HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/4/2003 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
February 4, 2003
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager;
Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. CITY COURT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVERVIEW
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Elizabeth Finn, Presiding City Judge
The Honorable Elizabeth R. Finn, Interim Presiding City Judge, will provide an overview
of City Court accomplishments since October 28, 2002, the date of her appointment.
Judge Finn created a strategic plan in conjunction with court managers. The plan is
reviewed monthly and updated on an ongoing basis by the judge and staff, allowing the
court to set priorities and achieve goals and objectives needed to improve overall
operations.
In June 2002, the Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, performed an
operational review of the court resulting in 31 findings. All findings required procedural
modifications.
On October 28, 2002, Interim Presiding City Judge, Elizabeth R. Finn was appointed to
provide judicial and administrative oversight for Glendale City Court.
Court staff entered over $3 million in the Tax Intercept Program, (TIP) which will
generate additional funds for the city. TIP is the Courts ability to receive money owed to
the court by having the state pay the court before any taxpayer receives their state
income tax refund.
A change in procedure and review of over 400 court files resulted in a net monthly
increase of $33,000 for December 2002 as compared to December 2001 in bonds
forfeited. Of these monies, $29,000 went to the City's General Fund.
The Court has contracted with a collection agency resulting in aggressive enforcement
of delinquent obligations to the Court.
1
The recommendation was to provide information.
Judge Finn said she looked at the Court's business practices and tried to streamline
some of the forms and processes. In terms of traffic offenses, she explained the law
states, once a person fails to appear, their bond should be forfeited immediately and a
warrant should be issued. She said, instead, the Court was scheduling individuals for a
bond forfeiture hearing. She stated she has since changed that process and has
reviewed every file with an outstanding bail. She said, as a result, there was more
money to the Court and to the City's General Fund.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Judge Finn stated the average bond is
approximately $500.
Judge Finn said, while she expects there to be an increase in money to the Court and
the General Fund in 2003, the substantial increases seen during the first few months of
the year will be due to her review of over 400 old files.
Judge Finn stated, while the Court has two full-time Spanish speaking interpreters, it
contracted individual interpreters through an agency for other lesser-use languages.
She said they now directly contract interpreters, saving $600 in interpreting costs. She
stated they have also changed to Superior Court Security who is able to provide better
trained, more professional guards at a savings of $12.00 per hour. She explained they
looked at reducing arraignment costs, developing a docket that allows the city to run an
individual's motor vehicle record and gives a defendant time to obtain their license,
registration and insurance, without delaying the Court's ability to continue with
sentencing. She noted 80 more pleas were taken in the month of December than the
prior year. She said, unfortunately, the Court will not see the savings for at least five
months. She stated the change saves Police Department resources and will,
eventually, save Court resources as well.
Judge Finn explained the Tax Intercept Program allows the Court to collect money
owed for fines before State Income Tax Refunds or lottery winnings are issued. She
noted overtime had to be authorized to enter information into the Tax Intercept
computer program, noting the city is currently owed $3.9 million. She said the Tax
Intercept Program has resulted in approximately $6,000 to the Court to date. She
stated the Supreme Court will upgrade the computer system by next month, making
dual entry no longer necessary.
Councilmember Clark asked what is the historical success rate in obtaining tax intercept
money. Judge Finn explained it is not possible to do a valid historical analysis because
the number of courts that split the money increases as new courts begin to utilize the
program. Councilmember Clark asked Judge Finn what she anticipates will happen
with the state contracted collection agency. Judge Finn said the agency they contract
with also perform collections for various other courts and has a very established track
record. She said, unfortunately, electronic transmission of information to and from the
collection agency is not possible at this time, therefore, all of the information is sent
manually. Councilmember Clark asked how much is owed to the Court in terms of
outstanding fines. Judge Finn estimated the total to be just over$4 million.
Councilmember Lieberman asked why the Court was not previously utilizing the Tax
Intercept Program. Judge Finn stated, while the program has existed for a few years
and the Court was using it, the dual entry required made it less effective. She noted the
2
courts are lobbying Congress for a similar intercept program on federal income tax
refunds. Councilmember Lieberman asked if defendants are allowed to set up a
payment plan on traffic fines. Judge Finn responded yes, stating they have worked with
Financial Enforcement to increase its usage. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the
collection agency's fee is based on a percentage of the amount collected or if a flat fee
is paid for their services. Judge Finn stated their fee is based solely on collections.
Judge Finn said they have started running credit bureau reports on defendants sent to
Financial Enforcement, explaining doing so allows the court to identify credit cards the
defendant could use to pay the fine. She noted the reports cost $0.25 each. She said
a change in printing vendors also saved the Court about $350 the first month. With
regard to bonds, she explained a bond cannot be used to pay a fine and the court is
required to return that money to the depositor. She said most jurisdictions consider the
money a fine, not a bond, meaning it does not have to be returned to the depositor.
She stated they have worked with Chief Henderlite and Detention to create a fine
receipt.
Councilmember Martinez asked what would happen if a defendant refused to utilize a
credit card to pay a fine. Judge Finn said the defendant would have the right to see a
judge, however, 99 percent of the time, the judge will go along with the
recommendation of the Financial Enforcement Unit to use the credit card. She stated
the Court expects payment of a fine at the time it is due. She said if a person is unable
to pay the fine, they are required to pay 10 percent and return in three weeks to pay the
full amount or be re-screened. She said, at that point, Financial Enforcement evaluates
the person's financial circumstances and devises a payment plan. Ms. Way pointed out
Financial Enforcement runs a credit check prior to establishing a payment plan to find
out if the person could pay the fine by credit card. Councilmember Martinez expressed
his opinion a defendant should be given the option of setting up a payment plan with
the city rather than having to pay the fine with a credit card that will accrue interest.
Judge Finn reviewed changes made to court processes, explaining faxed motions and
responses are now accepted, drastically reducing the number of calls from attorneys.
She said the certified copy process is now a one day process, no longer requiring the
City Clerk's signature, and changes in the file room have resulted in fewer lost files.
She said the Court now only requires fingerprints on six offenses, rather than on every
conviction of a criminal charge.
In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Judge Finn stated fingerprints are
required by law for domestic violence, DUI and Chapter 14 Sex Offense cases. She
said the Court also requires fingerprinting in shoplifting, theft and prostitution cases.
Councilmember Clark asked if fingerprinting is required on assault cases. Judge Finn
responded no, unless it is a domestic violence assault.
Judge Finn explained financial payments made without a file are now tracked on the
computer, meaning fewer files have to be pulled. She said changes have also been
made to Detention which will require them to transport fewer defendants this year.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the fine information is transferred to the Clerk. Judge
Finn explained the Clerk is in the courtroom when the sentence is rendered and enters
the fine into the computer at that time.
Judge Finn pointed out the Courts ability to do electronic transfers saves 15 hand-
generated forms per month and both defensive driving schools transmit information to
the Court electronically, saving approximately 585 data entries per month. She said a
3
Final Disposition Report, produced by the fingerprints taken by the police, is used to
transfer information to the Department of Public Safety. She said it is currently a paper
process, however, because of her expertise in the matter, the Supreme Court has
named Glendale as one of the 50 courts to participate in a pilot electronic process
program. Judge Finn said one of the two pieces of paper previously sent to the MVD
on DUI convictions has been eliminated. She stated the four forms generated in Civil
Traffic have been reduced to one page and they are currently piloting a condensed
form for Jail Court as well. Judge Finn commended Ms. Way on her efforts to have the
Supreme Court computers modified to accommodate the Glendale email system,
negating the need for a second computer in the judges' chambers. She said they are
also working with the Supreme Court to identify other enhancements that can be made
to the system. In terms of the Supreme Court mandated requirements, Judge Finn
reported the Court met the deadline and has a new process in place. She noted all
court employees and judges met the Continuing Legal Education requirement of 16
hours.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if all of the Supreme Court mandated requirements
have been addressed. Judge Finn said most have been addressed, noting the
Supreme Court came out on January 15 for a follow up on operations and were very
positive and complimentary of Ms. Way and her staff. She said they hope to be an
unseized court by May 2003, stating security will be the most difficult issue to address if
renovations are not completed by that time.
Councilmember Clark asked why cases have been delayed for lack of parental
presence, when parental presence is not required. Judge Finn explained Juvenile
Traffic is the only juvenile jurisdiction the court has retained. She said, previously, a
case would be continued if a juvenile defendant appeared without a parent.
Furthermore, she said a form was sent to the parents of juvenile defendants who
mailed in the preset amount on the bail card, requiring them to sign and obtain a
notary's signature acknowledging that their child pleaded guilty and paid the fine. She
said neither of those actions are required. Councilmember Clark pointed out a
juvenile's conviction on traffic violations can effect what they and their parents pay for
insurance. She said, therefore, she believes parents should be notified when their child
receives a ticket. Judge Finn explained the state law was changed several years ago
and most courts changed their processes at that time.
Judge Finn stated they have put several process in place to reduce jail costs and are
working with city departments on other issues. She said a strategic plan has been put
into effect and is reviewed and updated monthly.
Councilmember Frate stated the changes will help court employees work more
efficiently. He commended Judge Finn for her proactive way of dealing with issues.
Councilmember Clark said she is pleased with the level of information Judge Finn has
provided to the Council. She expressed her opinion the city could not have made a
better choice for City Judge, stating she appreciates Ms. Way's and Judge Finn's level
of commitment. Judge Finn thanked Mr. Beasley for his support.
In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Judge Finn stated every city court
in the state keeps unserved warrants in the warrant room until such time as the person
is stopped for another violation and the warrant can be pulled. She said the two
Warrant Officers primarily look at money owed the court. Councilmember Martinez
suggested implementing an amnesty program. Judge Finn explained an amnesty
program would allow people with outstanding warrants to come in to resolve their case
4
without being charged extra for the warrant. She said, while they can explore that
option, she would like to see the court do everything it can before such a step is taken.
Councilmember Martinez thanked Judge Finn and Ms. Way for the work they have
done.
Mayor Scruggs expressed appreciation for Judge Finn's holistic approach to resolving
the various issues. She said there has been tremendous progress in a short amount of
time.
Councilmember Martinez referred to an article regarding a city that passes the cost of
incarceration on to the inmates. Judge Finn said Glendale has done that as long as
they have been allowed to, however, it is based on the defendant's ability to pay.
2. CITY MANAGER'S FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL
INTEREST
The purpose of this item is to present informatiop to the City Council on items that were
identified by Councilmembers at their January 7t workshop. The four topics include:
A. Preservation of Luke Air Force Base
B. Annexation Policy
C. Motorized Skateboard Ordinance
D. Smoking Ordinance
Councilmember Frate identified the Smoking and Motorized Skateboard ordinances as
items of special interest at the January 7th workshop.
Councilmember Lieberman identified the preservation of Luke Air Force Base and the
Annexation Policy as items of special interest at the January 7t workshop.
The recommendation was to provide information to City Council for review, discussion
and staff direction. Should the Council identify potential policy issues it wishes to
formally review and discuss, staff will be directed to return at a later date with a more
comprehensive analysis.
Mr. Flaaen explained this item was posted as an opportunity for the City Manager and
staff to provide Council with information, allowing the Council to make a decision as to
whether it wants to go forward with any of the items. He stated this is not meant to be
an opportunity to discuss the merit of the items or to go into a detailed discussion of the
items. He explained if Council concurs that staff should proceed with all or any of the
items, they would give direction to the City Manager to come back with a full report at a
future date.
2A PRESERVATION OF LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
5
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Duffy, Intergovernmental Director
and Ms. Kim Jara, Senior Billing Compliance Specialist
Ms. Duffy explained state law for the preservation of the military mission in Arizona
started in 1978. She stated, in 1995, Glendale annexed Luke Air Force Base, the
Legislature enacted sound attenuation legislation, the Arizona Military Preservation
Committee was established, notification standards were identified and the 1988 Noise
Contours were modified. She said Glendale has since recognized that military bases
should be protected at a state level. She explained SB1514 gave the Attorney General
enforcement authority over compatible land uses and established penalties for non-
compliance. She noted the entire session was spent trying to determine what qualified
as a compatible land use around a military airport. She said they found an FAA site,
FAA-85-2, Table 14.2 and 14.3, putting it into the state statute at the end of the
session. She stated efforts were started again after receiving several requests to put
compatible uses into state statute. She explained SB1525 further defined compatible
land use, putting forty different categories into state statute. She stated any city, county
and school facility board within the vicinity of a military airport has to notify the military
base of any development plans and the military base is required to submit its concerns
or comments to those political subdivisions who are then required to hold a public
hearing to analyze the comments. She stated, since SB1525 was enacted, a few
technical cleanups have occurred, including an Attorney General ruling that said
schools are prohibited within the contour areas. She noted the last Legislative session
had two key provisions: HB2161 that, had Proposition 101 passed, would have allowed
for land exchanges for the preservation of military airports; and SB1228 which would
have identified the same provisions for air encroachment as were identified for land
encroachment. She reported HB2161 did not pass, however, another bill is being
considered this Legislative session that will hopefully be passed by the voters. She
stated there was some concern about communications, therefore, they met with the
parties, offered to pull the bill and rework it over the summer. She said a
communications procedure has been put in place that specifies how communication will
occur between private and military airports.
Ms. Duffy stated Arizona is the first state to establish a group of military and aviation
planners to discuss concerns and establish a plan to deal with those concerns. She
said the Fighter Country Coalition has been in effect for one year, explaining it is a
group of business leaders, elected officials and members of the State who meet every
month to establish action items and determine what more can be done to preserve the
mission at Luke Air Force Base. She said the Fighter Country Partnership is attempting
to develop an action plan and the Luke West Valley Council meets every other month to
identify issues it feels should be addressed. She reported the Maguire study was
released in May and talks about the economic benefits of the military base.
Ms. Duffy identified key issues brought up at the last FCC meeting: 1) how to ensure
communication with the military bases is happening in the best, most timely manner; 2)
locating schools in the best, safest area; 3) noise complaints received from residents
who live outside the box; and 4) development occurring in OX1. She stated FCC
members received copies of a letter in response to the Department of Commerce study
identifying Luke's support of: 1) the continuing efforts of the Arizona Department of
Commerce's land use compatibility study to amend the draft to a more workable
solution for everyone; 2) expanding the box to a West Valley compatibility area covering
all areas that Luke's flight paths cover, including OX1 and west of the White Tank
Mountains; 3) comprehensive disclosure requirements to new home buyers in the
expanded area; 4) energy efficiency in new homes in the expanded area; and 5) a
6
requirement for developers and political subdivisions to keep channels of
communication open and to notify Luke of new developments in the West Valley
compatibility area.
Ms. Duffy stated they are currently looking at the background done in 1995, how Luke
was evaluated at that point and if anything needs to be done in terms of follow up. She
said the southern departure corridor is key to ensuring people understand the concept
of compatible land uses. She explained Luke can no longer fly to the north and,
therefore, has to have access to the southern departure corridor. She said they have
administratively been looking at what the city can do to ensure land uses within that
area are compatible.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out the southern departure corridor is located in Goodyear, who
has to bear an inordinate amount of the burden. She said leaders at Luke Air Force
Base identified this as the number one issue the FCC should address. She explained a
team of city attorneys worked together to look specifically at what availability there is for
cities to purchase land outside of their municipal boundaries. Mr. Flaaen explained the
consensus was that cities can purchase property outside of their municipal boundaries
as long as it is for a legitimate public purpose. He stated the preservation of Luke Air
Force Base was determined to be a legitimate public purpose. Mayor Scruggs said
they are currently studying the possibility of locating the regional public safety training
facility on that land, noting Peoria, Surprise and Luke have all expressed interest in the
facility. She expressed her opinion this could be an extraordinary step towards
preserving Luke's mission, effectively ensuring there will not be incompatible
development of the most critical land.
Councilmember Clark said a public safety training facility is a brilliant idea. She asked
which group, if any, has identified the FAA's efforts to cap altitudes as an issue. Ms.
Rudibaugh stated the issue has been raised several times at Fighter Country Coalition
meetings, however, the real work on the issue has been done by military planners,
aviation and the City of Glendale. She stated the city now has a good working
relationship with the Arizona Association of Airports and Luke has been working with
Sky Harbor to meet with different FAA offices to communicate how capping affects tax
payers and flight training. Councilmember Clark asked how they can present a more
effective case for reducing the cap to the FAA. Ms. Rudibaugh said having five officers
represented and actively participating in the Fighter Country Coalition has been very
helpful and the two Senators clearly understand the issue and have offered their
assistance at the federal level. Councilmember Clark suggested they align themselves
with other southern states that have Air Force bases, asking their federal legislators to
also work on the issue.
Mayor Scruggs stated Sky Harbor felt extremely threatened when the issue first arose
and hired a consultant to protect their ability to grow. She said the intensity of their
meetings has since lessened to the point where Sky Harbor officials are going with
Luke officials to the FAA. She pointed out the Regional Aviation System Plan is being
reviewed and updated and the two criteria required to add or expand an airport are that
Sky Harbor's and Luke's airspace not be diminished. She noted, however, a private
cargo airport that wants to build on the edge of the Barry M. Goldwater range does not
have any restrictions and is not controlled by the FAA.
Councilmember Clark asked if there is anyway to control the development of private
airports through the State Legislature. Ms. Rudibaugh offered to research
Councilmember Clark's question.
7
Mayor Scruggs stated GPEC, who wanted WestMarc's support on certain issues, has
taken on the preservation of the military mission statewide. She expressed her opinion
GPEC should meet with the private investors, suggesting it could have more impact.
Vice Mayor Eggleston noted FAA', grants are funded by aviation fuel taxes, therefore,
they will likely listen closely to commercial aviation. He asked Ms. Rudibaugh how large
is the danger zone area at the entrance of Luke Air Force Base. Ms. Rudibaugh stated
the area is predominately in Goodyear, but some of it is located in Buckeye. She
offered to provide Vice Mayor Eggleston with the exact acreage.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out OX3 was vacant in 1995 and flights could take
off in either direction. He said, at that time, the Legislature discussed spending $2
million to purchase land around Luke, however, that amount was withdrawn by
Governor Hull. He said a massive housing development is now being built in Buckeye
under the takeoff pattern, Surprise is developing OX3 and another massive housing
development is being built under, Luke's aircraft turning point. He said nothing will
happen until land usage is done in cooperation with other cities and until the cities buy
and lease development rights from the ranchers. He stated the only way out of Luke
that does not require a live ordinance is rapidly being consumed by housing
developments. He stressed the need to buy and lease development rights on a
massive scale. Mr. Beasley explained there are approximately 150 acres and they are
working with other cities to secure the land. He pointed out private/public partnerships
could also be possible. Councilmember Lieberman stressed the need to move quickly,
pointing out the BRAC is only twd years away. Ms. Rudibaugh stated the original $2
million was reduced to $1 million and then to $500,000, $418,000 of which was used for
the Luke Air Force Base study. She explained the Governor took the funding because
of concerns on the Ag-Preserve, pointing out the timing of the budget crisis did not help.
She noted Glendale's model for Luke has been recognized nationally and is being
modeled in other states.
Mayor Scruggs explained the Agricultural Preservation District has not been funded,
stating two legislators indicated it will not happen because landowners would be
allowed to opt out at any time. Shoe noted two of the largest landowners indicated they
do not want the Preservation District to happen either. She stated removing the threat
of development is the key and there may be other opportunities to accomplish that goal.
Councilmember Clark said, philosophically, the state does not support leasing land,
equipment or vehicles. She agreed Glendale has not done enough to preserve Luke's
mission, expressing her opinion, however, Glendale is far ahead of other states in terms
of the issues it has had to face relative to Luke. She stated the BRAC will see a local
community that has made strides far above those of other communities and, until the
parameters for the next BRAC are known, they will not know what specific areas to
target. She expressed her opinion Luke is in a better position than a number of other
bases in the country.
Mayor Scruggs agreed Glendale can never do enough to protect Luke's mission. She
said Luke is asking for a broader notification area, noting it has been suggested that the
notification area extend from the county line to 51St Avenue. She said it will not be easy
to accomplish, but there is a strongicommitment to being proactive.
Councilmember Frate agreed it would make sense to locate the public safety training
facility by Luke. He pointed out protecting the land next to the base has to be their first
priority.
8
2B ANNEXATION POLICY
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager and
Ms. Kim Jara, Senior Billing Compliance Specialist
Based on a request by Councilmember Phil Lieberman, Cactus District, the City
Manager is providing an initial assessment of staff time and resources needed to follow
through on `"
new policy direction the City Council might provide regarding annexation
west of 115 Avenue.
A draft annexation policy has already been prepared by staff related to annexations
east of 115th Avenue and reviewed by Council in a series of workshop sessions last fall.
The policy has not been formerly adopted by Council.
Portions of a draft policy were discussed by the Council at the October 15, 2002
workshop and consensus was reached regarding elements related to the annexation of
undeveloped properties. Phase II of the policy, related to the annexation of developed
properties, and a proposed disclosure statement were not discussed. The policy has
not been formally adopted by Council.
Staff is prepared to present the draft annexation policy at the February 18th Council
Workshop.
The City Council met in workshop sessions on July 16, 2002, September 17, 2002 and
October 15, 2002 to discuss the development of an annexation policy for the City of
Glendale.
The basic framework for the discussion regarding an annexation policy was taken from
Council comments offered over the last two years regarding specific annexations or
annexation requests.
If the Council should decide to consider the draft policy at a future workshop, staff
would conduct a public meeting to gather citizen input on the policy at the conclusion of
Council's discussions. The public meeting would be conducted prior to formal Council
adoption of an annexation policy. The draft annexation policy would also be placed on
the city's website for easy access by citizens and other interested parties.
There are no direct costs associated with bringing the draft annexation policy forwarg
for discussion. Cost and resource issues related to studying annexation west of 115
Avenue are considerable and would require specific Council direction if such a study is
desired.
The recommendation is to present draft annexation policy and disclosure statement
related to annexations east of 115th Avenue at the February 18t City Council
Workshop.
Mr. Reedy said Council directed staff to evaluate the cost of acquisition and, during that
evaluation, staff discovered for a little more money they could do a comprehensive
evaluation of the cost of the infrastructure for all utilities west of 115th Avenue. He
stated, historically, they have done a comprehensive analysis of the services the city
would need to provide to the areas and the impacts that would have on the city's
General Plan analysis. He said it would take approximately $200,000 and six months to
9
evaluate the costs involved in annexing the area west of 115th Avenue. He stated it will
take a considerable amount of staff time to proceed to the next level.
Councilmember Martinez suggested they continue with the draft annexation policy as
recommended. He expressed his opinion that, given the costs involved, they should
keep their focus east of 115th Avenue.
Councilmember Clark said she does not like doing piece meal annexations, pointing out
it also costs the city to service county islands. She said, even if annexation west of
115th Avenue does not occur for another 10 years, she would like to know that a plan to
do so is being developed.
Councilmember Goulet stated the city is being faced with huge projects and the cost of
looking at the western area would be significant. He expressed his opinion the city
should address areas east of 115th Avenue before spending money to plan for areas
west of 115th Avenue.
Councilmember Lieberman said the city needs a comprehensive annexation policy for
annexation east of 115th Avenue. He stated, however, he is also concerned about the
development occurring west of Luke Air Force Base, noting the city has already
received requests for water and sewer services in that area. He cautioned the city
could be forced to annex areas west of 115th Avenue in the future if it does not take
proactive steps to control growth. He said, while annexation could be paid for through
impact fees, he believes more studies need to be done.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he is not interested in studying areas west of 115th Avenue
at this time.
Councilmember Clark said Glendale has a history of being prudent and looking to the
future, pointing out it developed the Glendale 2025 Long Range Plan and looked at
planning for the downtown area in terms of the next 10 to 20 years. She questioned
why the city would do long range planning in every area, except as it relates to strip
annexation areas. She expressed her opinion it would be prudent for the city to look at
the areas west of 115th Avenue.
Councilmember Frate pointed out the city is in the midst of a hiring freeze and has
asked departments to reduce their budgets. He expressed his opinion it would be
inappropriate at this time to spend $200,000 on a study.
Mayor Scruggs said, while it is tempting to proceed with the study, she agrees this is
not the time given the city's limited resources, hiring freeze and reduced budget. She
directed staff to finish the annexation policy for developed areas east of 115th Avenue,
but not to proceed with the study. She pointed out the city has a General Plan for the
area west of 115th Avenue.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
10
2C MOTORIZED SKATEBOARD ORDINANCE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Randy Henderlite, Police Chief and Ms.
Kim Jara, Senior Billing Compliance Specialist
Based on a request by Councilmember Steve Frate, Sahuaro District, the City Manager
is providing an initial assessment of the staff time and resources needed if the Council
chooses to research other ordinances, modify its own ordinance or prohibit the use of
motorized skateboards in Glendale.
Glendale has a Bicycle and Skateboard Ordinance (Chapter 8). Article III, Motorized
Skateboards, was updated in 1996 and amended in 1999.
Currently Glendale Police enforce the city's Motorized Skateboard Ordinance. Police
records indicate there were six motorized skateboard (motorized skateboard) violations
in 2002, though a record is not necessarily generated for each violation or reported
violation. Eight motorized skateboard complaints were entered in the city's Request for
Service (RFS) system in calendar year 2002. Since 1998, a total of 18 concerns
regarding motorized skateboards were handled through the RFS process.
With the exception of the violations noted above, little staff contact has been made with
citizens/neighborhoods recently. Outreach efforts took place when the Motorized
Skateboard Ordinance was amended in 1999. The Police Department Community
Action Teams worked with schools and other neighborhood groups to inform them
about the new regulations. Information was also placed on the city's website and
included in Council District mailings and communications.
Should the Council decide to pursue changes in the ordinance or prohibit motorized
skateboards, some staff time would have to be redirected and there would be costs
related to research, public outreach and implementation. The costs are detailed in the
attached memorandum from the City Manager.
The recommendation was to provide information to City Council for review, discussion
and staff direction.
In terms of possible solutions to the problem, Mr. Beasley stated selective enforcement
is one option, however, it would cost $1,400 for the officer and $20 for the vehicle. He
read a letter from Judge Finn concerning the use of fines to control the problem, stating
fees for a Class I misdemeanor range from $0 to $2,500 plus surcharges. He said the
specific amount is up to the Judge's discretion, however, the range is lessened when
the violator is a juvenile. He explained the maximum juvenile monetary assessment,
regardless of the misdemeanor, cannot exceed $150.00, pointing out, however, there
could be multiple fines for multiple offenses.
Chief Henderlite explained the issue centers around the safety of those riding the
motorized skateboards and the nuisance to residents in the neighborhoods where they
are riding. He said there have not been a large number of occurrences since 1999,
however, a number of incidences, such as those related to noise, are not recapped in
the information. He said, as the ordinance currently reads, officers currently work in a
specific area of selective enforcement. He voiced the Department's opinion that the
program has been successful, stating they would like to improve education on the
11
matter by notifying kids and their parents of the ordinance.
Mr. Flaaen explained the city received numerous complaints in 1997 about the
excessive noise and unsafe operation of motorized skateboards. He said they looked
at how other jurisdictions regulate the use of motorized skateboards and returned to
Council with two options, either to do a flat prohibition of motorized skateboards within
the city's limits or to conduct an informal study to see if further regulation would help
curve the problem. He said they proceeded with the survey and received 80 to 100
calls, with 50 percent wanting the skateboards banned and 50 percent wanting further
regulation. He said staff returned to Council after crafting a city ordinance that had a
series of restrictions intended to curb the complaints. He explained one of the
regulations prohibited individuals under 14 from operating a motorized skateboard on
city right-of-way and the second regulation dealt with individuals who were over 14, but
under 18, requiring them to carry an authorization slip signed by their parents. He said
the third regulation restricted the hours of operation to daylight hours, but never before
7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. He said the fourth regulation prohibited the use of
motorized skateboards in a manner that caused excessive, unnecessary or offensive
noise. He acknowledged enforcement has been a problem, explaining the violations
have a lower priority than other calls to which the police respond.
Councilmember Lieberman said, unfortunately, there is no way of measuring noise
levels. He stated, while the city requires riders to wear helmets and other protective
gear, the ordinance does not adequately describe the type of helmet that should be
used given the speed at which motor skateboards travel. He pointed out skateboarders
are not required to wear any protective gear and protective gear will not be required at
the city's skateboard park. He expressed his opinion 18 complaints in three years is not
excessive, stating, therefore, he would not support a ban on the use of motor
skateboards.
Councilmember Martinez asked how many citations have been issued since the
ordinance was put into place. Chief Henderlite responded six. Councilmember
Martinez said, while he has seen kids violate the ordinance, he does not believe a total
ban is necessary. He stated he supports selective enforcement, but believes more
citations should be issued to get people's attention. He agreed the city should begin an
educational campaign.
Mayor Scruggs said in neighborhoods where motor skateboards are a problem,
typically, one or more residents know the violators. She asked what is the burden of
proof for a police officer to write a citation and what would the burden of proof be if the
city banned the use of motorized skateboards. She also asked how violators are
prosecuted and what does it mean for a youth to have a Class I misdemeanor on their
record. Chief Henderlite explained a police officer has to observe a violation of the
ordinance in order to issue a citation. He explained kids modify the mufflers to increase
their speed which results in increased noise, stating, however, it is difficult for an officer
to verify a muffler has been modified. He said, while they can check to ensure kids are
carrying their parental permission slips, they cannot necessarily verify that they are over
14 years of age. He explained a Class I misdemeanor is the highest class
misdemeanor and, while it could be considered harsh, a minor's record can be
expunged when they turn 18. He pointed out, while a citizen could observe the violation
and agree to act as a witness to the event, most complaints are made by anonymous
callers. Mr. Flaaen explained the prosecutors prefer to try cases where an officer
observed the offense because it increases their ability to get a conviction. He noted
many citizens are afraid of retaliation and, consequently, are reluctant to personally
testify against a defendant. He pointed out that a complete ban on motorized
12
skateboards would eliminate the noise related issues because the fact they are being
operated would be a violation of the ordinance. He said, however, a motorized scooter
could be operated on private property and the city would have to rely on the property
owner to file a trespass complaint. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would be easier to
prosecute violators if a total ban is enacted. Mr. Flaaen responded yes. Mayor
Scruggs asked if it would be easier to prosecute if it were considered a civil rather than
criminal offense. Mr. Flaaen noted juvenile records are sealed once the individual turns
18.
Ms. Nancy Khiel, City Prosecutor, explained most city code violations are Class I
misdemeanors. She said the violations are not reported to the Department of Public
Safety or to the Motor Vehicle Department. She stated a police officer has to witness
the offense because a prosecutor is required to prove five elements; the date of the
offense, the time of the offense, where the offense occurred, the positive identification
of the defendant, and that the offense occurred within the city's jurisdiction. She stated
the offense could be a civil charge which has a lower burden of proof and a maximum
fine of $250.00. She noted she prefers not to assess a monetary fine when dealing
with juveniles and focuses more on requiring community service. She said noise
violations are harder to prosecute because three or four people have to have been
disturbed on the same date and at the same time.
Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion motorized skateboards will never be
compatible with city streets. He stated motorized skateboards are dangerous and one
tragedy would be too many. He said, therefore, an ordinance of any kind will not solve
the real problem. He suggested the city consider constructing a park or otherwise
designating an area where kids could use their motorized skateboards.
Councilmember Clark stated she does not support a complete ban. She said the
current law is, for the most part, unenforceable unless a police officer witnesses the
offense. She stated the focus should be on education. She agreed with
Councilmember Goulet's suggestion to designate an area for kids to ride motorized
skateboards, stating it would protect both the riders and the motoring public.
Councilmember Frate asked where it is written that 14 year olds are qualified to ride
motorized skateboards, stating, in his opinion, it would not be a bad idea to ban them.
He questioned what can be done immediately to give relief to those who are
inconvenienced and frustrated by the problem. He said, while he will support education
and selective enforcement, he believes there will come a time when the city will have to
decide if allowing children to ride motorized skateboards is necessary or even in their
best interest. He said motor skateboards are a problem in his district, noting he has
received considerably more than 19 complaints. He suggested a lot more people would
come forward, but are afraid to complain for fear of retaliation.
Councilmember Lieberman asked Chief Henderlite how they have addressed Mr.
White's complaints. Chief Henderlite said Mr. White's neighborhood has been
barraged with motorized skateboards, however, they met with the kids and found all of
them to be in compliance with the ordinance. He said the kids have since stopped
making circuits around the neighborhood. He stated officers will remain in the
neighborhood and continue monitoring the situation. He explained most objections are
to the noise and, while they could monitor decibel readings, the cost of equipping
officers with calibrated decibel readers would be exorbitant. He suggested they focus
on education and monitor areas that have a high number of complaints.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if officers could contact the parents of kids who violate the
13
ordinance to educate them on the rules and regulations. Chief Henderlite agreed
parents have to be involved, noting the parents of the kids involved in the White
incident were contacted. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the city could be held liable if a
child is hurt while traveling on city streets. Mr. Flaaen said the city is required to act
reasonably in terms of the repair and maintenance of roadways. He noted a young
man who spoke against a ban when Council first discussed the issue ended up trying to
sue the city after being hurt on his motor scooter. He said, in that case, the city
maintained and the court agreed that the city did everything it was required to in terms
of road maintenance and that the man was operating his motorized skateboard in
violation of the city ordinance.
Councilmember Martinez noted three of the eight complaints filed in 2002 were from the
Cholla District. He encouraged citizens to make complaints when problems arise,
stating it would help quantify the problem should it later be necessary to ban motor
skateboards all together. He pointed out many kids rely on motor skateboards for
transportation to and from work and school. He agreed education and enforcement
should be increased, suggesting articles be included in Homeowners Association and
Neighborhood Partnership newsletters. He said he intends to send a message to his
constituents on this issue and will point out that a ban could be imposed in the future if
kids continue to violate the ordinance.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested the City Safe Program hold events wherein they
would certify that motorized skateboards fall within the acceptable decibel range and
educate riders on related safety issues. Mayor Scruggs noted they have discussed
putting motorized skateboards in the March City Safe Program.
Mayor Scruggs stated she has been involved in an on-going email conversation with a
citizen who supports a complete ban on motorized skateboards. She said noise, not
safety, is at the core of the complaints. With regard to how the city arrived at the
current ordinance, she explained the city felt 14 years old was an appropriate age
because in less than 18 months those same individuals would be eligible to drive a car.
She said Council also realized that many kids rely on their motorized skateboards for
transportation. She noted, at the previous public hearing, parents felt strongly they
should have the right to exercise parental control and that the government was reaching
into their homes. She said the majority of Council does not want to begin the public
outreach process required to consider an outright ban. Mayor Scruggs asked Chief
Henderlite how Park Rangers enforce the ordinance. Chief Henderlite explained Park
Rangers are responding to complaints at Paseo Park, warning kids who are not in
compliance with the ordinance. He noted they have not seen problems in other parks.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the Police Department has the authority to confiscate a
motorized skateboard until such time as a violator and their parents attend a group
session for education. Chief Henderlite said they would have to prosecute the violator
in order to confiscate the individual's motorized skateboard. Mr. Flaaen agreed.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said, while motorized skateboards can be very annoying to
neighborhood residents, it does not appear to be a citywide problem. He agreed with
the suggestion that citizens be encouraged to contact their Council member if problems
arise and that officers contact the parents of kids who violate the ordinance to explain
the rules and regulations.
Councilmember Frate said he hopes people who have heard Council's discussion
understand what their children could be imposing on other people and monitor how they
utilize their motorized skateboards.
14
Mayor Scruggs stated it is a difficult subject, explaining they are trying to represent a
large city and balance varying viewpoints. She said, at this time, the city will focus on
getting voluntary compliance.
2D SMOKING ORDINANCE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Cathy Gorham, Acting Director Council
Manager Relations, Ms Kim Jara, Billing Compliance Specialist and Ms. Julie Frisoni,
Marketing Communications Director
Based on a request by Councilmember Steve Frate, Sahuaro District, the City Manager
is providing an initial assessment of the staff time and resources needed if the Council
chooses to study changes related to the city's existing Smoking Pollution Control
Ordinance.
The existing City of Glendale Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance was approved in
1987.
The Code Compliance Division is responsible for enforcement of the existing ordinance.
There have been very few occasions over the last decade in which enforcement was
requested.
Should the Council direct further study and/or modifications to the ordinance, a
significant public outreach process would be implemented. Possible recommendations
for such a process are explained in the attached memorandum from the City Manager.
Should Council decide to pursue changes in the ordinance or ban smoking in bars and
restaurants, considerable staff time would have to be redirected to this project and
there would be costs related to research, public outreach and implementation. The
costs are detailed in the attached memorandum from the City Manager. This is not a
budgeted item.
The recommendation was to provide information to City Council for review, discussion
and staff direction.
Mr. Beasley anticipated a six to twelve month timeframe to gather and disseminate
information and a cost of $150,000-250,000. He pointed out the issue is one of
regional concern and asked Council to keep in mind that approaching the issue on an
individual city basis could result in mismatched ordinances.
Councilmember Goulet asked if there is a way to quantify the loss of revenue that can
be expected if a ban is imposed. Ms. Gorham said they have not done extensive
research at this point, but would have an economic analyst look at that issue if Council
directs staff to further proceed with a study. She noted the Tempe Chamber of
Commerce estimates their businesses have lost 16 to 22 percent in revenues.
Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion it would be prudent for the city to further
study the issue.
Councilmember Lieberman said Mr. Tom Ogden of Glenfair Lanes told him his
contemporaries in Tempe have lost 30 percent of their profit since the smoking ban
went into effect. He said Mr. Ogden also believes there are ways to achieve a
compromise and would be happy to limit smoking to his lounge area. He stated Mr.
15
David Valdez from Famous Sam's is very concerned that his patrons would go to the
bar across the street in Phoenix. He pointed out it would be difficult to section that
particular facility into smoking and non-smoking. He stated no business owners have
contacted him in favor of a total smoking ban.
Mayor Scruggs noted her staff conducted an informal survey of 23 businesses on Bell
Road from 55 Avenue to 79th Avenue. She reported eight of those 23 businesses
have chosen to be totally non-smoking, nine have chosen to allow smoking only in their
bar areas and six have established smoking areas in their restaurant. She said the
Assistant Manager of a Peoria restaurant told her they have not received any
complaints about their decision to be a smoke-free restaurant. She stated, however, he
said a friend of his who managed a restaurant in Chandler saw a significant increase in
business when Tempe enacted its ban.
Councilmember Clark said, although she smokes, she does not smoke in restaurants.
She stated the only way a smoking ban would work is if it were enacted on a regional
basis. She said the city will have a SuperBowl, a Fiesta Bowl, and NHL Hockey
playoffs in the future, expressing concern that visitors to Glendale would choose to
spend their dollars in Phoenix if a ban were put in place. She stated, until a regional
approach is taken, she will not support moving forward with a smoking ban in Glendale.
Councilmember Martinez stated he and Councilmember Frate have worked with the
City of Peoria's committee, studying a smoking band, they attended a meeting with
elected officials from various valley cities including Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and
Scottsdale. He said the one sentiment they heard from Tempe during the meeting was
that, given the chance to do it over again, they would have taken the initiative to do it
themselves rather than wait for other interested parties to initiate a total ban. He
expressed his opinion the city should take the initiative to move forward because,
sooner or later, those who support a total ban will come to Glendale. He said a second
meeting involved business owners who expressed an array of opinions on the matter.
He noted Peoria will hold a public hearing on February 24, allowing the general public
to give testimony. He noted the owner of Gallagher's in Peoria has taken it upon
himself to designate a non-smoking area, utilizing a system that prevents smoke from
circulating into the non-smoking area.
Councilmember Clark referred to the last paragraph of the City Manager's memo which
states Glendale could be placed at a competitive disadvantage unless a state or
regional approach is taken to enact a ban. She noted 494 business are classified
under Restaurant/Bar in Glendale, resulting in $5,576,039 in sales tax revenue to the
city. She pointed out Phoenix is adjacent to the city's border for 13 miles, 6 of which
are non-residential. She said, without Phoenix's participation in the ban, patrons will
frequent Phoenix establishments rather than those in Glendale. She commented that
one or two Council members voted not to pursue the annexation policy because of the
$50-$200,000 cost involved in further exploring the issue, pointing out the potential cost
of further exploring a no-smoking ordinance would be far more.
Councilmember Martinez explained he is concerned that if the city does not pass an
ordinance, a total ban could be forced upon it.
Councilmember Frate stated the Mayor asked he and Councilmember Martinez to sit on
Peoria's ad-hoc committee. He said everyone has an opinion and both sides of the
issue can be argued. He questioned whether the city can afford to spend the
considerable amount of money it would take to proceed with a study at this time. He
pointed out Peoria could decide not to proceed either, once it obtains citizen input on
16
the issue. He said his district borders the City of Phoenix and he is concerned about
the businesses in his district, noting, however, many of them are choosing on their own
to be non-smoking. He stated he does not want to spend funds or staff time on a study
at this time. He pointed out the city will draw international tourists once the arena is
completed, stating that should be taken into consideration before any decisions are
made.
Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the issue should be set aside for one
year to see what happens in other cities.
Vice Mayor Eggleston explained the present ordinance went into effect in 1987 and
prohibits smoking in buildings except within designated areas. He asked if the 1987
ordinance resembled Phoenix's ordinance and if Peoria's current ordinance is as strict.
Mr. Flaaen said the 1987 ordinance was based on Phoenix's ordinance. He was
unable to say if Peoria's current ordinance is similar to Glendale's. Vice Mayor
Eggleston expressed his opinion Glendale should follow Phoenix's lead.
Mayor Scruggs asked if a special election would have to be called if a citizen initiative is
brought forward. Mr. Flaaen responded no, stating, however, it would have to be put on
the next available General Election, May 2004. Mayor Scruggs said she would support
not moving forward, given the costs involved. She pointed out the Council could put out
a competing initiative if a citizen initiative is placed on the ballot for the May 2004
election.
Councilmember Martinez reiterated his position that the city should proceed with the
issue. He suggested Glendale's failure to proceed would be perceived as bad faith by
the City of Peoria.
Mayor Scruggs stated she was alarmed by the statements made in newspapers, stating
the memo she put out asking Council members Martinez and Frate to sit in on the
meetings specifically pointed out she had not received majority Council support to take
on the issue.
Councilmember Clark noted Council members Martinez and Frate were only tasked
with gathering information and were not given direction to enter into a partnership or
other relationship to explore the crafting of an ordinance.
Councilmember Frate stated he has always been clear with the media that their role
was to gather information.
Mayor Scruggs read an excerpt from the memo she wrote dated October 7. She
expressed her opinion that Peoria's process has been very rapid, stating Glendale
would not proceed as quickly even if it were to decide to move forward with an
ordinance.
Councilmember Martinez asked if he and Councilmember Frate should continue to
meet with Peoria and attend the February 24 public meeting. He asked how they would
make Council's decision not to proceed known to Peoria. Mr. Beasley stated he
contacted the City Manager yesterday, making them aware of the staff report's
recommendations. He said, based on comments he has received, he believes the City
Manager has communicated the information to their elected officials. Councilmember
Martinez noted two reporters contacted him, stating he made it clear there had been no
direction from Council on the issue.
17
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
18