Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/1/2000 * 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 February 1, 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. COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION BASE ADJUSTMENT ELECTION CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Paula Ilardo, Marketing Director; and Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director. OTHER PRESENTER: Ms. Becky Jordan, Co-Chair of the Alternative Expenditure Limitation (AEL) Committee A communications plan for the upcoming General Election in May of 2000 was presented to Council by Marketing and Communications staff. The plan contains many of the same elements as the overwhelmingly successful recent Bond Election plan and will be utilized to inform voters of the Base Adjustment question on the ballot. In 1998, the City Council-appointed Alternative Expenditure Limitation (AEL) Committee recommended that the City consider putting a question regarding an Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment on the ballot in the May 2000 election, in response to a state-imposed expenditure limitation. Given the fact that, on five previous occasions, Glendale voters have acknowledged, through their positive votes for Home Rule, that the 1979-80 base limit is inadequate, the AEL Committee saw this as an opportunity to actually change the state-established base to a more realistic figure, rather than asking the voters to re-approve an alternative expenditure limitation every four years. This option, also known as a Permanent Base Adjustment, would allow the City to raise its base level of expenditures from the 1979-80 figure (which the state-imposed limitation is based on) to one that better meets the needs of the City of Glendale, now and in the future. 1 In Workshop sessions held in April and December of 1999, the City Council reviewed information prepared by staff pertaining to the Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment option and directed staff to begin preparations for the May 2000 General Election. The new base amount being proposed for the City is $46,500,000, based on actual spending in recent years and factoring in population and inflation growth. This amount would allow the City to spend under the new Base Adjustment for a minimum of ten years, barring any new large expenditure items. The original base from 1979-80 is $21,455,628. These base numbers are the limits for all city expenditures, except for debt service expenditures, and those expenditures from bond proceeds and non-local revenues, such as federal grants. The communications plan includes the following steps: Factual, informative articles will be published in the Connection newsletter that is distributed to City residents, leading up to the early voting period prior to Election Day. Press releases will be sent out to local and regional media regarding the issue and voting options and direct mail brochures will be hung at every door. A public information advertisement will be placed in local newspapers. The City's web page will also have information on the election and the City's cable channel, KGLN, will feature stories on the election in its bi-weekly City Beat show. In 1997, the AEL Committee was appointed by the City Council and convened to discuss the options available to the City in responding to the state-imposed expenditure limitation. The Committee recommended asking voters to approve an expenditure limitation base adjustment in May of 2000. Home Rule has been approved by the voters of the City of Glendale by increasingly wide margins five straight times in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998. The Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment has been discussed in two previous Council Workshops, which were held in June and December of 1999. At both of these sessions, the City Council indicated an interest in putting this item on the May 2000 General Election ballot. The 1998 AEL Committee voted to not reconvene to study this issue further; however, the Committee agreed to provide support in promoting the issue to the citizens for the election. Several members of the Committee, including the Committee's co-chairs, Ms. Becky Jordan and Mr. Bob Beck, will be presenting the issue at a number of public meetings prior to the election. Publicity regarding this issue would focus on the changing needs and growth of the City of Glendale. The City's needs and the types of services it offers are much different today than they were in 1980, and will be different in the future. These changes in the City are the result of more than simply increases in population and inflation. The Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment provides the maximum amount of flexibility to the City in allowing it to meet those changing needs and expectations of Glendale 2 citizens. In addition to the AEL Committee support, the City could publicize the issue through its various modes of communication: The Connection and Relay newsletters, a variety of press releases and newspaper articles, the City's Internet home page, and a special hotline number to answer any questions citizens have on the issue. The estimated cost of brochure production and home distribution is $16,560. A paid public information advertisement in local newspapers would cost approximately $5,000. This would bring the total cost to $21,560, for which a Contingency Fund transfer will be requested at a future Council meeting. Additional "Get out the Vote" advertising planned by the City Clerk's Office is currently budgeted in the City Clerk's Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget. An Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment would not result in a tax increase, nor does it authorize additional expenditures by the City. Another state law mandates balanced budgets for cities; therefore, the City's budgeted expenditures can never exceed its estimated revenues and other sources. As in Home Rule, the Expenditure Limitation Base Adjustment option gives the City the authority to determine a more realistic spending limitation based on current citizen needs and expectations, rather than adhering to a limitation imposed by the State. If the City was to operate under the original state-imposed limitation rather than under an adjusted base limit, significant reductions in City programs would be required. These cuts would not necessarily lead to tax reductions though, as the law only limits the expenditures a city can make. It has no impact on the methods a city uses to collect revenues. This item was presented for information and review purposes. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Lynch to explain how the AEL could be done after the base adjustment. Mr. Lynch stated that, at any point in time, the Council can direct that the AEL be brought to the citizens for an AEL election, even after a base adjustment has been approved by the voters. He confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that this is only likely to happen in an extreme case. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the base adjustment is a permanent number. Mr. Lynch stated that it is not a permanent number and, although it can be adjusted, it cannot ever go back to the initial number. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that this was an excellent presentation and stated that he would like to have the same presentation made to his constituents. Councilmember Goulet suggested that they provide examples of the services the citizens use and have become reliant on and note that these services will be at risk for cutbacks. Mr. Lynch noted that they have a two-page list of typical services. 3 Mayor Scruggs recommended they emphasize that they are giving citizens the opportunity to avoid the risk of losing the services that they are accustomed to. She recommended using examples that put it on a personal level and suggested an example based on a family and how it would be affected should their salary range be decreased. Ms. Ilardo stated that they do have some examples that relate to families. Councilmember Martinez stated that when he had first heard about the AEL they used an illustration of a family's salary, which helped make it very clear to him. Ms. Ilardo agreed to add examples to the district presentations. Councilmember Samaniego expressed his opinion that it is good that the emphasis is on the fact that there is no increase in property or sales tax and that this is not an authority to go over budget limitations. 2. CUSTOMIZED REFUSE COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND FEES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Martin, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Mike Hoyt, Field Operations Director. During discussion of the residential curbside recycling program, the City Council recognized that some residents may need customized refuse collection services because they feel that the one refuse collection each week may be insufficient for their needs. Staff discussed a customized residential sanitation program that can meet the unique needs of these residents. The current sanitation collection residential monthly rate is $10.75. This monthly fee pays for 2 collections per week of contained refuse, and 1 collection per month of uncontained refuse. Included in this monthly fee are services such as the repair of slightly damaged containers, the replacement of severely damaged containers, inspections to ensure compliance with a variety of sanitation collection-related codes, and the annual Spring Clean-Up. Due to the cost of providing the new curbside recycling service and with normal inflationary increases related to equipment, fuel, and personnel costs, staff recommended a $2.00/month increase in the sanitation collection residential monthly rate effective in July of 2000. This increase would result in a $12.75/month basic service fee for residences. This new rate of $12.75 per month will place the City's rate approximately in the middle range of rates for Valley cities. Service under the $12.75/month rate for residences will change from 90 gallons a day on two different days per week to 180 gallons on one day/week pick-up when curbside collection of recycling materials begins. The regular trash pickup and the recycling pickup will be done on the same day, thus accounting for the change to one day/week pick-up. The City will continue to provide monthly uncontained refuse collection, repair or replace damaged containers, conduct inspections, and carry out the annual Spring Clean-Up for residents as part of the monthly fee. 4 Currently, residents who want additional capacity, buy additional 90-gallon containers for a one-time purchase price of $94. The City has made this service available as a courtesy and has had to absorb the long-term collection cost. Council also identified the fact that a small number of residents would be unwilling to participate in the program and would want a custom service and continue twice per week collection. It was proposed by staff that residents who require customized collection services choose one of the two options listed below. Other cities offer similar options for this customized service. Customized Service Plan A The basic service fee of $12.75 per month, plus $5.41 per month custom service fee for each new additional refuse container. The container would be serviced on the same day as the other refuse container and the recycling container. Staff recommended that residents who have already purchased additional containers would continue to have the container serviced free of charge for one year. At the end of the one-year period, the additional fee of $5.41 per container would be phased in over a four-year period. Customized Service Plan B The basic service fee of $12.75 per month, plus $10.82 per month for residents who do not wish to participate in the recycling program but still want twice per week refuse collection. This service would provide a 90-gallon refuse container collected 2 day/week and monthly loose trash service. An additional 90-gallon container collected 2 day/week would be $5.41/month for each container. At the Public Works Enterprise Fund Workshop held on January 5, 1999, the City Council was presented with several residential sanitation collection rate scenarios, based on the inclusion or exclusion of various sanitation service options. As a result, the City Council made several decisions that impact the residential sanitation collection rate. Specifically, the City Council directed staff to • Implement a curbside collection recycling program commencing, on a phased-in basis, as of July 2000; • Establish a Sanitation Collection Development Fee for new residential properties, effective July 1, 1999; and • Implement a commercial refuse collection program that provides service to other west valley cities. 5 If approved by the Council, this fee schedule will be brought forward for formal adoption at an upcoming regular Council meeting. This customized refuse collection service will also be incorporated into recycling presentations done at neighborhood and council district meetings. The proposed rate increase will not be itemized separately on the monthly City services bill; it will be included in the line item currently called "sanitation." Fees for residents choosing one of the customized services will appear as separate lines on the City services bill. The recommendation was to review the proposed customized refuse collection program and provide staff with direction Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Martin to explain the four-year phasing involved in Customized Plan A. Mr. Martin stated they are proposing that there would not be a charge the first year of the recycling program. He then stated that, starting in 2001, they would begin phasing in the $5.41 charge. He explained that they would start with a charge of $1.35 in the first year and then double it each consecutive year until, at the end of the fifth year, they get the full $5.41. Councilmember Goulet asked if giving citizens one or two years and then going to the full charge a year later would be doable. Mr. Martin stated that they could do it whichever way the Council desired it to be done. Mr. Beasley explained that the flexibility in the plan provides the Council with an opportunity to get feedback from the public. Mayor Scruggs noted that a citizen who lived on an acre property explained that their concern is that they used to have 360 gallons of refuse picked up each week and, under the new plan, they will only get 270 gallons of refuse picked up per week. She stated that this is a reduction in service and recommended that they take time to think about how they will proceed on this issue. Councilmember Martinez stated that he has also heard from people regarding this same issue. Councilmember Lieberman noted that there is a 25% reduction in the amount they would be picking up. He made reference to a comment which Mr. Martin made that they would be willing to buy back the extra refuse container and Councilmember Lieberman asked if that is for those who do not want to go into Customized Service Plan A. Mr. Martin stated that approximately 500 customers have additional containers and that service on those extra containers has been provided at no extra charge. He explained that the proposal is that they would reimburse the $94 which citizens originally paid for the containers and then start implementing a monthly charge. Mr. Hoyt noted that only current residents would benefit from the first year waiver. He also stated that it appears as a reduction in service, but explained that if customers have two refuse containers now, they will be provided with four containers. He stated that they do not intend to reduce service unless specifically requested to do so by the customer. 6 Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that, although customers would have the same capacity as before, they would just have to drag twice as many containers to the curb. Mr. Hoyt agreed. Councilmember McAllister stated that he lives on a one-acre property and could not determine the number of recycling containers he would need. He asked if they could provide an extra pickup on an as-needed basis. Mr. Hoyt stated that they could include a single collection fee as part of the rate schedule. Councilmember McAllister stated that he would hope a special pickup would be available when needed. Mr. Hoyt suggested that the first year waiver is a good idea because it allows people an opportunity to determine the number of containers they actually need. Mayor Scruggs stated that what is currently being done, where they buy the container, is the most fair. She explained that there was no fee for picking up the extra container because the City wanted everyone to be able to dispose of all of their refuse. She said that she could not understand why they now have to charge $5.41 to pickup an additional container. She noted that they used to collect the refuse in two trips and now, because they will be doing it in one trip, she believes it should be less expensive. Mr. Hoyt explained that the majority of the cost is landfill charges which are now being absorbed in the overhead. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that they are not putting anything extra into the landfill and, in fact, would be putting less then they are right now. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that $47,000 in refunds is being given to the people who have already purchased containers. He asked why they do not use this money to pay for picking up the second container rather than charging a fee. Mr. Hoyt stated that it was the Council's prerogative to do so. He explained that the approach in the fee schedule was to place the costs where they were occurring. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Mayor Scruggs that it is a problem and he asked if a customer, who had three trash containers and one recyclable container, would be charged for each of the trash pickups. Mr. Hoyt explained that the first container is built into the basic rate and that they would be charged $10.42 for the two additional containers. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he had discussed the possibility of using bigger containers in some areas, but that the trucks are not equipped for the larger containers. He said that the trucks could handle 150-gallon containers. Mr. Martin stated that containers are not made in this size and that they would be too heavy for people to handle and move to the curb. Councilmember McAllister asked what citizens will need to do to the recyclable contents, i.e. cutting up cardboard boxes and smashing cans. Mr. Martin stated that they are not asking the citizens to do anything special; however, if they chose to do so, they would be able to fit more in the container. Councilmember Lieberman suggested that they include educational materials on how to dispose of the recyclable material in a manner that will take up less room in the container. Mr. Martin agreed that this would be a good addition to the education program. 7 Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that households which currently have two containers could have one pickup of both containers and their recyclable container without a charge and that the customized service be for newcomers who may find it reasonable, compared with what other cities charge. Mr. Hoyt stated that this was a good suggestion. Mayor Scruggs noted that this would be the only way to bring fairness. She asked where the proposal states that they would purchase the containers back from citizens who had more than one. Mr. Martin replied that the proposal does include buying them back, but they neglected to include it in the Council's material. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston's suggestion. She stated that there is no way she could explain to the citizens that they will have 25% less service and will pay $7.41 more per month. She agreed that, if the citizens who currently have two containers choose to keep them, they should be grandfathered in because their costs would actually be reduced in terms of less trash going to the landfill and in having only one pickup versus two. Councilmember McAllister stated that this was just one of the problems of recycling. He asked how paper would be handled. Mr. Hoyt answered by saying that it was a combination of manual and automated labor. He explained that an automated machine separates newspaper and to get the most benefit out of the machinery, the newspaper should be put in loose. Regarding the $2 per month increase in rates, Mayor Scruggs restated that $1 .36 is directly attributable to the curbside recycling and the rest reflects increases in the cost of sanitation service. She asked if they would still be recommending the $.64 increase per month in order to maintain the current level of service even if they were not doing curbside recycling. She stated that the $5.41 charge for the containers has to do with actual refuse going to the landfill and has not been factored into the $10.75 people are currently paying. Councilmember Lieberman noted that part of the cost of the new container is for building and operating the new recycling facility. Mayor Scruggs stated that those costs are not built into the cost of the container. Mr. Martin explained that the $1.36 is to pick up the cost of the recycling facility. Councilmember Lieberman clarified that this was the charge he was speaking of. He stated that they will be operating at a loss because he does not believe they make any money from their recycling at the present time. He questioned how much the recycling facility would lose each year. Mr. Hoyt explained that recyclables are commodities and that prices vary. He stated that they have based their model on industry averages in the southwest over the last five years. Mr. Martin stated that the vast majority of residents will have half of their refuse in recyclables. He stated that there are costs involved with picking up the extra containers. He said that they have tried to determine this cost and, after analysis, came up with the $5.41 figure. Mayor Scruggs stated that the people she had spoken with know what makes up the need for the extra containers - it is the size of the property they live on. She suggested that those citizens who get into recycling may find that they no longer need the second container and that those people have the opportunity to sell their containers back to the City. 8 Councilmember Martinez stated that from the beginning that they have told citizens there would be a cost associated with recycling and that it has been accepted. He suggested that they do what they can to alleviate or lessen the impact on the citizens that have been used to a certain level of service. Mr. Beasley reaffirmed that they can implement the grandfather option and come back for additional discussion if it causes an impact that has not been anticipated. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a consensus on the issue of grandfathering in citizens who currently have two containers. Councilmember Lieberman stated that this issue is as controversial as any single issue he has had in eight years. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with the grandfathering alternative. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a consensus as to offering an incentive to citizens who want to sell their extra container back. Mr. Hoyt agreed. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he originally told people it would cost them $1.36 and asked if the additional $.64 increase could be put off until another time. Mr. Martin stated that they have been operating on the direction of the Council that there would be a single sanitation rate and that the new rate, effective July 1st, would be $12.75 per month. He noted that the only exception would be for the non-grandfathered new customers if they wanted custom service. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he would have to go back and explain that, while the $1.36 is still the price of the recycling, there will be an additional increase of $.64. Mr. Martin explained that the $.64 covers two years' worth of inflation in the sanitation fund and that the City would be asking for this increase even if it did not have recycling. Councilmember McAllister stated that there are two positives from his viewpoint. He explained that he does not have any problem with once-a-week pickup. He noted that the fact that they will no longer miss holiday pickups is an improvement to their service. Mr. Martin added that the $12.75 is still in the middle of the fees charged by other valley cities and that the three other large cities that have recycling will still be higher. Mayor Scruggs asked if the other cities have once-a-month loose trash pickup. Mr. Martin stated that it was his understanding that none of them did, but that Phoenix does have quarterly pickups. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that this is the type of extra service, which is included in the monthly rate, that needs to be promoted. She stated that this service makes the rate even more competitive. Mr. Hoyt stated that the free landfill service is very popular with the citizens. Mayor Scruggs stated that she does not believe the average citizen even considers this as part of the sanitation rate. 9 Councilmember Samaniego noted that many other locations that have landfills charge everyone and stated that he believes the residents appreciate the loose trash service. Mayor Scruggs recapped the item, noting that the monthly sanitation rate will increase to $12.75 for all homes. She stated that the homes which presently have multiple containers will be grandfathered into the system and will continue to have the multiple containers picked up at no additional charge. She noted that they will be offered the opportunity to sell back their container, in whatever condition, for the amount originally paid, if they so choose. She stated that new customers to the additional container program will pay $5.41 per container per month. She stated that there were no changes to Customized Service Plan B. Mr. Beasley noted that Councilmember McAllister requested that they add an additional "clean-up date" option with an extra pickup. Mr. Martin stated that, at the Council's direction, they could develop this rate. Mayor Scruggs stated that it costs $99 per house for an additional pickup. Mr. Martin noted that, while thi, figure is for the loose trash pickup, they could come up with the cost associated with containers. Councilmember Martinez stated that it might be cheaper for citizens to pay for the extra container. 3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Paschke, Assistant to the Director of Intergovernmental Relations. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Intergovernmental Relations staff discussed the most significant bills and their current status. This was the third legislative update of the 2000 session. Intergovernmental Relations staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. 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 Relations staff contacts. This item was presented for information, discussions, and possible direction on legislative issues. Mayor Scruggs suggested that HB (House Bill) 2060 represents the first real effort towards making agricultural preservation a reality. The Council agreed to support HB 2060. With regard to HB 2597, Councilmember Lieberman asked if Representative McGrath had tried a similar bill last year that did not pass. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that Councilmember Lieberman was correct, but that they still need to take this bill seriously and present their side. Mayor Scruggs noted that staff's recommendation was not to support HB 2597. The Council agreed with staff's recommendation. 10 After receiving staff's recommendation, the Council agreed to support HB 1096. Regarding HB 2349, Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Rudibaugh if they were saying that, if there is any residentially zoned property within 600 feet, then one-third of all of the land taken in must be residential or if it was one-third of existing residential land. Ms. Rudibaugh stated she would check into this. Mayor Scruggs noted that the staff's recommendation was to not support HB 2349. The Council agreed with staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if HB 2235 would require that the municipality continue paying all property taxes on a park. Ms. Paschke explained that if the City was to acquire new land for a park that was larger than 40 acres, the City would then have to pay the property taxes on that property as long as it owns it. Vice Mayor Eggleston mentioned the 80-acre park the City has planned at Bethany Home Road and 83rd Avenue. He noted that, if this went through, the City would pay taxes on the land as it is now. He questioned whether the improvements the City builds on the property would increase the valuation. Ms. Paschke stated that, the way the language is written, the tax which the City would pay would be calculated based on the tax two years prior to the City acquiring the land and would not change with additional development. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned the reason for this bill. Ms. Paschke replied that it was an issue with Pima County, but she was not aware of the specifics. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that the issue was that, if the land was privately owned, the City would be receiving taxes on that land. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the taxes would stay where they were two years prior to the City purchasing the land. Ms. Rudibaugh said that she would double- check to verify that this was correct. Mayor Scruggs stated that the staff's recommendation was not to support this bill. Councilmember Lieberman stated that it is the bill's intent to keep cities from grabbing available land and taking them off the tax role. He explained that, when they are taken off the tax role, not only do the cities suffer in returns, but the State suffers from the lack of revenue from the taxation on that property. The Council agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the two Aviation Fund bills. The Council agreed to support the Investment Fund in accordance with staff's recommendation. Regarding HB 2423, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the costs were for street damage. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that they have changed the terminology from "reasonable cost" to "direct cost", which narrows it down. She said that they would prefer that it go back to "reasonable". 11 Councilmember Martinez asked for the definition of "reasonable". It was explained that, in this context, it would include any costs that are customary and part of the normal business practice and could include indirect costs. It was noted that "direct" costs are costs for the actual materials and labor. The Council supported the staff's recommendation to not support this bill. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 12