to do that. He would provide the information to employees at an upcoming annual meeting. Councilmember Aldama agreed that a placeholder was necessary and was typical for businesses to budget that way. He did not appreciate that at the SRO press conference, employees heard for the first time that to implement the program, the proposed salary increase was being reduced by a quarter percent. Councilmember Aldama favored using a portion of the$120,000 to reinstate the 2.5% increase. Chief St. John believed the $30,000 equipment cost was a low number. The department had excess firearms and tasers for the additional SROs that would help mitigate the costs. The tablets and radios came at a cost. The department would purchase the items and place them on the network which would cost more than the $30,000 for the three positions. Chief St. John said the patrol officers from Gateway and Foothills were already equipped so there were no costs associated with moving the officers. The department was funded for 203 positions City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 4 of 24 but currently had only 177 bodies filling the positions. He received 10 slots per quarter from the Academy so outside of hiring laterals, it took time to get someone into an Academy. Councilmember Turner asked if the SROs had identical equipment as the patrol officers. Chief St. John said that was correct. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if the Police Department still had the budget capacity to fill all of the patrol divisions and were not losing capacity by implementing the five SROs. Chief St. John said there was an increase of 3 positions, but 2 positions were being absorbed in the patrol divisions in the first year. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if that meant there would be 201 total positions instead of 203. Chief St. John said that was correct. Councilmember Aldama was not aware of the equipment cost for the SROs. He asked about vehicle usage for the SROs. Chief St. John said the useful life of a couple of vehicles had been extended. It was understood that while it was beneficial to have a marked vehicle on campus, the vehicles would not be responding in an emergency capacity with lights and sirens. Councilmember Malnar agreed with Councilmember Clark that there was an expectation inadvertently created with employees for the 2.5% increase, although it was an inaccurate expectation. Raises were given by Council. In the future, employees should understand that nothing had been taken away because nothing had been given. Mayor Weiers said the expectation should be if the Council was able to, it would. If Council was not able to, it would not. Most employees understood that. Council must answer to the citizens first. Mr. Phelps said staff needed to communicate to the employees that the policy goal of the Council was to make sure that the City was at the midpoint within the compensation for the different types and positions in the City. There was a placeholder for a comp and class study every two years to make the appropriate adjustments. Councilmember Hugh asked what the difference was between the 2.25% and 2.5% raises for the City and for an employee. Mr. Duensing replied that the 2.5% was approximately$900,000 and the 2.25%was$815,000. For an employee making $50,000, going from a 2.5%to a 2.25% increase was a difference of $125 a year. Councilmember Turner supported the SRO Program, but did not think it was appropriate to put the burden, whether it was$125 or whatever it was, on the backs of the employees. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff hoped employees were aware of Council's desire to fairly compensate and reward employees and Council's appreciation for employees. Councilmember Malnar asked for clarification regarding the reduction of the Fire release position. Ms. Rios said there was a reduction of one full-time employee (FTE) in the Fire Department with the elimination of the release position and the FTE count was going from 285 to 284. However, City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 5 of 24 the release position was not fighting fires or part of the day-to-day operations. Even though the department was reduced by one, it gained it back by that person who was no longer on release. Councilmember Malnar asked if that meant that the firefighters out in the community did not change. Ms. Rios said that was correct. BUDGET AND FINANCE Ms. Rios presented an overview of the department's programs,functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Aldama asked how many credit cards were issued to staff citywide and if the City received any kind of rebate. If so,what was the dollar amount received. Ms. Rios believed it was approximately 400 to 450 cards issued to City employees. The City did receive a rebate on spending and the last rebate was approximately$75,000. Ms. Rios said the City had received the highest rating of AAA on its General Obligation Bonds. The water and sewer bonds ratings had remained stable. The City managed its portfolio of investments and it was trending up. This had been helped by policy changes that Council had adopted lengthening the term of City investments. Staff would talk with Council about other potential policy changes that could help achieve a higher return on investments. Ms. Rios said Council had approved a supplemental in the amount of$6,260 last year due to an increase in the cost of the annual audit. A supplemental was not requested for the upcoming fiscal year. Audit services had been rebid and staff would be bringing the item to Council for award of the contract. Costs would continue to increase and the department would try to absorb the increase but there might be a point in the future when additional funding would be necessary for the item. NON-DEPARTMENTAL Ms. Rios said the Non-Departmental budget included items that were not specific to departments such as long-term disability insurance, sales tax rebates, administrative fees, settlements, membership fees, strategic initiatives and From-the-Heart Program. Councilmember Clark asked how much the City paid in membership dues. Ms. Rios was referring to membership dues such as the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, the Maricopa Association of Government, the National League of Cities and Westmarc. She explained those were the primary dues paid out of non-departmental. She did not have the total but would provide it to Council later. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked Ms. Rios what"Community Activity" referred to. Ms. Rios said it was expenses for activities such as the Cesar Chavez breakfast and different activities around the community that the City supported. Councilmember Turner asked, referring to the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority(AZSTA)tax rebate, if the City had reached the point where it was not rebating the$1,147,000. Ms. Rios said the budget had reduced significantly because the amount that the City had been paying AZSTA had been reduced dramatically. It was now carried in Professional and City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 6 of 24 Contractual in the amount of$2.2 million. Since the State had taken over the collection of sales tax, the amount the City could attribute to the stadium had been reduced dramatically. Councilmember Turner asked if the sales tax that was collected at the stadium in 2018 was still being rebated back to AZSTA to compensate them for having purchased land and parking, etc. that Council had promised when the City won the bid to get the stadium. Ms. Rios said that was correct. The rebate included only the General Fund portion of the sales tax. Councilmember Turner was hopeful that when the bonds were retired, the City would quit rebating. It seemed the sales tax collection change was costing the City significant money as far as getting credit for sales tax money generated at the stadium to pay back the bonds. Mr. Duensing said the termination of the agreement was a legal question. If the expenditure was reduced, for example, staff did not think the City would pay$2 million, because AZSTA only collected a rebate on what was collected out of the General Fund portion of the sales tax. Ms. Rios said it was not a balance that the City was paying down and did not owe a specific amount of money. The City was required to rebate whatever it received. There was not really an impact on the City because it had less revenue. It was really a net zero to the City. Ms. Rios said the impact was more on AZSTA, which was now getting less funding from the City of Glendale. They had worked very closely with them on this to ensure that whatever they were getting was attributed to the stadium. They were rebating to them, making sure that their vendors were licensed properly and there was no reason to believe they were not getting everything they were entitled to. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said the transaction privilege tax(TPT) administration fees were approximately 13% higher and asked if there was a ceiling on how high the fees could go. Ms. Rios was not aware of a ceiling. It was a calculation that was given to the City every year from the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR). It was a combination of the City's share of ADOR's administrative cost and a calculation based on population. Councilmember Clark asked about the 28.5% increase in Budget and Research over a two-year period. Ms. Rios said a position that was in Finance Administration had been reclassified and transferred to the Budget Department. There were only three people in the Budget Department. There was no additional cost to the General Fund because it was transferred from another General Fund department. Councilmember Clark asked if there was a reduction in Finance Administration where the trade occurred. Ms. Rios said that was correct. PUBLIC FACILITIES. RECREATION AND SPECIAL EVENTS Jim Burke, Public Facilities, Recreation and Special Events Director, presented an overview of the department's programs,functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Clark said one of the Council's concerns was that it felt that the parks were not being maintained. She questioned his use of the words"successfully maintained" in his City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 7 of 24 presentation. Mr. Burke thought Councilmember Clark was looking at his original submittal that was actually last year's budget presentation. It was a transfer error on his part in which he had brought up the comments of the previous director. Mr. Burke understood the sentiment about the term "successfully." He believed Council had had a brief conversation concerning the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)and staff was looking at making changes soon. Councilmember Clark asked, knowing that it was a priority for Council to enhance maintenance, why staff was projecting the same cost for maintenance. She asked if staff was expecting to be more efficient in doing the very same things. Mr. Burke said the cost projection remained the same. If the direction of Council was to increase it, it would be modified. He was not projecting a wholesale transformation: Councilmember Clark was puzzled by that because there had been a lot of sentiment on Council to do a better job of maintaining existing parks. Knowing that sentiment, she would think that more dollars would be allocated to maintenance, yet it remained basically the same. Councilmember Aldama asked if a standard of care or a standard of performance for each park had been created and was followed. Mr. Burke believed there was a tracking system but it was based on what was budgeted, not the desired level of maintenance. He said considering all the cultural and water practices, it could impact in the way the parks looked. Councilmember Aldama asked if the department had conducted an inventory of the amenities of each park and how it served the demographics of the communities. If so, he would like to see both the standard of care and the inventory. Mr. Burke said there was an inventory. He would provide it to Councilmember Aldama and would investigate the standard of care question as well. Councilmember Turner said there were also national standards for park maintenance and national data available on dollars spent per acre. Mr. Burke said there was national data but was not sure that any of the national park& rec agencies were putting out standards anymore because park practices varied so much across the country. Staff would look at comparisons, especially locally, and get back to Council. Councilmember Aldama said Mr. Phelps did a very good job speaking with the merchants at one of the downtown merchants' meetings, discussing the fact that the City spent approximately$1 million for downtown special events. Councilmember Aldama could not find the$1 million in the budget book. Mr. Duensing said it was basically adding from the Glitters Spectacular down through Summer Band. Those were just the pure costs. There were other costs involved with putting on special events, bringing the total to approximately$1.1 million for 2018. Councilmember Aldama wanted to be clear that the budget was in there for next year and that the special events were not going anywhere. The City had not said that the events were going away. He was just simply asking for a breakdown of it. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 8 of 24 Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said there were many other events downtown such as the Valentine's Day event, the Mother's Day event, the Teddy Bear event, plus all the other events that were held downtown. She felt there were a lot of merchants in the City that could use the help of City events but citywide special events had decreased from 2018 to 2019. There were events that happened in downtown that were not included on the page. Councilmember Aldama agreed with Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and wanted to make sure Council had a breakdown of expenses. There was no other place in town that had the resources that downtown had. He simply wanted to support what Mr. Phelps had brought forth to the merchants. There was $1.1 million that the City was not getting back and was still, to some extent, supplementing downtown. He would like to breakdown the costs to provide an answer to those who were asking. Councilmember Clark said with regard to the Civic Center, despite its award-winning status, for the amount of money that was put into it, there had been an increase of only about 8,500 in attendance over the past three years. At some point, she would like to have a discussion on the Civic Center. Councilmember Hugh asked about the reductions to Rose Lane Aquatics and the Splash Pad. Mr. Burke said an employee was moved out of that division and allocated elsewhere. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff had the same question on Foothills Recreation salaries. There was a decrease. She asked if it was a decrease in staffing. Mr. Burke said there was a decrease in staffing. There was one less person at Foothills and it was being charged somewhere else in the department. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if there was a grant writer or someone who could help to find grants. Mr. Burke said as grant opportunities were identified, staff started the application process but he did not have a dedicated position. Ms. Rios said there was a grant administrator in the Budget Department who helped all the departments seek out and write grant applications. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said the shooting range grant showed that it was zeroed out. Ms. Rios said some were grants and some were not. It might have been a one-time grant that was received in 2017 and might not have been available again. Some were Parks and Recreation self-sustaining funds that were rolled into other funds. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if the supplementals included a new contractor for Glen Lakes Mr. Burke said that was correct. Councilmember Turner said the City had implemented two rate increases at Rose Lane Park pool, one in 2010 and one in 2012. He asked if that had an impact on the attendance at the pool. Attendance used to be above 45,000 and it was now at barely over 20,000 and there seemed to be a direct correlation to the cost of admission. If the City could go back to a$1.00 admission charge, it could almost double the number of young people who would be able to afford to utilize the facility and the actual cost of doing that would be quite small. He would like Council to consider it. Councilmember Clark said most of Council had felt that if it was going to do cost recovery for City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 9 of 24 Foothills, that it should also be doing it for Rose Lane and the rate increase was approved based on that. She felt Council failed to take into consideration the impact on the social demographic area within which the facility was located. Councilmember Clark said was very much in favor of going back to$1.00 admission. It made sense for that area. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said Rose Lane qualified for$135,000 in Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) money. The demographics were different from Foothills Recreation, which would not qualify for CDBG money. It was not necessary to try to capture in the cost of admission that kind of maintenance and operation because it qualified for CDBG money. Mr. Phelps recommended a deeper dive. He gave the example that from the period of 2006 to 2009, without a rate increase, there was a 32% decrease in attendance. Then in 2010, there was the increase to $1.00 and then in 2011, that number went up 12.5 %. He said since 2012, when the new$2.50 was established, without any change at all to the fee, that number had decreased by 23%. Mr. Phelps was not confident that the amount charged was directly attributable to the attendance because there might be other factors involved. It was an interesting question and there was value to a deeper dive but he did not think it was necessarily as simple as saying there was a direct correlation between what was charged and the participation. Councilmember Turner would like to move sooner rather than later but said it was up to the rest of Council how soon it would like to move on it. Mr. Burke suggested a pilot for the summer and then bring back a full report after the swim season for further discussion. With the direction of Council, they could go back to$1.00 admission for Rose Lane Pool and advertise that and see what impact it had on participation. Councilmember Aldama supported a fee reduction pilot program. The CDBG funds that were available were not guaranteed and if money was needed in future years, CDBG might not be able to be replicated every year. Councilmember Aldama asked if the staff reduction would impact services at Rose Lane Park. Mr. Burke said it should not impact services such as lifeguards, cashiers and other programs that took place at the pool. Councilmember Aldama said the proposed reduction for Special Events was 22% but it appeared to be for personnel and salaries, not events. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Burke did not think there was a reduction in the number of events. Mayor Weiers wanted to do a little bit of research before committing to a pilot program. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff proposed a compromise of$1.50 or$1.75. It was still a reduction. Residents were in a better place economically then they had been and did not think a reduction all the way to$1.00 was necessary. $30,000 would be a hit to the budget. Councilmember Hugh agreed and asked that a report be brought to Council that included suggestions. Councilmember Turner said he calculated a $5,000 reduction in total income. If it was reduced to $1.50 and attendance stayed at 20,000, it would be a hit. The whole idea of doing it was to increase attendance. If the level of attendance returned to what it was when admission was $1.00, the City would be collecting $40,000 to$45,000. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 10 of 24 Councilmember Turner said 45,000 entries at$1.00 was$45,000 and 20,000 entries at$2.50 was$50,000. The difference was $5,000. By lowering the rate, the City could increase the attendance back to the level it was before for about a $5,000 difference. Councilmember Malnar agreed that it needed to be looked at further. It the volume increased to 40,000, there was going to be additional staff costs too. Staff could not administer 20,000 students/kids at the same costs as 40,000. Council needed to study it. It was a great idea to try to increase participation. Mayor Weiers said there could be many factors affecting attendance not just the cost of admittance. He wanted to do a little more research before deciding. Councilmember Hugh asked if there would be a need to increase lifeguards if more kids were in the pool. Mr. Burke said the number of lifeguards was based on the pool deck area not participation. Mayor Weiers said there was Council consensus to get more information before implementing a pilot program. He asked Mr. Burke to come back with information as soon as possible. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Brian Freidman, Economic Development Director, presented an overview of the department's programs,functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Clark asked if there was an expectation of a greater number of new buildings for the coming fiscal year. Mr. Friedman said there was. Councilmember Clark wanted to get a better handle on what was available in terms of vacant office, commercial and warehouse industrial. She asked if he could provide that information to Council along with locations. Mr. Friedman said he would provide the information to Council. Mayor Weiers asked if availability was less than 5%. Mr. Friedman said industrial was approximately 2.5%, retail was 6.9% and office was 17% availability at about 900,000 square feet citywide of a 5 million square foot inventory total. Councilmember Clark appreciated the successes that had been achieved by the downtown manager. She asked if there was any movement towards the creation of a merchants' association with a self-directed dues mechanism. Mr. Friedman said they were on track for the expectations that had been laid out for year one and year two. Staff would be able to report back to Council on the opportunities and the outcomes of additional meetings in the coming year. Councilmember Clark did not believe her question had been answered. Was there a goal somewhere down the road that there would be an achieved downtown merchants' association or would the City have to rely on a downtown manager forever. Mr. Phelps said in his recent meetings with the merchants, he had suggested what needed to City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 11 of 24 happen, whether it be done through formal merchants' dues or some other mechanism, was to form a partnership with the downtown and start looking at how to leverage City dollars with their dollars to make progress. Mr. Phelps said people had just started meeting on a regular basis and would continue to work with the downtown manager to engage with the downtown. He had also met with the building owners which was sometimes different than the building operators. He had received positive feedback about leveraging the money that they were investing so that they could continue to grow and build downtown. Mr. Phelps recommended that a workshop be scheduled later in the year with the downtown manager to talk about the long-range vision. The contract with the Chamber spelled out certain deliverables, and he did not believe it was as specific as saying the formation of a merchants' association. Councilmember Turner was happy to fund the downtown manager position for another year and follow the deliverables. The City and the downtown would be better if it had an active, functioning downtown merchants' association. Councilmember Clark did not want the City to subsidize everything that went on and have it generated because of City action. At some point, the merchants must control their own destiny. It was done successfully in so many other cities across the country where merchants' associations took control of the downtown areas and created success stories. Councilmember Clark was not pressuring that it be done immediately. She understood the deliverables that the downtown manager was engaged in and working on but did not want the merchants to think that the arrangement was forever. Mr. Friedman said the supplemental request was for continued Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) membership. The cost was calculated on a per capita basis for each community. The GPEC membership was a budgeted item in the department's existing budget, however a portion of the supplemental was needed to compensate for an increase of approximately$7,500. The supplemental would also allow for select opportunities in the Canadian market through a full membership with the Canadian Arizona Business Council. The first membership costs were$5,000. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said there was a substantial decrease in the estimate and target for jobs generated. Based on IKEA, Topgolf and the BMW dealership, it should be well over 1,000 jobs. She asked if the City was losing jobs somewhere. She said the chart was going from 2,091 actual to estimate of 1,000 and a target of 1,000 jobs generated. Mr. Friedman said staff tracked the number by the year that it came in and staff had to artificially break off the date at some point. Typically it was April or May. It did not follow the exact calendar year or fiscal year. The only things counted for 2018 were the Aloft Hotel at 20, Fairchild Freight at 50, Topgolf at 500, IKEA at 300, Stars Alliance at 17, Project Zirconium at 15 and Coca-Cola, which they were working with presently. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if most of the jobs had been counted in 2017. Mr. Friedman said that was correct. PUBLIC AFFAIRS Brent Stoddard, Public Affairs Director, presented an overview of the department's programs, functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 12 of 24 Mr. Stoddard said there was a supplemental request of$72,500, which would allow the City to retain the assistance of a full-time state contract lobbyist. The supplemental resulted in a 50% increase to the operating budget. Over the last several years, the City had periodically used the services of a state lobbying contract for a few months at a time. By doing this, the City was missing opportunities to be more proactive in its legislative agenda and mount a more robust defense on many of the legislative issues that were affecting it today, such as local control and revenues. Mr. Stoddard said if the supplemental was approved by the Council, staff intend to issue a request for proposals (RFP)for a consultant that could provide both legislative consultants assistance and public relations support. He said they would make it clear as they go out with the RFP that they were looking to pro-actively pursue legislation that would positively affect the City and to look for increased funding opportunities. Councilmember Clark asked how many months had the lobbyist been engaged in the past. Mr. Stoddard said from February to the end of May. Councilmember Clark said approximately five months out of the year. Mr. Stoddard said that was correct. Councilmember Clark asked if it was correct that most of the legislation that went before the Legislature was vetted through the League of Arizona Cities and Towns (League). Mr. Stoddard said that was correct. Most of the comprehensive legislation for all 91 cities and towns went through the League. Councilmember Clark said basically, the League was a full-time lobbyist for every city in the state. She did not remember a case where the City had initiated a piece of legislation that had not had to go through a League committee to gain its support before the City actually initiated anything on its own. Sheasked if he had an example. Mr. Stoddard said that last time the City put a proactive effort into going out and seeking something that was very specific to Glendale was when it was working on the effort to get funding to assist with the public safety for its major events. The City did not go through the League. Councilmember Clark was comfortable with a part-time contract lobbyist and was not ready to sign on to a full-time lobbyist. It was not necessary at the present time. Mayor Weiers said there was an absolute benefit of having a full-time lobbyist if that lobbyist-was qualified. It was important to put out the right RFP. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said the Professional Contractual line item was reduced by approximately $32,500, assuming a short-term contract with the lobbyist. She asked if the difference in the request was about$40,000 over what was already being spent for part-time. Mr. Stoddard said that was not correct. Two years ago, there had been a re-organization of departments and divisions when the Public Affairs Department was created. There were a lot of things being spent out of the line item that should have been moved. It had taken about two years to get everything reconciled. The increase to the budget in operational expenses was$72,500. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked how much the part-time lobbyist, as needed, was costing. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 13 of 24 Mr. Stoddard said it was approximately$5,000 for the few months. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff was in support of the full-time lobbyist and believed that the constituents and the City would get value for the cost. She said with preemption becoming a bigger and bigger problem for cities, the City had to be out in front of it to protect State-shared revenue, protect against bad legislation and preserve local control. Councilmember Clark said those very things were issues that were on the League's plate every single year and it advocated for every city on the issues. A case a had not been made for a full-time lobbyist. Councilmember Hugh said it was beneficial to have the League's help but he would like the City to have its own lobbyist looking after its interests and giving it a better shot to accomplish what it wanted. Mayor Weiers said a lobbyist was not a bad thing. He could not emphasize enough the opportunity to meet with legislators early on and convince them how an issue affected the City, good or bad, whatever the issue, was so important. The City really needed to get out in front of things and getting the right lobbyist was important. Mayor Weiers had no problem with it. Councilmember Malnar agreed with the general sentiment of the City having its own lobbyist. It was what was needed in today's.environment. Staying ahead of the game was the key and knowing what was coming and not necessarily waiting until the legislative session. Councilmember Turner was generally in support of the concept. The League did an admirable job of trying to be a great lobbyist on the things that the cities and towns agreed on. The Legislature could be a fast-moving organization and he was concerned about making sure that the contract lobbyist was accountable to the Council and its policy concerns. Council should have access to the lobbyist and a direct relationship with the lobbyist. Mr. Stoddard said the lobbyist would report directly to staff and said it would be staffs expectation that the lobbyist would be engaging, coordinating and working with staff and with Council, as the policy-making body. All conversations would absolutely have to include Council before staff would be doing anything or taking any legislative actions. Councilmember Clark was disappointed with the level of refreshment of the City's website. She asked if that was going to be addressed in the upcoming fiscal year. Mr. Stoddard said that an RFP had been issued for a new website. The intent to award had been posted and would be coming back to Council for review and potential award of the contract. Councilmember Clark was not happy with the legislative link subscribers. There were currently 85 with a target of 100. She asked how much it cost the City to support something where the target for next year was only 100 people. Mr. Stoddard said there were no resources expended other than what they were otherwise doing to track the legislation for the City. There were benefits to keep people informed when there were big issues coming up and the City needed to have a group of citizens or a neighborhood engaged with the Legislature. It was hard to quickly manufacture or find people or educate them. The program provided the ability for Council or Public Affairs to do a call to action. Councilmember Turner asked Mr. Stoddard about the Travel Expense line item. Mr. Stoddard said Travel Expense was not new money. It was just in the right place now and was more accurate. It was used for things such as accompanying Council to National League events, City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 14 of 24 the Arizona League Conference, trips to Washington, D.C., the U.S. Conference of Mayors events, GPEC and advocacy work with the Association of Defense Communities. Councilmember Turner asked if the addition of a contract lobbyist would result in a reduction in staff in the Public Affairs Department. Mr. Stoddard said it would not. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE Mr. Stoddard presented an overview of the department's programs, functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Mr. Stoddard said in FY18 there had been a supplemental approved for the addition of one council assistant FTE. This year, there was a reduction of one FTE with the funding being redirected to support the enhanced SRO program. There was a supplemental request in the Mayor's Office for$5,000 to attend the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual conference. Mr. Stoddard said the Mayor would be engaging in several different activities over the next year, including the sister city trip to Norway. The supplemental would make sure the Mayor was able to represent the City at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, an organization made up of mayors from the largest cities throughout the nation who came together to interact with the administration. Councilmember Turner asked for an explanation of the $9,000 variation between the budgets from the lowest to the highest Council district. Ms. Rios said the difference was caused by different benefit packages for different Councilmembers. It depended on the type of coverage, if any, selected, and different benefits that might have impacted compensation differently. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked Ms. Rios if the technology charges were the same for each district. She asked what the charges were based on and how the charges were arrived at. Councilmembers had different devices and she was a little mystified at how it could be the same charge for each. Ms. Rios said the charges were portioned out based on the numbers of devices. She would have to look at the actual model to determine which devices were attributed to each Councilmember to provide an answer. It was the duty of the Budget and Finance Office to determine the allocations. IT would not be able to answer questions about the allocation. Her assumption was that things within the office environment were proportioned out one-sixth amongst the Council. The Mayor's Office had its own allocations based on the number of devices there. The impact of Councilmembers using their own telephones was not part of the charge. - Vice Mayor Tolmachoff ask if Councilmembers could reduce the technology costs by eliminating the desktops from their offices. Mr. Duensing said theoretically yes but the costs savings could not be reprogrammed into the operating budget because it was simply an allocation. Council could reduce it in the budget and the total budget would be less but the discretionary would stay the same and the salary and benefits would stay the same as well. Ms. Rios said the IT budget was not just telephones and PCs. There were a lot of other things that were in the IT budget including IT personnel, the City's network, servers, licenses for all the various pieces of software that everyone used. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 15 of 24 Councilmember Turner said that although it was his idea, he did not support eliminating the council assistant position in the Council Office. The assistants were overworked and he did not support the staffing model in which the assistants were distributed. INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY Chuck Murphy. Chief Information Officer, presented an overview of the department's programs, functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Clark asked how many desktops there were in the City. Mr. Murphy said there approximately 1,800. Councilmember Clark asked what the word "new" referred to. Mr. Murphy said it referred to the final metric number of desktops replaced per year. Staff had looked at the capacity with existing work that the service desk had and then look at what capacity it had to replace PCs that were coming due for replacement. It had figured out over the past two years of tracking that 350 units per year was a good number. Councilmember Clark said with 1,800 desktops, it looked more like a 5-year cycle. Mr. Murphy said that was correct. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if a person could opt out of a replacement especially if they rarely used their desktop. Mr. Murphy said the replacement was based on the acquisition date and it was not arbitrary. The useful life of a desktop PC was set at 5 years. A person could opt from having a PC if they did not need one. Councilmember Clark asked if the amount of$1,155,424 in the line item 18400 Telephones was an accumulation of telephone charges to each of the departments and if that was how the figure was arrived at. Mr. Murphy said it included more than the FTE. It was all of the costs associated with the FTE as well. Councilmember Clark said the line item showed $1,155,424 but when she added the proposed budget, all the phone charges from all the departments, the figure she came up with was $1,211,764, which showed a shortage of about$56,000. Ms. Rios said it was the opposite. What staff did was to look at the cost of the telephones and then charge it out to the departments. Staff did not look at how much it was charging the departments and put it back there. It was the opposite way. She would certainly double-check the math but explained that they did not allocate phone charges to the telephone fund because that would not make any sense because it would be allocating it back to itself. Councilmember Clark did the same exercise for Technology charges for each department and the total that she came up with,for all departments was way over that figure. Her figure was $6,038,513 which was a difference of over$330,000. Councilmember Clark said the allocation model might be off and departments might be over-budgeted. She asked that the numbers be double-checked. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 16 of 24 Councilmember Clark asked for an explanation for the balance in the Carry Over Unprogrammed funds in the amount of$318,000. Mr. Murphy said that the fund was contingency for projects. Ms. Rios said it was brought to their attention that the contingency for the projects was not in the Projects fund. For this year, staff had moved it into this fund and if it did not get used for one of the projects, it would be there to be used for some other project in the future. Councilmember Clark said it was unusual because her understanding of the policy was that no department could carry over funds. She asked why the division in IT had carry over. Ms. Rios said that was generally correct for departments but for projects, because they took more than one year, they did allow carry over of projects. It was one of the funds allowed to carry over because projects could take more than one year. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked how the cost of investment in technology was determined for the IT Department when there was no item in the budget. Ms. Rios said staff could certainly do that by creating an allocation but it would be like double counting because it would be budgeted in a line item and then also charged in technology charges. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said software maintenance was $1.871 million. She asked if that was for upgrades or for software maintenance. Mr. Murphy said that it covered a variety of software packages such as the GIS software, PeopleSoft, SimpliCity, the Microsoft licenses, Oracle licenses plus a litany of other software that went into that amount. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if it was the last year that funding would be allocated for PeopleSoft. Mr. Murphy said when they made the migration to SimpliCity, the cost for PeopleSoft would fold over into SimpliCity. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said there was supposed to be some savings associated because there should be less maintenance. Mr. Murphy said that was correct. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Amy Handlong, Executive Assistant to the City Manager and Jean Moreno, Executive Officer, Strategic Initiatives &Special Projects, presented an overview of the department's programs, functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Turner said there appeared to be approximately$27,000 in increased salaries for the upcoming year compared to the previous year. He asked for clarification. Mr. Duensing said the increase over last year's salary was approximately$56,000 and of that, $41,000 was attributable to the additional assistant city manager position. The rest represented the 2.25% requested salary increase. Councilmember Turner asked if there were any equity adjustments or reclassifications planned. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 17 of 24 Mr. Duensing said there were not. Councilmember Turner asked if the management assistant position in the City Manager's Office was currently vacant. Mr. Duensing said it was currently vacant and a recruitment was being conducted. Councilmember Clark asked that the number of vacant General Fund positions, not including enterprise funds or public safety positions, and the dollar value of the positions, be provided to Council. Mr. Duensing said it would be a point-in-time list. He recommended that it be what was appropriated last year versus what was being requested because it would give Council a better idea. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Sam McAllen, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the department's programs,functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. Councilmember Clark asked how long a review cycle was. Mr. McAllen said the department had a statutory requirement to publish turnaround times for reviews. It had been necessary to increase the review times by a couple of days. For new commercial buildings, the first review would be done within 25 days and the second review within 15 days. With standard home plans, the first review was within 20 days and the second review was within 15 days. If the department did not comply with the postings, it was required to issue a building permit at no cost for what was submitted. Councilmember Clark asked if the requirements were state mandated or if they were standards. Mr. McAllen said the City was required by the State to post its turnaround times and to meet the turnaround times. The State did not mandate the time period. Councilmember Clark said the FY2018 estimate showed 9,000 cases open and 9,500 cases resolved. She asked how more cases could be resolved then opened. Mr. McAllen said it was an estimate. The resolved cases would be cases from years prior that were brought forward. Councilmember Clark said that was not the pattern of the two previous years and asked if he was being optimistic. Mr. McAllen said it was not uncommon for the department to resolve more cases then were opened in a year. Councilmember Aldama said Council had asked that a weekend program be implemented. He asked if the uptake in the statistics were part of that weekend program and if the program was working. Mr. McAllen said two employees had been hired and trained for Saturday inspections, starting in in February. The two inspectors worked 10-hour shifts, conducting 256 inspections, which was about 32 inspections per day. The inspectors checked the voicemail system 3-4 times per day on Saturdays to see if new cases had been called in. So far, 11 calls had been received on Saturdays and three required immediate attention. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 18 of 24 Councilmember Aldama asked if the re-introduced request for service (RFS)system was of any assistance to Code Enforcement. Mr. McAllen said the RFS system was another way for people to get the word to the department. Code Compliance now had a team that could initiate a case immediately. It was a helpful tool and was beneficial for the residents. Mr. McAllen outlined the department's supplemental requests. He was asking for the following new positions: a planning position; a building inspector specialist; a plans examiner; a development services center representative; and 1.5 code compliance inspectors. He was also requesting contract funding of approximately$12,000 so that the department could continue to meet its turnaround time for customers and one-time funding in the amount of$54,350 for an electronic plan review system. Mr. McAllen said the last request was for funding to update the Zoning Ordinance. The current Zoning Ordinance was 25 years old and predated the last two General Plan updates, the Loop 303, the stadium, Westgate and many other things. Councilmember Clark asked how the Zoning Ordinance rewrite would interface with the Business Council Committee. It was her understanding that Councilmember Malnar would be bringing forward a request for a Code Committee. Mr. McAllen had envisioned the three committees working on the update, the Planning Commission, the Business Council Committee and Councilmember Malnar's Code Compliance Review Committee. Councilmember Clark said it made sense with regard to the Planning Commission because it was not a work in progress. The groups would generate a review of whatever changes were brought forward to them. Mr. Phelps said it was long overdue and his recommendation was to get going on it. Staff would continue to integrate the process, not only with the three committees but at some point with stakeholders and the community. Councilmember Clark said it was a perfect topic for a workshop because there were broad policy issues regarding zoning that needed to be weighed in on before the work began. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if it included updating the sign ordinance. Mr. McAllen said it did. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked if the process would be coordinated by a consultant. Mr. McAllen said the City's new Planning Administrator, David Williams, had been through the process before and would be heavily relied upon. There would be a process of full engagement for the public along with Council's input, making sure staff had that direction upfront when a consultant was brought on board. It was a two-year process and the timing was critical. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff agreed that it was something that needed to be done. Councilmember Turner said it would be$450,000 because it was a two-year process. He was uncomfortable moving down that road on something that he had just heard about for the first time. He was not ready to proceed without knowing a lot more and making sure it was something the City needed to do and that it must start now as opposed to a year from now or two years from City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 19 of 24 now. Councilmember Malnar asked if the addition of 1.5 code compliance inspectors was sufficient. He asked if the department answered the calls from Saturday on Saturday and how that was working. Mr. McAllen said the phone system was checked three to four times on Saturday to see if there were calls that day. He did not believe they had a demand for Saturdays, saying the numbers were not there with an eight-week snapshot. Councilmember Malnar asked if the referrals were being taken into account as well. Mr. McAllen said the volume was not showing up on Saturdays right now. The calls for Saturdays were not at the point where he would be before Council asking for more people on Saturdays. Improvement was being seen in the proactive enforcement that they were doing, but it was not because the demand was very specific on Saturday requiring them to be there. Councilmember Malnar asked if they are taking care of those Saturday requests at the same time. Mr. McAllen said that was correct. Mayor Weiers asked if there would be a point when he might want to reduce it to one inspector in the field on Saturdays. Mr. McAllen said it was always best to have two field employees working so they can have each other's back. Mayor Weiers said there was the Police Department if safety was an issue. He asked Mr. McAllen once that person had the expertise and experience, did he see a point where he would not need to have two on Saturday. Mr. McAllen did see that based on the call volume but not based on safety. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked, with the additional 1.5 FTEs, was he planning to create new grids or shrink the grids. Mr. McAllen said staff was trying to reduce the geographic areas that the employees were currently working. He said the ultimate plan was to get them to 70% proactive. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff knew there was some resistance to Saturdays. Were they able to find people that were not home during the week so that they could contact the resident rather than just sending them something. Mr. McAllen said an average of 32 inspections a day were being completed. Much of that contact was probably proactive contact where it was not a report of a violation that was called in but one where an inspector saw it, pulled over and addressed it. Councilmember Clark asked that the department be more proactive in letting the public know that the service was available and what number to call. TRANSPORTATION Trevor Ebersole, Transportation Director, presented an overview of the department's programs, functions, goals, objectives and performance measures. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 20 of 24 Mayor Weiers asked if the 60% completion of the pavement management program meant there was roughly two years left at that point. Mr. Ebersole said that was close. It was presented to Council in 2015 as a five to seven-year program. It was going into its third year and by the end of the third year, it would be approximately 60% complete. It was on target for the five-year program. Councilmember Clark said there was a target of 20 intersections for FY19 for the Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation Program, leaving 8 intersections left. She asked if Transportation could manage to get all of the 28 completed in FY19. Mr. Ebersole said it was a running total. He said from FY18 to FY19 there would be only 11 intersections completed. Councilmember Clark said that was worse than what she read. Mr. Ebersole said there were three phases of installation for the yellow arrows. The first phase was completed with federal money for design and construction in FY19 for installation at 11 locations. The second phase would utilize in-house staff and for phase three there would be federal funding for design only. By 2023, all 45 locations should be done. Councilmember Clark asked if 12 bus shelters out of 150 was all the department could manage to get done next year. Mr. Ebersole said that it fluctuated. The target was to do 20 per year. It was a projection and staff did not know if it was going to be completely accurate or not. Councilmember Clark asked if there was a priority list for bus shelter refurbishments. Mr. Ebersole said there was a priority list. Councilmember Clark requested a copy of the list. Mr. Ebersole said Council approved the following supplementals last year: •Supervisor FTE in signs and markings program and a pickup truck •Streets maintenance tractor with a box blade attachment • Funding for the Go Program audit • Fixed route increase •Traffic mitigation •Radios and tablets for the streets maintenance crew Mr. Ebersole said the supplemental request for FY 2019 was for 2.5 temporary staff, not FTEs, two 40-hour and one 20-hour position. Two would be used for right-of-way crews to assist with the tree trimming and the 20-hour position was to support the GIS functions for the Pavement Management Program, providing maps for the contractors that do the tree trimming, landscaping and irrigation. • Councilmember Aldama asked if the tractor had been ordered yet. Mr. Ebersole said it had been ordered but he did not know the delivery date for it. Councilmember Malnar thanked the Transportation Department for ramping up the slurry seal and crack seal programs. It was much needed and Council was very happy to see that and he felt constituents would be very happy to see the expedited process going on. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 21 of 24 Councilmember Clark asked if the 17% increase to right-of-way maintenance was reflected by the supplemental for the ongoing 2.5 FTEs. Mr. Ebersole said that was correct. Councilmember Clark asked if Stadium Transportation Ops was for the football games, the Fiesta Bowl and all the events outside of the facility, where traffic must be monitored around the stadium to make sure it was flowing. Mr. Ebersole said that was correct. Councilmember Clark said there was no salary request for graffiti removal. Mr. Ebersole said there was no staff in that program. The two FTEs were in the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) budget. Councilmember Clark asked what the$665,000 received from the Arizona Lottery Fund was used for and where it went. Mr. Ebersole said that was an annual grant through the Arizona Lottery Fund which was used to supplement the regional Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)taxi program. Councilmember Clark asked what the$813,000 in the Transportation Capital Improvement Program was used for. Mr. Ebersole said it would pay for theright-of-way maintenance along the Northern Parkway as well as along the Loop 303. Councilmember Clark asked what the $50,000 was in the Division Rail Transit line item. Ms. Moreno said it was for membership dues for Valley Metro and gave Council a seat at the table from a decision-making perspective. It would be completely at Council's discretion whether or.not it wanted to continue participating. Councilmember Clark asked why Council would pay$50,000 when it was not pursuing light rail. If Council decided to proceed with light rail in the future, it could rejoin the organization at that time. Mr. Ebersole said the motivation to stay in the program would be primarily to keep the City at the table in hopes of hearing Proposition 500 (Prop 500) discussions. Prop 400 would sunset in 2026 and staff suspected that Prop 500 or a follow-up proposition would be occurring. If that did happen, it could be valuable to be in the forefront of the discussions to help leverage the needs of the West Valley. Councilmember Clark did not disagree but that was eight years away and by not joining this year, the funds could be programmed for something else. It was doubtful any major decisions about Prop 500 would be made in the coming year. She did not see any harm in the City withdrawing for a year or two until it was closer to that kind of discussion. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff said as the City's representative on the Valley Metro Board and RPTA, discussions about the direction of Valley Metro were already occurring. It was going to have a huge part in what happened with Prop 500. She believed there was value in Council having a seat at the table. With the other West Valley cities having a high degree of interest in commuter rail and other things that were being talked about now, she would not want to get a seat at the table too late to have any input in the discussion. City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 22 of 24 Councilmember Clark withdrew her suggestion. Councilmember Turner had the very same question about the$50,000. It was not General Fund money but was from the Transportation Tax Fund. The City could pay$50,000 to have a seat at the table or it could have a seat in the audience for free. He was not sure that it was the best expenditure of taxpayer dollars regardless of what fund it came out of. Councilmember Turner said there was $4 million set aside for reconstruction and asked what it would be used for. Mr. Ebersole said that was reconstruction for Camelback Road, Bethany Home Road and Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Turner wanted Council to consider funding the$900,000 in transportation expenditures from the Transportation Fund instead of the General Fund. It would free up $900,000 for General Fund expenses. Councilmember Turner also suggested that significant expenditures in the Police Department primarily for transportation-related expenses such as traffic management, traffic enforcement, etc., be funded out of the Transportation Fund instead of the General Fund. It could potentially free up as much as $2.5 to $3 million. Councilmember Turner said there was a workshop coming up to discuss the Transportation Plan. He wanted Council to keep an open mind about the General Fund support for Transportation, when it has such a strong revenue stream, stronger than what the General Fund had. It was something the Council should be taking a serious look at. Councilmember Clark asked if Council made any changes or modifications that changed the numbers for any project, would it be reflected in the budget. Ms. Rios said to a certain extent, some changes could be made. Changes such as the CIP, needed to be taken a bit more slowly and thought through. Staff would like to look at the long-term impact of the changes and it would be very difficult to do that in one week. It would take some time to gauge the long-term impact, particularly on the Transportation Fund and whether it was sustainable. Mr. Phelps was not recommending that they do that unless that was what Council requested. He wanted to get through the workshop first because even the$900,000 could have significant impact in terms of the ability to fund the projects that were currently identified. Councilmember Malnar asked for clarification on the Valley Metro membership. Heunderstood that it was a special group for light rail and asked if there was a separate membership fee of $50,000. Kevin Link, Transportation Planning Manager, said to be a member of the Valley Metro Rail Agency Board there was an annual $50,000 fee. If a city had a rail project, once it was operational, the fee went away. Councilmember Malnar wanted to understand why the City would be a member of the rail side if it was not doing rail. He asked if Prop 500 was part of Valley Metro and if the City could do a Prop 500 without being part of the rail side. Mr. Link said yes it could. Prop 500 was going to be driven by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)for the most part but commuter rail was gaining steam in the Valley and was City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 23 of 24 going to come into play in Prop 500. If it was included in Prop 500, it would come along Grand Avenue and right through Glendale. Whether Council wanted a stop in Glendale and to be a part of it, that was where having a seat at the table could be advantageous. The current members were Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe and Glendale. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked why the stadium, Fiesta Bowl and all the event operations were in the General Fund and not in the Transportation Budget. Ms. Rios thought it was because the revenues generated by the events went into the General Fund. Mayor Weiers said there was a consensus to continue the budget workshop to Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Weiers adjourned the meeting at 4:17 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Glendale City Council of Glendale, Arizona, held on the 19th day of April, 2018. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. - Dated this 24th day of June, 2018. Oiff‘, i' K. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes-April 19,2018 Page 24 of 24