Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/18/2000 * 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 18, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Goulet, Lieberman, Martinez, McAllister, and Samaniego. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-99-03 AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Z-99-11: GLEN HARBOR BUSINESS PARK FLOOR AREA RATIO CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Director; Mr. Gary Fulk, Planning Manager; and Ms. Molly Hood, Planner. The Planning Commission recommended that the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance be amended to increase the maximum permitted floor area ratio in the Glen Harbor Business Park from 0.3 to 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of gross building floor area to net land area. It is used as an indicator of commercial and industrial land use intensity, and to estimate the infrastructure needed to support future development. The Planning Commission initiated these amendments at the request of Hey! Corp, Inc., which owns 22 acres in the Glen Harbor Business Park. The intent is to increase the marketability of undeveloped properties in Glen Harbor by providing greater flexibility for potential users. The proposal will add the Glen Harbor Business Park to the Floor Area Ratio Map (Map 2) in the General Plan. It will also revise Map 4 in the Special Development Standards section of the Zoning Ordinance. This will not affect the permitted land uses or other development standards within the business park. FAR's up to 0.5 are already shown for other major employment areas in the City. Increasing the FAR for Glen Harbor will not change the character of this business park, or have any adverse effects on nearby properties or the community. Heyl Corp invited 310 property owners and other interested parties to a neighborhood meeting on August 4, 1999 at the Glendale Airport. Ten nearby residents attended the meeting and expressed concerns about the noise generated by an existing business and the potential traffic from future development. No concerns were expressed by property owners within the business park. 1 The Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on December 16, 1999. Two people spoke at the meeting and expressed concerns about noise and odors from an existing manufacturing plant in the park. This application will be noticed again prior to a City Council hearing. The recommendation was to review the proposal in preparation for a future public hearing. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the second floor increased the FAR. Mr. Fulk stated that it did not and he explained that the FAR is set and the developer can decide if it goes in one or two floors. Councilmember Goulet asked if an increase in the FAR would automatically mean an increase in the demand or need for onsite parking. Mr. Fulk stated that the demand is generated by the structure itself; therefore, by allowing larger floor areas, more parking could be required. However, the parking is based on the proposal and does not automatically change with the floor area. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the second floor counted as floor area even though the footprint has not changed. Mr. Fulk stated that it does. Councilmember Samaniego asked Mr. Fulk if they could go with smaller floor space if there was another type of business that would require additional parking. Mr. Fulk stated that they base the parking on the proposed floor area and that the only connection between the floor area and parking is indirect. Mr. Svoboda explained that the zoning calculates required parking based on the use itself; therefore, a warehouse that would have relatively few employees would require parking at a different rate than a general office building. Councilmember Martinez asked if they have to meet all of the development standards or if there is some leeway. Mr. Fulk confirmed that all of the development standards have to be met, even if it means that you cannot have as large a building. Mayor Scruggs noted the importance of the Glen Harbor Business Park to the economic development of the City of Glendale. She stated that a key piece of information included in the material is the fact that increasing the FAR is consistent with the general plan and puts Glen Harbor in a more competitive position. Councilmember Martinez also commented on the need to be competitive. Mayor Scruggs stated that they need to be aggressive in recruiting business to the City of Glendale. 2. FUNDING AND POLICY GUIDELINES RELATED TO TEMPORARY PERSONNEL CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; and Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director. The purpose of today's workshop was to provide the City Council with an update on the usage of temporary employees within the City and discuss the newly adopted temporary employee policy. Temporary employees are defined as employees hired to 2 work on other than a permanent basis. Previously, this issue was discussed with the City Council and today's discussion was the first step in implementing the policy. The City has utilized temporary employees in numerous positions for many years. Several months ago, as a result of new case law regarding temporary employees' length of employment and benefit liability, the City Manager appointed a committee to study the City's temporary employee policy. The policy, as it existed, allowed departments to employ temporaries for up to two consecutive years. As a result of the committee's work, a new temporary employee policy has been adopted, which includes the requirement that temporary employees be employed for no longer than one consecutive year. This one-year limit can be exceeded indefinitely as long as the temporary employees work less than 20 hours per week. Committee members identified 175.5 temporary positions which are performing ongoing duties, and suggested five options that would conform to the new policy that supervisors could choose from to deal with their departments' needs. Based on the work of the committee, the Management Team directed all department heads to identify one of the five options they would utilize to address the temporary employee issue in their departments. Department heads identified specific instances in which refilling the positions annually would prove detrimental to the department. In these cases it was recommended that the temporary positions be converted to regular status positions. The five options the committee developed are: Option 1 Convert temporary positions to permanent FTEs (full-time equivalents) with additional ongoing costs. Option 2 Convert temporary positions to permanent FTEs with no additional costs. Option 3 Outsource (contract with an outside vendor) tasks currently performed by temporary employees. Option 4 Reorganize department job duties by requiring regular employees to perform duties currently performed by temporaries so that the temporaries can provide services they are better suited to perform. Option 5 Operate under the new temporary employee policy. A spreadsheet that lists each temporary position and which option the department selected to deal with it was presented to Council in the council communication. On December 14, 1999, the Management Team held a meeting regarding the conversion of temporary status employees to permanent status. The Management Team recommended the authorization of an additional 37.25 positions for conversion at no additional cost. 3 • The Management Team also recommended that 17.75 positions be converted at a total cost of $148,416 in ongoing funds. These funds have been set aside in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget. Department heads and supervisors were notified of the new temporary employee policy. Department heads that submitted supplemental requests to convert their temporary employees to regular status have been notified of the outcome of their requests. The total ongoing' cost to convert the remaining 17.75 positions is $148,416 in ongoing funds. These funds have been set aside in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget in accordance with the Council Goal regarding the conversion of temporary employees. There are no other costs associated with the conversions. There is no additional cost associated with the conversion of 37.25 positions. Ninety- five percent of these positions are being funded by applying existing ongoing hourly or temporary budgets to the new ongoing salaries. In several cases, departments are shifting resources within their base budgets in order to fund an FTE, and seven of the positions will be totally grant-funded. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction in anticipation of adopting an increase to the City's authorized strength at the January 25th meeting. Councilmember Lieberman commented that the summary was well done. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for an explanation of outsourcing. Mr. McClendon noted that outsourcing is also referred to as privatizing. He explained that they put out a request for proposal (RFP) to companies that are interested in providing that service, in this case janitorial services. He stated that efficiency and cost benefit are considered. Mr. McClendon stated that they would bring the project to the next formal meeting for authorization. 3. 1998-99 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND OTHER FINANCIAL REPORTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; Mr. Ray Shuey, Controller; and Ms. Carol Salyers, Acting Information Systems Director. Each year the City prepares a comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) and staff makes copies available to the City Council, the press, other public agencies, and New York based bond-rating agencies. A CAFR provides much of the information needed for credit assessments. For the last eleven consecutive years the City has won the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (the Award) for its CAFR. This year's CAFR has been submitted for consideration of the award. The City awaits the outcome of the judging, and is confident that the 1998-99 CAFR meets the award criteria. 4 Preparation of an award-winning CAFR reflects well on a local government's financial management, as it relates to providing complete public information on its financial condition. It provides valuable information on topics as diverse as employee pension plan performance, debt management, and ten-year trends in general government revenues and expenditures. This year's CAM demonstrates the positive outcome during Fiscal Year 1998-99 from sound, conservative financial policies set forth by officials and carried out in day-to-day management of the City. State or Federal laws require preparation and issuance of four other reports each year, in addition to the CAFR. They are the Annual Expenditure Limitation Report, Reports on Federal Awards, Report to Management, and Schedule of HB 2565 Funds. Each of these reports provides additional detail behind summary information reported in the CAFR. They are prepared with independent audit or review by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PwC). The City's external auditor is PwC, which is one of the five largest accounting firms in the world. The first document demonstrates compliance with the alternative expenditure limitation adopted by the Mayor and Council. The second document provides a detailed accounting of City expenditure of federal grant money by the Federal program. It also reports on City compliance with program requirements. The results are that there were no federal award findings against the City or questioned costs. The third report is a dialogue of suggested operational improvements by PwC, and the City's response to those suggestions. The final report was first required this fiscal year. It demonstrates the City's compliance with State law governing the use of certain funds provided for transportation. It is management's role to determine which suggestions are appropriate to implement within the framework of City goals, objectives, and funding constraints. Appropriate staff reviewed and addressed each suggestion in the reports. The majority of recommendations are changes in protocol or technology improvements in computer information systems. These comments reflect the changing role of PwC in reviewing operations. Traditionally their firm looked only at accounting issues. However, they are now looking at technology and providing some recommendations for the first time in response to a changing worldwide focus on such issues. Management has reviewed these recommendations and will be implementing them as appropriate. At the formal City Council meeting held on July 13, 1999, the Award for the 1997-98 CAFR was presented to the Mayor and City Council. Typically, the results of the judging process are released at least six months after submission of the CAFR. It is customary for staff to distribute the CAFR to interested parties after bringing it to City Council for review. Approximately 100 copies are mailed out by Finance Department staff to banks, investment rating services, university professors, citizens, other levels of government, and City bond trustees. The remaining 150 copies are handed out on request to interested citizens or civic organizations throughout the year. Staff distributes the CAFR and the other three reports to the State of Arizona Auditor 5 General's Office each year to demonstrate legal compliance. The third document, Reports on Federal Awards is also distributed to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (the City's Federal oversight agency) and to County or State agencies that act in a pass-through capacity for federal funds. The final report is submitted to the Regional Public Transportation Authority. The cost of preparing the CAFR and the other reports, including staff time, printing, and its independent audit, are included in Finance Administration's base budget. This item was presented to the Mayor and Council for information purposes only. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the revenue taxes and special assessments referred to on Page 7 referred to sales tax. Mr. Lynch explained that they include sales taxes, special assessment districts and property tax revenues. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned what the special revenue fund was for. Mr. Lynch stated that it refers to specific purpose operations, such as the Community Development Block Grant Fund, highway user and gas tax funds, the airport fund, development impact fee funds and minor grants. He noted that Page 68 of the report contains more detail. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if No. 10 on Page 51 includes the recent large claim. Mr. Lynch stated that he believed the claim occurred after the financial reporting timeframe and would be included in the financial reports for this upcoming year. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned the difference between Pages 66 and 67. Mr. Lynch stated that the primary difference is that Page 67 tracks revenues and expenditures in the same manner in which the budges: was adopted and Page 66 is shown more on a modified accrual basis. He stated it is a multipurpose report designed to meet the needs of private individuals and companies. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Lynch explained that "capital outlay" is the amount of money expended for the various capital projects that do not include enterprise funds. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the school district numbers on the bottom of Page 135 show. Mr. Lynch stated that they show the total property tax per 100. He stated that the City property tax has declined, but noted that other rate factors have increased. Mayor Scruggs noted that Table 12 on Page 142 reflects an increase in population of 40 percent over 10 years, but that schools increased over 75 percent. She suggested that this could explain the strain felt by our schools. Mayor Scruggs then asked what efforts were made to cause such a significant decrease in delinquent property tax. Mr. Lynch agreed that: it is a significant decrease and attributes at least a part of it to getting properties on the roles quicker, allowing them to monitor the properties sooner and to pursue billing on the part of the County. Mayor Scruggs commended the intergovernmental cooperation. She asked what was included in the secured and unsecured personal property. Mr. Shuey explained that the categories are set by State law and include equipment owned by a business that would be subject to a personal property tax. Mayor Scruggs asked if it indicates a trend in business. Mr. Shuey stated that the main reason for the changes could be changes in classification by the Maricopa County Assessor. Mr. Lynch noted that it is also affected by exemptions granted for specific types of businesses. Mayor Scruggs asked if it could also be attributed to the movement of the same property to the improvements category. Mr. Lynch agreed. Mayor Scruggs noted that the population has increased 50 percent, but the net direct bonded debt per capita has been reduced by almost the same percentage. Mr. Lynch stated that it is attributable to the way they pay back their debt. He explained that they have continued with the policy of amortizing the debt rapidly to create capacity to meet new demands. Councilmember Lieberman noted that they have dropped 30 percent in the amount of bondable indebtedness, which directly affects that ratio. Mayor Scruggs 6 stated there has been great management of the bonded debt. She noted that the facilities available to the public have probably doubled over the last 10 years. Councilmember Lieberman stated that it allows them to increase the amount of debt by their ability to pay. He also expressed his opinion that the economy is part of the reason the amount of unsecured debt owed has dropped. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $21 million noted in the third column on Page 65 is the City's reserve at the present time. Mr. Lynch stated that it is the undesignated fund balance. Councilmember Lieberman asked if this was sufficient for the reserve necessary in the General Fund. Mr. Lynch stated that it was and explained that they have been appropriating a 10 percent target each year. Councilmember Lieberman noted that 10 percent of a person's tax bill goes to the City and 90 percent goes to schools. Mayor Scruggs noted that the tax chart shows what happens when there is high retail development because of the reversal in the property tax rates. Regarding the House Bill (HB) 2565 report, Councilmember Lieberman asked if it was unusual that they matched it penny-for-penny. Mr. Lynch stated that it requires a 100 percent match. In regard to the Report to Management, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the time frame was on recommendation No. 4. Ms. Salyers stated that they were currently working on it. She explained that the report is ready to go. She said that they are monitoring the information systems and are currently looking at having an overall security administrator that would take care of network security, as well as the application systems. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if a message was sent to Information Systems when a person was leaving. Ms. Slayers stated they have found that, when new people are brought on board, people are very good about notifying the Information Systems Department, but have been remiss at times in notifying the Information Systems Department when someone leaves. Mayor Scruggs noted the importance of notifying the Information Systems Department the same day that a person leaves. Ms. Salyers stated they have found that generally, if a department feels they have a hostile employee being terminated, they will immediately send the Information Systems Department an e-mail and their network login is inactivated immediately. Councilmember Martinez asked if anyone who terminated in the last year would still be able to access the system up until the new process is in place. Mr. McClendon explained that there is an exit process already in place, whereby they turn in all of their equipment and get taken off of the system. He suggested what they need to work on is how to make it happen instantly. Councilmember Lieberman asked what happens if an employee quits without notice. Mr. McClendon stated this is extremely uncommon for regular status employees, but there is an abandonment of position procedure. Mr. Beasley stated that the last paycheck is held until they are sure that all of the materials have been returned. Dr. Vanacour stated that they would go back and check to ensure that they can delete people from the system immediately and, if not, how long it will take. He noted that they are going to be changing passwords every 90 days. Ms. Salyers stated that they will be given a reminder message and six grace log-ins before the system would lock them out. 7 On the Federal Awards Report, Councilmember Martinez asked for an explanation of the amount of the expenditure limitations. Mr. Lynch explained the report shows that the timing of the expenditure activity was a little different and the annual appropriation of the amount that was set for the budget. Councilmember Samaniego stated he was glad to see the amount of time that was spent on security in the management letter and thanked the staff for their fine work. 4. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Paschke, Intergovernmental Relations Assistant. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Intergovernmental staff was present to discuss the most significant bills and their current status. This is the second legislative update of the 2000 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration and were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental staff contacts. Intergovernmental staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. This item was presented for information purposes, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. In response to Mayor Scruggs' inquiry, Ms. Rudibaugh explained that HCR 2006 would state that, if they go out for a vote and the citizens approve it, 20 percent of the people who actually voted could come back and say that it is not what they wanted and require another vote on the entire bond proposition. She stated that this is beyond truth in taxation. Mayor Scruggs stated that it cannot be tied to a project and that she does not understand it. Mr. McClendon stated that it would be difficult to tie it to a specific project because different bonds are all issued at the same time. He stated that another problem is that initially the bonds themselves have been approved and you are then asking them to go back and vote again on the same thing. He stated that they would almost have to sell their bonds project-by-project, significantly increasing their bond issuance costs. Mr. McClendon agreed with Mayor Scruggs' concerns. He stated that he does not know if it allows for a provision should property assessments drop. Mayor Scruggs stated that it appears, when it comes to counties, cities or towns, they are saying 20 percent of the qualified electors could order a referendum to reverse any increase in tax revenue. It was stated that any act that increases state revenues is not considered to be an appropriation. Mayor Scruggs stated that they do not increase state revenues, they only increase city revenues. She said that they are putting in a trigger mechanism if there is a stadium district being created. Ms. Rudibaugh agreed that this could be its intent, but that the way it is worded does not just target stadium district issues. Mayor Scruggs stated that they need more information on this issue. 8 Councilmember McAllister stated that it would do away with their ability to do bonding because a bonding agency would say that it does not have anything approved until it has been approved a second time. Mayor Scruggs stated that some cities have to have special votes on anything that has to do with entertainment, but she noted that this is wide open. She noted the importance of pointing out that this State ranks last in education and mental health and very low in transportation. She stated that the same people who brought those features are now trying to undermine the financial stability of cities and towns. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that HB 2096 decreases revenues overall. She suggested that the business communities mobilize and talk to these people. In regard to HB 2566, Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification that tax would not be charged on articles of clothing and school supplies that cost less then $100 each or as a grand total. Ms. Rudibaugh stated it is a store grand total, but you could go from store to store or get back in line. Councilmember Lieberman noted that registers would have to be reprogrammed so that tax would not be charged on sales between August 1 and August 8. It was suggested that, if the State wants to give a tax break, it should offer a deduction on the State income tax. Ms. Rudibaugh corrected her previous statement by stating that it is a limit of $100 per item, not total. Mr. Lieberman said that this makes a difference and it would work as far as reprogramming registers. Mayor Scruggs stated that it discriminates against year-round schools. Regarding HB 2171, Councilmember Lieberman noted that the report is due in March, which leaves one year of the three-year moratorium. Councilmember McAllister asked what constitutes an Internet sale. It was stated that it is very vague and broad and includes any item purchased on-line. Councilmember McAllister stated that local business may also find ways to sell through the Internet. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked who was lobbying for this bill. Ms. Rudibaugh replied that there are a few citizen sponsors and legislative members who support it and are trying to do it before the Federal Government does. Councilmember Lieberman stated that, on the national level, places like Barnes and Noble and Wal-Mart are interested in no taxation on their Internet sites. Mayor Scruggs stated that it may be people with aspirations to higher offices who want and need the support of businesses like Wal-Mart and Barnes and Nobel who might be interested in this. Councilmember McAllister stated that SCR 1011 would eliminate services. Councilmember Lieberman noted that, in Glendale, two-tenths of one percent goes directly to police and fire. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the point of HB 2108 was to forbid cities from collecting their own sales tax and require that they be submitted to the State. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that the State would collect the sales tax. She said she was told that, when the State was in charge of collecting the sales tax in the past, it did not do as well as it should have. Mayor Scruggs stated that the State does not tax food. She explained that Representative Lori Daniels and her co-sponsors have said that, since they do not want to hurt the cities, they will allow them to tax food if they so choose. She noted, 9 however, that at any point in time the legislature could then choose to not give cities the option to tax. She questioned, if the goal is uniformity, why they would leave certain things as not being uniform. Mayor Scruggs stated that full disclosure on HB 2387 is needed. She said that Representative Robert "Bob" Burns was contacted by lobbyists for private waste haulers who complained about the City of Glendale collecting commercial waste outside of the City. She noted that this was approved by the Council because it helps keep sanitation costs down for the residents of Glendale. She stated that they have offered to work with them to resolve these issues and both sides agreed to meet and that legislation would not be offered. She noted that the private waste haulers have never been ready or willing to meet and that the promise was broken. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that she spoke with Representative Burns and he stated that he sees it as two separate acts - meeting with the City of Glendale and legislation. Mayor Scruggs said that was not the agreement. Dr. Vanacour noted that the bill is aimed solely at the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs stated that, because only one city is hurt, there is no incentive for others to vote against it. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that other cities, including Flagstaff, may be affected in the future and, therefore, may oppose it. She said that she talked to the waste haulers and they were shocked to find out that the bill was drafted and it was their understanding that they were going to spend this year working together. Regarding HB 2119, Mayor Scruggs asked whether the City's ordinance or the State's Statute takes precedence. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that the State's Statute would take precedence. It was noted that, if the State's Statute was less restrictive and did not contain pre-emptive language, the City's ordinance would apply. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated they need to watch that it is not watered down or include pre-emptive language that would overturn the City's very strict ordinance. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that, if they were going to make it less restrictive, it would be rare that they would put in the pre-emptive language. In regard to HB 2411, Mayor Scruggs stated that, as it now stands, if a school chooses to locate near an establishment with a liquor license, which was located there first, it can do so. She continued by saying that this bill would result in the establishment with the liquor license taking precedence over the school. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the intent of HB 2217 was to deter the selling of water beyond the City's limits. It was stated that notes from the last session indicate that it stems from a dispute between Tucson Water and Pima County residents. Councilmember Lieberman noted that, in reference to HB 2288 and 2284, there has not been any new construction at ASU West in seven years. He expressed his support for these bills. Mayor Scruggs stated that Westmarc supports these bills, in particular HB 2284, stating that they believe it is the only way they will see construction out there at all. Regarding HB 1002, Councilmember Lieberman asked where the money would come from if the budget: was set. It was stated that there is a set amount within the box that can be utilized this year. Mayor Scruggs noted that HB 2284 is competing for these funds. 10 Mayor Scruggs asked if more information could be obtained on HB 2006. Dr. Vanacour stated they would seek more information. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. 11