Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/21/2003 * 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 January 21, 200,3 2:00 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. NAME FOR NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK — 71ST AVENUE & GREENWAY ROAD CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager and Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director This is a request for CitCouncil to select a name for a new six-acre neighborhood park being constructed at 71'Avenue and Greenway Road. This new city park will serve residents within a one square mile area and conforms to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan guidelines for neighborhood park locations. Developments surrounding the park include Granada Estates, a 30-year-old, 500-lot neighborhood; Park Paseo, a new, 168 lot development being constructed directly north of the park site; and the Lodge at Arrowhead, a new 298 unit apartment complex south of Bell Road, and north of Park Paseo. Additionally, two elementary schools are within the one-square-mile area (Foothills and Pioneer). The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to forward three names to the City Council for consideration. The Commission recommends Granada Park, Greenway Park, and Pioneer Hills Park. City Council awarded a contract for construction of this park on October 8, 2002. The estimated completion date is May 2003. Students in grades three through eight in Pioneer and Foothills elementary schools were requested to submit names for the new park through flyers, which were distributed to the school. Adult residents within one square mile of the park were mailed a park development progress letter, with an invitation to suggest names by phone, mail, or e- mail over a two-month period. The Parks and Recreation Commission received 283 names for consideration from the elementary schools and neighborhoods. 1 Greenway Park was suggested 33 times, followed by Pioneer, which received nine votes, and Granada received 5 votes. The new park site is located on Greenway Road. Pioneer and Foothills elementary schools are located within a mile of the park site, and Granada Estates is the existing neighborhood adjacent to the new park site. Park signage and a park dedication plaque will display the new park name. These costs are budgeted in the Development Impact Fees-Zone 3, capital improvement budget for park construction (14-8929-8300). The recommendation was to review the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations of Granada, Greenway, and Pioneer Hills Park for the six-acre park at 71St Avenue and Greenway Road and provide staff direction. Councilmember Frate preferred Granada or Greenway as the park's name, while Councilmembers Martinez, Clark and Lieberman supported a combination of the two proposed names, Greenway Granada. Councilmember Goulet expressed his preference for Greenway Park. He said he also liked Greenway Pioneer Park. Mayor Scruggs and Vice Mayor Eggleston preferred Greenway. Mayor Scruggs commented on Granada Estates' history. Councilmember Martinez pointed out residents of Granada Estates participated in the development of the park, suggesting naming the park after the neighborhood would give them a sense of being recognized. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus for Greenway Granada as the park's name. 2. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CORPORATE JET CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, and Mark Ripley, Airport Manager This is a request for City Council direction to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for corporate jet hangar facilities at Glendale Municipal Airport. During the last few months, staff has been conducting an assessment of the airport facility and operations in anticipation of the potential for increased business jet activity. Business jet activity is expected to increase due to the close proximity of the Coyotes arena, the Cardinals multi-purpose facility and the associated commercial, retail and office development that is expected to occur during the next few years. The sports facilities and associated development are not the only reason for assessing the airport facilities. With the completion of Loop 101, Glendale Municipal airport is within 30 minutes of almost any part of the Valley. Based on discussions with fixed base operators at other airports in the Valley, there appears to be a demand for corporate jet services that is currently not being met. There are not enough corporate jet facilities available to house and service potential customers. Therefore, the airport has become a viable option for business jet customers whose ultimate destinations may be in other parts of the Valley, as well as Glendale. It is critical that Glendale Municipal airport be capable of servicing these 2 potential customers. Unless certain amenities and facilities are available, these customers will fly into other airports in the Valley. To help prepare, plan and position the airport for increased corporate traffic, staff critically assessed the availability of services and facilities at Glendale Municipal Airport, and also toured Deer Valley and Scottsdale airports. Both Deer Valley and Scottsdale airports serve as the base for numerous corporate jets and have considerable corporate jet activity. The following points summarize staff's assessment of Glendale Municipal Airport and the key factors that will influence future corporate jet business at the airport. • Runway Facilities. The single most important factor in attracting corporate jets is to have runway facilities that can handle the larger heavier aircraft. Current runway length, strength and width are insufficient to service the larger business jets that will most likely want to use the airport in the future. However, the City Council will be awarding a construction contract in the near future to lengthen, strengthen and widen the existing runway. This project is being paid for with a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration and the State of Arizona, with matching funds being provided by the city. The project will be completed in the summer of 2003, at which time the runway will be capable of handling all classes of business jets. This improvement will make the airport more attractive to the corporate jet customer. Runway facilities will not be a limiting factor to attracting business jets. • Location. Most corporate jet customers want to fly into an airport that has convenient access to their ultimate destination. Glendale Municipal Airport is strategically located near a major freeway that provides easy access to almost any where in the Valley and is only five minutes from what will be a major destination retail/sports/business complex. Location is not a limiting factor to attracting business jets. • Off-Airport Facilities. Business jet customers prefer to fly into an airport that is close to hotels, restaurant facilities and shopping. Currently, such facilities are limited within a five-mile radius of the airport. However, it is anticipated that these facilities will be developed in the near future once the Coyotes arena and mixed-use development begin to be developed. In the short- term, the availability of restaurants and hotels in close proximity to the airport could be a limiting factor to attracting corporate jet traffic. However, within three to five years, this situation should change. • Pilot Amenities. Corporate jet pilots have considerable influence over which airports corporate jets fly into. This is due to the fact that pilots must spend long hours waiting at the airport for their customers. Pilots expect first class lounge facilities to be provided for their comfort during those long waits. Facilities may include easy chairs, shower facilities, kitchenettes, TV's, sleeping facilities and exercise rooms. Pilots may elect to fly into an airport that is not as close to their passenger's destination if the airport provides more comfortable pilot facilities. While the current Fixed Base Operator (FBO) does provide some amenities for pilots, the amenities are not comparable to other FBO facilities that cater to corporate jet business. The lack of first-class pilot amenities is a limiting factor to attracting corporate jets. • Corporate Jet Hangars. FBO facilities at other airports provide corporate jet storage facilities that include offices, pilot facilities, catering and line service 3 designed to cater to every whim of the wealthy corporate jet customer. We were told by one FBO that they could base an additional forty (40) corporate jet aircraft at Deer Valley Airport if additional corporate jet storage hangars were available. • Terminal Building and FBO Building. The condition and appearance of the airport buildings leaves a visual impression with the customer and potentially could influence a customer's decision regarding airport and FBO usage. Some facilities at both Deer Valley and Scottsdale airports were old, poorly designed and in disrepair. The newer FBO facilities at these airports were unquestionably superior and more likely to attract the corporate customer in a competitive environment. The buildings at Glendale Municipal Airport compare very favorably with facilities at the other airports and concerted efforts should be made to keep up their appearance. The appearance and condition of terminal buildings and FBO buildings at the airport are not a limiting factor. • The assessment of the airport has shown that there are deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to accommodate the increased corporate jet traffic resulting from the sports facilities and associated development. In addition, these deficiencies need to be addressed so that Glendale Municipal Airport is able to compete with other general aviation airports for corporate jet business with destinations in other parts of the Valley. The most significant deficiencies are the lack of first class pilot amenities and corporate jet hangars. Until these two issues are addressed, Glendale Municipal Airport will not be the airport of choice for many corporate jet customers who expect an extremely high level of services and amenities. Staff has identified two alternatives for consideration: 1. Negotiate with the current fixed base operator for the expansion of the existing facilities. Staff is not recommending this alternative. There is land available adjacent to the existing facility that could be used for this purpose and the current fixed base operator has expressed interest in expanding the facility. However, under this scenario, there would not be a competitive RFP process. Also, the property adjacent to the existing facility may not be sufficient to provide the type of facility envisioned by staff. 2. Issue a request for proposal (RFP) for a corporate jet facility. Staff is recommending this alternative. The city would request proposals for a new FBO facility at the airport that caters to the corporate jet business. This concept would require the construction of a corporate jet facility that may or may not include other FBO services. In return, the successful bidder would receive a long-term lease and pay the city associated land lease fees as well as other service fees. There would be expectations that the FBO would aggressively market the airport and its facilities to the corporate customer. A specific site for the facility would be identified either on the east side of the airport or possibly on the west side adjacent to an existing facility. The current FBO would have the opportunity to bid. The advantage of this alternative is that it establishes a competitive process that allows the current FBO as well as other bidders to participate. Also, if the city does not receive a satisfactory proposal, it can reject them. Currently, there is not enough activity to justify a second FBO at the airport. However, this concept assumes that facilities would be constructed that would 4 attract new business to the airport and potential bidders may bring business and additional based aircraft with them from some other facility that would improve the economic vitality of the airport. If the city waits to develop the necessary facilities until demand actually occurs, other general aviation airports such as Deer Valley and Goodyear may end up being the airport of choice for the new corporate jet business. Luke Air Force Base was involved in the Airport Master Plan, which includes the concept of expanding the runway to accommodate larger corporate aircraft. Luke Air Force Base has received staff reports concerning the corporate jet facilities. The current FBO is aware that the city is evaluating the need for additional aviation facilities. A ground lease for a corporate jet facility would generate approximately $32,000 the first year. The associated FBO fees would generate additional revenues. An access road would need to be constructed in order to serve a facility constructed on the eastside of the airport. This would be paid for by grant funding and transportation sales tax revenue. Currently $700,000 is allocated in the Glendale Onboard Transportation Program for the construction of the eastside access road. This information is provided to City Council for review, discussion and staff direction. Councilmember Frate asked for an explanation of an FBO, for the benefit of the public. Mr. Ernster said an FBO is responsible for fueling aircraft and providing maintenance services. Councilmember Clark asked what classes of jets the airport will be able to accommodate once the runways are lengthened, strengthened and widened. Mr. Ripley stated the airport will be able to accommodate both corporate and commercial jets, with the largest corporate jets carrying 18 to 25 people. He explained the newer Phase Ill jets are relatively quiet, noting piston airplanes create more noise. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the airport could accommodate 737's. Mr. Ripley explained the airport currently has a B2 classification with the King Air 200 identified as its critical aircraft. He said, however, the airport can accommodate up to 500 737 operations per year, noting 737's carry approximately 100 to 110 passengers. He stated accommodating larger aircraft would require extensive renovations. Mayor Scruggs pointed out adequate facilities to accommodate 500's and 737's does not mean the airport will be given rights to the necessary airspace. She emphasized the importance of not doing anything to conflict with Luke Air Force Base. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Mr. Ripley explained the arena and stadium will attract larger jets utilized by hockey and football teams as well as an increased amount of corporate jet traffic. Mr. Ernster assured Council staff has and will continue to work closely with Luke Air Force Base, stating they would never do anything to jeopardize Luke or its mission. He went on to explain the Deer Valley Airport sells approximately 3.2 million gallons of fuel and the Scottsdale Airport sells about 6 million gallons of fuel annually, noting jet fuel accounts for most of the sales. He explained that until the Glendale Airport has the necessary infrastructure, it will not see a significant increase in corporate jet activity. 5 Mayor Scruggs said she has been told on several occasions that Glendale will not have corporate jet traffic until it provides the necessary pilot amenities. Mr. Ernster agreed, stating the city's amenities are not at the level found at other facilities, such as the Deer Valley Airport. He noted the Scottsdale Airport recently awarded an RFP to a second Fixed-Base Operator and is building a first class operations facility. He said they are also remodeling the existing Fixed-Base Operations facility. He stressed the importance of knowing what customers want and what the line crews need. Councilmember Martinez asked what would be the maximum number of passengers coming in on an aircraft. Mr. Ernster stated they are trying to attract corporate jet business, which would typically carry 19 to 25 passengers. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out some groups charter 737's, which are considerably larger than corporate jets. He expressed concern about splitting the already limited fuel sales with a second FBO. Councilmember Lieberman asked how many take offs and landings the Glendale, Scottsdale and Deer Valley airports handled last year. Mr. Ripley said the Glendale Airport did 120,000 operations last year, as compared to 200,000 at Scottsdale and 360,000 at Deer Valley. Councilmember Lieberman reiterated his concern about splitting fuel sales between the current facility and a second FBO, questioning whether the anticipated increase in traffic would be enough to support both operations. Mayor Scruggs asked if the new FBO would strictly handle corporate jets. Mr. Ernster said FBO's at the Deer Valley and Scottsdale Airports also serve general aviation. He said he would assume the new FBO would also want to compete for that traffic. Mr. Ernster pointed out Scottsdale Airpark sells roughly 6 million gallons of fuel annually, with non-jet fuel accounting for only 10 percent. Councilmember Goulet asked who would be responsible for building, operating and maintaining the amenities. Mr. Ernster explained they would issue an open-ended RFP, with the intent being to get an FBO that would build and operate the facility, paying the city a land lease payment, fuel flowage fees and a percentage of their gross receipts. He said, in return, the FBO would receive a long-term lease. Mayor Scruggs asked if hanger rentals are also a big attraction. Mr. Ripley responded yes, explaining pilots do not want to leave their multi-million dollar jets outside. Mayor Scruggs asked if hanger rentals represent another revenue stream. Mr. Ripley answered yes. Councilmember Clark agreed the city needs to provide corporate jet hangers, stating, however, she is concerned that the city's current FBO operator would have to compete with the new FBO for corporate and non-corporate jet fuel. She suggested the city talk to the current FBO about its ability to develop the necessary facilities. She questioned whether any FBO's would be interested given the current economic environment, suggesting the city could end up paying a portion of the cost to bring another FBO to Glendale. She commented that they should first speak with the current FBO operator to determine if it could provide the required amenities. She stated, should that effort 6 fail, she would then support proceeding with the RFP. Councilmember Martinez asked if there would be any cost to the city to issue the RFP. Mr. Ernster said, aside from the staff time involved in creating the RFP, no. Councilmember Martinez asked if the RFP could be structured to allow the current FBO operator to bid as well. Mr. Ernster said the recommended alternative would not exclude the current FBO operator from submitting a proposal. He expressed his opinion that exclusively negotiating with the current FBO operator would not necessarily be in the best interest of the city. Mayor Scruggs asked if one RFP could elicit proposals for both an FBO and corporate hanger facilities. She also asked if an FBO is required to meet minimum operating standards, such as with regard to charter services. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to provide information concerning all aspects of an FBO. Mr. Flaaen confirmed the RFP could be structured so as to solicit proposals for both an FBO and corporate jet hanger services. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion the RFP should be open to all FBO's, including the current FBO. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out the RFP would be for a corporate jet center, not an FBO, expressing his opinion staff should proceed with the RFP. Councilmember Lieberman said pilots would also want access to mechanics that are capable of servicing and repairing their planes. He noted the city would have to pay a portion of the taxiway costs as well as water and sewer infrastructure costs if an FBO is located on the east side of the airport. He asked if the Glendale Airport currently has radar. Mr. Ripley said they are in the process of installing a radar system, which should be operational by June or July. Councilmember Lieberman said he is not in favor of proceeding with the RFP until they have seen what impact the improved runways will have. Mayor Scruggs said she supports issuing an RFP because, regardless of the outcome, the city will learn something from the process. Council members Martinez and Goulet also voiced their support of proceeding with the RFP. Mayor Scruggs asked if Goodyear has corporate jet facilities. Mr. Ripley responded no, noting the City of Phoenix owns and operates the Goodyear airport. Mr. Ernster clarified the east taxiway project is in the city's Airport Master Plan and will be bid, regardless of the outcome of the proposed project. He said funds to build an access road into the area are already set aside in the transportation program as well. Mr. Beasley noted corporate users have indicated they are being courted by the Deer 7 Valley, Scottsdale and, potentially, Goodyear Airports. Mayor Scruggs asked when the RFP would be issued. Mr. Ripley said as soon as possible, noting a rough draft has already been prepared. 3. CITY OF GLENDALE'S 2003 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Duffy, Intergovernmental Relations Director and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Intergovernmental Relations Assistant. This is a request for the City Council to provide direction on the City of Glendale's state legislative agenda. This legislative agenda specifies the city's state legislative priorities for the year and guides the city's lobbying activities at the Arizona State Legislature. Upon City Council approval of a legislative agenda, staffwill work with members of the legislature to acquaint them with the city's priorities. The proposed City of Glendale 2003 state legislative agenda reflects an updated version of the city's 2002 state legislative agenda and is consistent with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns' 2003 legislative agenda. On January 13, 2003 the 46th Arizona State Legislature convened. The legislature will face a continuing budget deficit of $230 million for fiscal year 2003 and an additional budget deficit of up to $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2004. Given the difficult financial circumstances the state is now facing, the Intergovernmental Relations Department proposes to focus the 2003 legislative agenda to a few key issues, thus allowing the city to provide a stronger, more consistent message in the issues of greatest priority, including the protection of state shared revenues. This is the first legislative update for 2003. Each January the Intergovernmental Relations Department seeks Council approval of the city's legislative agenda. Departmental legislative liaisons are being notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of city administration and are being asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations Department. This is for information, discussion and possible direction on legislative issues. Ms. Tranberg explained there are 17 new Senators and 32 new Representatives in the Legislature this year. She said 434 bills and resolutions have been posted to date, 158 of which have been sent to staff for comment. Ms. Duffy said the state's budget will dominate the Legislative session, explaining they currently anticipate a $300 million deficit this year and up to a $1.5 billion deficit next year. She said revenue highlights indicate the state is about $267.6 million down for the year so far, with significantly lower corporate income tax considered the major factor. She explained corporate income tax totaled $600 million three years ago and $540 million last year, however, this year they do not even expect to meet the lowered projection of $285 million. She said car sales are starting to lag, noting collections last month were down 26 percent. She stated the Finance Advisory Committee 8 recommended the revenue forecast be at zero to low growth, indicating there have been no signs of recovery as yet. Ms. Duffy said the Senate's focus is on keeping the state budget at $6 billion, despite the automated increases scheduled to occur this year due to voter mandates. She stated the Senate's proposal is expected within the next two weeks. She explained they will do a joint legislative proposal, noting she has heard that they are concerned about the lack of spending cuts in the Governor's proposal and believe it is too optimistic in its growth projections. Ms. Duffy reported the Governor's budget plan came out last week, noting it does not call for any impact on State Shared Revenue for 2003/04. She said the Governor's major categories for the FY 03 budget include Asset Sales, School Facilities Board Revenue Bonding, the Lagged Settlement, HELP repayment, and Fiscal End of Year Transfers. She said the major items in the Governor's FY 04 budget include a Judicial Collections proposal, the rollover K-12, and a Department of Transportation funding shift. She stated they were advised the Department of Transportation funding shift should not impact the valley's freeway construction for one year, however, there could be impacts beyond that. She reported the Governor's proposal would also delay the restoration of the Aviation Fund to FY 2004. She said the Governor's FY 04 proposal also includes removal of the Medicaid Exemption, asset sale and leaseback, revenue bonds and General Fund operating reductions. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Governor is recommending bonding for everyday operating expenses. Ms. Duffy said that is her understanding, noting the Senate would like to have a discussion as to the appropriate level and uses of bonding. She noted the Governor is also talking about pledging revenue bonds against lottery revenue for the next 10 years. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Ms. Duffy explained the Medicaid exemption would be part of the bill that goes to the federal government. She noted several other states impose insurance premium taxes on Medicaid Health Plans. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Access was originally instituted as a replacement for Medicaid. Ms. Duffy stated the money was supposed to be used to expand eligibility. With regard to State Shared Revenue, Ms. Duffy noted Glendale is already being impacted by $315,000. She said next year's impact will be $275,000, along with a $3.8 million decrease in income tax collections. Ms. Tranberg reviewed items they anticipate to be hot legislative issues this year, including State Shared Revenue. She said staff recommends the city oppose any further reductions to State Shared Revenues unless equal revenue sources are made available. She said staff further recommends that Glendale oppose attempts to limit local taxing authority and support the efforts of the Municipal Tax Code Commission. She said staff also recommends Glendale oppose unfunded mandates placed on local 9 jurisdictions and encourage the Legislature to evaluate the fiscal impacts of such mandates prior to consideration. She identified the third issue as local authority in land use planning. She stated staff recommends the city support the preservation of local authority to set land use policies and citizen involvement in the planning and zoning process. Ms. Tranberg asked for Council direction on SB1012, Outdoor Advertising Regulation, explaining the bill would declare that the regulation of signs is a statewide concern for reasons of uniformity and the promotion of private enterprise. She said staff recommends the city not support SB 1012 because it represents a preemption of local control. She noted the bill was withdrawn in committee today, stating, however, staff still recommends the city not support the bill in case it comes back at a later date. Councilmember Martinez asked if the bill would limit the size of signs as well. Ms. Tranberg explained the state would supercede all local ordinances, therefore the city could not enforce restrictions on the size and location of signs. Councilmember Clark asked who would regulate the initial parameters for the establishment of a sign. Ms. Tranberg said it appears there would be no regulation of the signs. Councilmember Goulet voiced his opposition of SB1012. He expressed concern about some of the bills being introduced, suggesting they look at the motivation behind the people introducing the bills. He encouraged the Legislature to look at what cities already have in place before dictating what will work better. Ms. Tranberg asked for Council direction concerning SB1013, Municipal Business Location and Incentive Rebate. She explained the bill would require a municipality who provided tax incentives to a retail business to pay the state the total amount of the incentive. She said if the municipality were to fail to pay the state, the state could withhold state shared revenue to the city until payment is made. She stated the bill will be heard by the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow and staff recommends the city not support the bill. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to accept staff's recommendations with regard to SB1012 and SB1013. Ms. Duffy explained HB2308 would reduce the ability of cities to use eminent domain as a redevelopment tool and eliminate the ability to condemn in redevelopment areas. She said it would also preclude cities from transferring the property acquired through eminent domain for ten years. She explained HB2311 eliminates eminent domain for redevelopment as it is known today. She stated staff recommends the city oppose both bills. Mayor Scruggs asked if the bills would preclude property owners from choosing eminent domain. Ms. Duffy said the bills have not yet been heard and they anticipate 10 doing a lot of communication with the Legislatures on both bills. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to support staff's recommendations. With regard to park liability, Ms. Tranberg explained the legislation would expand the definition of both premises and recreational user to include permanent manmade recreational parks and recreational facilities as well as users of those facilities. She asked Council for direction, noting staff recommends supporting the legislation once it has been introduced. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to accept staff's recommendation. With regard to military airport preservation, Ms. Duffy said the city has successfully put forth military laws to protect airport facilities in the past and, in fact, was recognized by the National Governor's Association for best practices. She said they have been told Senator Blendie will introduce Proposition 101, which previously failed at the ballot box by about 1 percent. She explained Fighter Country Coalition has discussed the Commerce Department's Land Use Compatibility Plan for Luke Air Force Base, a part of which looks at different land uses for an area known as Luka Ill. She said Fighter Country Coalition does not believe that would be a good thing and feels notification will be key. Ms. Tranberg said staff recommends the city support the maintenance of the existing revenue streams for transportation and that the city support enabling legislation that allows for the call of an election to extend the existing Maricopa County half-cent sales tax for transportation. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the bonds will be repaid by 2005 and if additional bonding would be done if the extension of the half-cent sales tax is approved. Ms. Tranberg offered to get back with Councilmember Lieberman with an answer. Councilmember Martinez asked if anything has been introduced concerning group homes. Ms. Duffy said she has not heard anything yet, however, bills are still being introduced. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. 11