Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/7/2000 * 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 March 7, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Goulet, Lieberman, Martinez, and Samaniego. ABSENT: Councilmember McAllister ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2000/20002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; and Ms. Gloria Santiago, Neighborhood Revitalization Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Orrin Bradshaw, Chair of the Community Development Advisory Committee. The Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) has reviewed the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 requests for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds. The CDBG annual entitlement will be $2,015,000. The HOME annual entitlement will be $497,951. The City received 41 requests for funding. CDBG The Community Development Block Grant is a federal grant received annually from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal regulations allow a maximum of 20% of the annual entitlement to be used for administration of the CDBG program. Administrative duties include annual performance reports, compliance with federal laws, and administration of subrecipient contracts. For Fiscal Year 2000/2001, administrative funds have been set aside, equal to 18% of the entitlement - $362,700. In Fiscal Year 1998/99, the division expended only 12.26% of that year's entitlement on administration. Unexpended 1 administrative funds at the end of the fiscal year, if any, will be reallocated to projects or programs in future years. The Neighborhood Revitalization Division has identified remaining CDBG funds from completed projects or programs that were funded from previous years' entitlements. These funds, totaling $145,770, will be reallocated to Fiscal Year 2000/2001 CDBG projects. The federal regulations require that the public be notified if there are major changes in the allocation of CDBG funds. In compliance with this requirement, the CDAC reviewed and approved the request to reallocate these CDBG funds at its December 16, 1999 meeting. For Fiscal Year 2000/2001, the City received 38 requests for CDBG funds, totaling $2,821,031. In the category of public services, 25 applications were received, totaling $504,313. The maximum CDBG funds available to fund public services requests is $302,250. In the category of public improvement projects, 13 applications were received, totaling $2,316,718. The CDBG funds available to fund public improvement projects, including reprogrammed funds, is $1,495,820. HOME Federal regulations allow a maximum of 10% of the annual entitlement to be used for administration of the HOME program. Administrative duties include annual performance reports, compliance with federal laws, and administration of subrecipient contracts. The City receives the HOME funds through the Maricopa County HOME Consortium. Maricopa County, as lead agency under the Consortium, retains 4% of the HOME entitlement for administration of the grant. The remaining 6%, $29,155, will be used by the City for HOME administrative duties. During this grant application process, the Neighborhood Revitalization Division requested that $100,000 of the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 HOME funds be reallocated from the Single Family Rehabilitation Program to the Replacement Housing Program. Both programs are operated by this Division. The federal regulations require that the public be notified if there are major changes in the allocation of federal funds. In compliance with this requirement, the CDAC reviewed and approved the request to reallocate these federal funds at its December 16, 1999 meeting. The City received three requests for HOME funds, totaling $450,000. The total amount available to fund HOME projects is $468,796. Five-Year Consolidated Plan One of the program requirements for the federal funds is the preparation of a long-range planning document that describes how the federal funds will be used. The City is currently operating under the Fiscal Year 1995-1999 Consolidated 2 Plan, which will expire on June 30, 2000. During the past five years, there have been many accomplishments, such as: • Houses Rehabilitated 190 • Minor Repairs to Homes 1 ,170 • Demolition Projects 32 • Citizens Assisted Through Public Services 28,410 • Public Facility Improvement Projects 16 The new plan will cover Fiscal Years 2001-2005. It is estimated that the City will receive approximately $12,500,000 during this five-year period. Two public meetings were held in the fall of 1999 to seek input from the public, neighborhood leaders, and nonprofit organizations for the future needs. The public identified affordable housing as a high priority, as well as programs for seniors and youth. A summary of the proposed Five-Year Consolidated Plan will be presented to Council in April of 2000. On November 16, 1999, the Community Development Advisory Committee Chairman met with the Council to discuss the grant process. At that meeting, the Council expressed an interest in the following services: affordable housing, first-time homebuyer assistance, replacement housing, clearance and demolition, and an infill affordable housing program. For public service programs, the Council requested that the Committee consider programs for youth and seniors. On December 16, 1999, the Committee reviewed the City Council's direction and received the grant applications. On February 3, 2000, the CDAC met to formulate its recommendations for Council review. Staff conducted public meetings on September 30 and October 14, 1999 to seek input on the development of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Staff conducted a grant orientation meeting for interested applicants on October 14, 1999. On January 19, 2000, the Community Development Advisory Committee held a public hearing for verbal presentations by the public service applicants. On January 27, 2000, the Community Development Advisory Committee held a public hearing for verbal presentations by the applicants for remaining CDBG funding and for HOME funding. The CDBG and HOME program funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG projects are totally federally funded. The HOME program requires a 25% match of non-federal funds from recipients of HOME grants. The City's General Fund provides this match in the Neighborhood Revitalization budget for those HOME projects that are administered by the City. The recommendation was to review the funding recommendations from the Community Development Advisory Committee and provide direction. Councilmember Goulet noted that the amounts awarded in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and the increase in the amounts requested are neither proportional nor the normal escalation in the cost of doing business. He stated there are significant increases in the amounts requested. He asked Mr. Bradshaw if the people who make the applications to his Committee give an explanation as to why the amount they are requesting is sometimes five to eight times more than the amount requested the year before. 3 Mr. Bradshaw stated that, in most instances, they do give explanations as to why they are requesting a larger amount. He explained that if they do not recommend an increase, it is probably because the Committee did not feel there was adequate evidence or reasons given for that kind of increase. He stated that a lot of what happens depends on the guidelines that the Council gives the Committee. Councilmember Martinez noted that there was nothing allocated for the Prospective Placement Center to provide counseling and job placement for individuals 50 years and older. He suggested that some consideration should have been given to this group. He acknowledged the fact that the economy is good and there may be a feeling that they do not need assistance. He noted that older people are sometimes discriminated against. He pointed out that the Mayor's Alliance Against Drugs and Gangs received $20,000 last year and another $23,700 this year and the description states that it is to encourage local businesses to hire teens and provide job skills and workshops for teens. Councilmember Martinez stated that there needs to be a balance, noting that it may not be as crucial to teens if they get a job or not. Mr. Bradshaw stated that, when they are allocating funds, they first look at how many people will benefit from those funds. He said that most seniors do not want full-time employment. Councilmember Martinez disagreed with Mr. Bradshaw. He stated that there was a need. He said that, although he recognized they were dealing with limited resources, ignoring seniors bothered him. Councilmember Martinez asked what the results were from last year regarding how many workshops were held and how many teens were actually hired. Ms. Santiago estimated that they had held a half-dozen workshops and placed a number of youth in both part-time and summer jobs. She said that she would provide Councilmember Martinez with official figures. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Mayor's Alliance Against Drugs and Gangs is a statewide organization. Ms. Santiago explained that it is a Glendale-based organization. Councilmember Samaniego asked Mr. Bradshaw to expand on the reverse mortgage program. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the reverse mortgage program does not benefit a lot of people. He explained that HUD started this program in 1989 and, during the past ten years, there have only been about 55,000 mortgages in the United States. He stated that Arizona had 140 last year, which is only about 2% of the entire United States. He noted that he had spoken with one of the banks that handles reverse mortgages and found out that the people have to receive counseling as to what the reverse mortgage is before receiving it. Ms. Santiago noted that the Mayor's Alliance Against Drugs and Gangs was formed in 1993 and is centered in the Glendale area. She stated that they placed 50 teens in jobs and 250 teens participated in the workshops and job training programs. Councilmember Goulet asked if that meant the 200 remaining teens could have found employment on their own as a result of the workshop. Ms. Santiago stated that he was correct, that the skills they learn in the workshop include how to write a resume, how to prepare for an interview, and so forth. 4 Councilmember Martinez asked if the LeMarr Exterior Upgrade was one of the City's housing developments. Ms. Santiago replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the HUD funds were used in the home programs. Ms. Santiago explained that a federal requirement of the program is that if an agency files for the money, it must provide a 25% match of non-federal funds. In regards to the CDBG funds, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what happens to the administrative allowance funds if they are not fully utilized. Ms. Santiago explained that, at the end of the year, any administrative funds that are left over are returned to the Advisory Committee, which will allocate it to projects for the next year. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Councilmember Martinez if his concerns had been assuaged. Councilmember Martinez stated that those were his feelings and it was up to the rest of the Councilmembers if they wanted to put money into that program. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that the funds were well allocated and recommended that the Council not disturb the recommendation. He asked the Councilmembers if there was a consensus to go forward with the recommendation. The majority of the Council agreed. 2. RECOMMENDED TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — 2001- 2010 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director; and Ms. Sylvia Forry, Budget and Research Analyst. The Capital Improvement Plan coordinates the financing of various capital projects throughout the City. The program includes a long-range evaluation of the City's capital needs, as well as a five-year financial plan to fund the most critical capital projects. The plan is balanced for the first five years, and will not require any increase in the $1.34/$100 property tax rate. The unfunded projects listed in the last five years will be re-evaluated in next year's updates. The Constitution provides that the principal on G.O. Bonds cannot exceed 6% of the City's total assessed value. The 6% constitutional limitation, however, does not apply in the bonding of parks, water/sewer or flood control purposes. In these cases, the total outstanding indebtedness cannot exceed 20% of the City's total assessed value. The Fiscal Year 2000-01 Capital Improvement Plan includes $6.9 million in projects that mostly come from the new voter authorization that was passed on November 2, 1999. These projects are: 1. City Wide Trail System 2. Downtown Greenbelt 3. Public Restrooms and Related Improvements 4. Tourism Visitor Center 5. Downtown Urban Design Plan 6. Redevelopment Land Acquisition The recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been reviewed by the City Management Team, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning Department staff reviewed the recommended the CIP and determined that it conforms to the City of Glendale General Plan, with a few exceptions 5 which can be corrected by minor amendments to the General Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan sets the framework for capital budgeting for the next five years and it is balanced to our anticipated revenues for capital expenditures, retaining the $1.34/$100 property tax rate. Any additions to the plan will need to be accompanied by an equal amount of deletions from the plan. The recommendation was to review the recommended Fiscal Year 2001-2010 Capital Improvement Plan n its entirety and provide staff direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted how financially conservative the City is and stated that, as it does not intend to raise the secondary property tax, it needs to earmark a certain amount and bond up to that amount if the income is not available. Mr. McClendon agreed and stated that the $1.34 property tax rate limits the City far more than the 20% assessed valuation does. He explained that they could issue a lot more debt than they are planning to under the constitutional limit, but do not plan to do so because it would effect the tax rate. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that, on page 4 of the 2001-2010 Capital Improvement Plan, the amount passed by the Bond Election in regards to public safety, was $64,801,000 million and that, on page 12, the amount for Fiscal Year 2001 was $76,163,000. He asked if the $12 million was carried over from previous bond authorizations. Mr. McClendon stated that he was correct. Councilmember Martinez stated that he believed they were told that it would not be necessary to get a CIP for the bridge over 57th Avenue at Skunk Creek because there may be another way to do it. He asked someone to respond to this issue. Mr. Reedy stated that they had looked at whether it was in the CIP. He noted that a formal needs analysis has not been done, but he does not believe it will meet the requirements because it is a low-volume street. He stated that, if the Council believes it is a project they want brought forward, they will evaluate it and bring back a study as to how many cars use that street and how often it is interrupted with the flow of water in Skunk Creek. Councilmember Martinez stated that traffic has increased since the new library has opened and requested that an evaluation be done so they can look at this project next year. Mayor Scruggs stated that this was a personal request and not a Council direction. She said that she did not remember discussing it. Councilmember Martinez stated that his question had been answered, but he was not satisfied because he did not see any support for it. With regard to the Airport projects, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if this was the taxi runway extension. Mr. Jim McCue, Airport Manager, stated that they had planned the runway and taxiway extension for this year; however, the Federal bill was never approved in Congress. He stated that, without the money coming from the Federal Government and the State, they had to postpone this project until next year when they knew there would be a bill. He explained that the bill is for a national improvement program and will hopefully provide 64% more money for airports. He explained that the gabion was completed last October by the Federal Government and, in effect, is the 6 first phase for the runway extension. Councilmember Lieberman noted that there was an article in yesterday's newspaper about the Senate holding that bill up and two of the Councilmembers were going to talk with one of the Senators later this week about this subject. He also pointed out that they may lose funding for the contract tower for six months and, if so, the Council will need to include funds in their budget to cover it. Mr. McCue stated his belief that this was a ploy on the part of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and that he was not too concerned about losing funding. He noted that, if this Federal bill gets passed, they will not have any problems. With regard to the flood control summary, Councilmember Goulet asked what was being done at Northern and Grand Avenues and if any lof the flood control money would affect that project. Mr. Reedy explained that the 63ru and Northern Avenues project was part of the Orangewood Outfall Project. He stated that it is a Maricopa County Flood Control District, City of Peoria and City of Glendale joint project. He noted that the retention basins will take approximately another year or so to complete. Councilmember Martinez asked if there was more work to be done on the Skunk Creek channelization. Mr. Reedy stated that, in addition to the Orangewood drain, the Skunk Creek Drain Channelization Program is also an intergovernmental agreement, with Maricopa County to front the money. He stated that the City will pay the County back in three years. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the numbers for the coming fiscal year were just a portion of the program. Mr. Reedy replied that it was a small portion, noting that on the Orangewood project theCitywas only paying 25%. He explained that the surge basin being constructed at 63rd Avenue and Northern Avenues would allow the water to be collected upstream, diverted into the retention basin and stored there. He stated that after a storm, it meters the flow of water out of a smaller pipe along Orangewood Avenue to the New River, which prevents having to build bigger pipes as they move downstream. He stated that the retention basins allow the City to make a smaller investment in the piping system. Mayor Scruggs asked why the two projects they were doing with the County had annual operating costs. Mr. Reedy explained that the retention basins need to be irrigated and landscaped. Mayor Scruggs stated she would expect to see this associated with a trail on the recreation side. Mr. Reedy stated he would check that out. Mr. McClendon stated that the basic initial improvements were included; however, if it is improved beyond that and turned into a recreational facility, then they will see recreation costs at that time. Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated t�iat they budget for those retention basins. He pointed out that they have added 63` and Northern Avenues as a Parks project approximately three years out and show an operating cost of $25,000. With regard to Government Facilities, Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification as to whether the operating impact for the tourism building would be for one year or if it was ongoing. Ms. Forry stated that it should be ongoing and she would correct that error. With regard to the Library, Mayor Scruggs asked what the library impact fee was per residential unit. Mr. McClendon stated he would look that up. Mayor Scruggs asked if the library impact fees were allocated by area of the city or as one lump sum. Mr. McClendon stated it was one sum for the citywide library system. He explained that they will use bond debt to acquire the funding necessary to build the West Branch 7 Library and then use impact fees that come in afterwards to retire that debt. Mr. Vanacour stated that they would have the revised impact fee schedule at the next Workshop session and, with the Council's approval, they would be able to implement the fee shortly thereafter. Mayor Scruggs asked if, over the next ten to fifteen years, all impact fees will go to retiring the debt on the West Branch Library. Mr. McClendon stated that they would, except that they set aside a small amount each year out of the book allocation to keep updating the collections at all of the libraries. Mayor Scruggs asked what the library impact fee was. Dr. Vanacour stated they were presently revising the impact fees. Mr. Reedy stated that he could get that figure for Mayor Scruggs. Mr. McClendon stated that, at June 30t of this year, they will have a beginning fund balance of $2 million in the library building fee. He stated that, when they consider that amount, plus the amount that will come in between now and the time of construction, they are anticipating only having to bond approximately $3.9 million. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like the West Branch Library built sooner than over the next five to ten years. He said that recognized the need for a library in that area and stated he would like to see funding moved up by two to four years. Mr. McClendon said that they could move things around to figure out a way to do that; however, he would be concerned because the second year includes the west side public safety building and a recreation center. He noted that they also have an additional fire station planned in year four. He explained that they have tried to stage the projects so that they can absorb the staff that is required to operate the facilities as they come online. He stated that, if they move the library forward, they would have to determine what other project would be moved around so they could afford to bring in the necessary people at the scheduled time. Councilmember Lieberman stated that it would be far more important to build the library than trade off against another cut in what the City does for the personal property tax. Mayor Scruggs asked if that would run a library. Mr. McClendon stated that this was an option. Councilmember Samaniego stated that he would also be in favor of moving the library forward, if possible, but not at the loss of anything else. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Councilmember Samaniego, that it is easy to suggest moving it up, but you cannot just take one part out of context. He asked if the operating costs were really $5 million per year. Mr. McClendon explained that this is the five-year operating cost, with just over $1 million per year. He stated that they could run numbers this fall when they update their five-year financial forecast to see what would happen if they accelerated the Library. Mayor Scruggs stated she had heard that people were most anxious about the two public safety facilities and the park. She suggested that staff run estimates on the current percentage of usage of the library from those zip codes. She explained that this would give them an idea of the demand for the library versus the demand for the park and public safety facilities. With regard to open space and trails, Mayor Scruggs asked what kind of bonds the City sells for the downtown greenbelt. Mr. McClendon stated it was in the open space and trails category. He stated that, because the bonds have not as yet been issued, if the Council wanted to defer that project, it could not sell those bonds and increase the sales in the park's category. Mayor Scruggs asked how close they were to having a project to use the 2001 money of the downtown greenbelt. Mr. McClendon explained 8 that the first step is to complete a comprehensive downtown development plan and that they have set aside funding for that in the upcoming fiscal year budget. He said that this would need to happen in order for the Council to know where it needed to invest any planning money for that project. Mayor Scruggs stated that she brought this up because the City does not have money to fix up Murphy Park until 2006. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he was happy to see over $1 million, with a total of $5 million, allocated to the Grand Canal Linear Park. With regard to park projects, Councilmember Goulet noted that some immediate improvements have taken place at Murphy Park. He added that it is a focal point and it is incumbent upon the Council to plan for a process to continually maintain it. He suggested trying to make the park and the entire downtown area receptive to visitors. Mayor Scruggs stated that it is apparent that Murphy Park is in need of improvements and she agreed with creating a specific maintenance plan because of the tremendous amount of usage it gets. She asked if Murphy Park was in Zone II and questioned if they could use Zone II money if the entire Council agreed. Mr. McClendon stated that they were projecting a June 30th balance of $335,000 in Zone II, which would build to $777,000 by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2004, when a $750,000 expense is planned for 71st and Orangewood Avenues. Dr. Vanacour suggested that this money could be used for Murphy Park and then they could move bond money around so that there will be enough money when 71st and Orangewood Avenues comes due. He offered to come to the next meeting with a plan as to how to make that happen. Councilmembers Samaniego and Lieberman agreed that Murphy Park does need improvement. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the trucks that put in the holiday lighting tore the park up and suggested that, if they tear it up next year, they replace it before they leave. Dr. Vanacour stated that this would not happen again. Mr. McClendon stated that their suggestion would be to use impact fees or to take money from the downtown greenbelt project for Murphy Park. He agreed to evaluate both options. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the operating budget was for the multi-generation center. Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the operating costs average between $350,000 and $500,000, depending on the actual square footage, and would include utilities, maintenance and staffing. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the expansion of the lake at Bonsai Park, to include recreational fishing, was restricted to children. Mr. Smith stated that there are fishing events for the youth, but anyone can fish there. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Mr. Smith was successful in getting the Department of Fish and Game to stock the lake. Mr. Smith explained that, since the lake has to have a certain dimension to get stocked by the Department of Fish and Game, the City has been stocking it with its budget. He stated that the purpose of the expansion was to meet the requirements of Department of Fish and Game so that they will stock it. Councilmember Goulet suggested it would be prudent to look at integrating the additional development while other projects are underway to avoid having to later tear up projects that have been completed. Mr. Smith stated that they would look into this suggestion. 9 Mayor Scruggs asked if the money received from programming at various locations was used to offset the operating costs at those locations. Mr. Smith stated that those funds go into the General Fund, which gives them more flexibility in meeting budgetary requirements. He noted that recreational classes are an exception, as they are used to recover the cost of the classes. He stated that special interest classes are different from recreational classes in that they are in a separate fund and the City pays for all of the costs of those programs. Mr. McClendon noted that they account for the Civic Center's expenses and revenues separately and have to use General Fund money to subsidize what the Civic Center generates. Councilmember Martinez asked if the non-profit agency in the City of Mesa that runs some of the City's senior center classes and activities is on a volunteer basis. Mr. Smith explained that the City of Mesa funds its senior center activities through the non- profit group. He stated that they do up-front funding to the non-profit group, which then provides senior programming, as well as senior adult day care. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that five years down the road they will have an indoor multi-sport, multi-dimensional recreational center and asked how they would determine the location. Mr. Smith noted that this project came from the Bond Committee. He stated that he sees it as being centrally located so that it serves all of the citizens of Glendale, because he does not believe they will build more than one. He noted that aquatic centers run anywhere from $5-13 million to build. Councilmember Samaniego stated that he was pleased to see that the Western Area Regional Park has $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-02. Mr. Smith stated that they also have $400,000 in this current fiscal year and $400,000 in development impact fee for this park in 2001. He stated that this makes for a total of approximately $800,000 available to them as of July 1st, along with the $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-02. He stated that they would soon see a request for a heritage fund to adopt a resolution which would allow them to start the planning process. When questioned as to whether this park will become a reality, Mayor Scruggs suggested that Councilmember Samaniego point to the fact that the operating money is in the budget. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Smith where the outdoor adventure center would be located. Mr. Smith suggested that it be located near the west valley multi-modal corridor because some of the activities they are looking at should be in an area where the noise would not be an issue. Councilmember Martinez asked if the funds set aside for the Cholla In-Line Court would be adequate. Mr. Smith explained that it would be adequate if they put it in an area where they already have the lights and the court built. If not, he stated that that project would cost an additional $130,000. Mayor Scruggs stated that library impact fees are $235 per house and the fee per house for books is $126. She stated that, at the end of last year, there was almost $1.6 million in the fund for buildings and over $500,000 accrued for books. With regard to public safety, Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like to see Project 9406, the 911 telephone system, moved up a year or two. Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, stated that the Police Department currently has seven 911 lines. Councilmember Lieberman said that he did not realize this and asked what the normal waiting period was and how many calls could be answered at one time. Mr. Brent 10 Ackzen, Police Department Support Services Administration Manager, explained that, if Glendale's lines are busy, they automatically roll over to the City of Phoenix Police Department. He stated that, if they get a busy signal on 911, there is probably a problem with the phone company's central office. He stated that the issue is not technology, it is staffing. He went on to explain that they do not have enough people to answer the lines. Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification that calls were not going unanswered because of lack of staffing, but that US West's central office only allows for a certain number of 911 trunks. Mr. Ackzen stated that this was correct. He noted that they monitor their 911 statistics and there are no issues that relate to calls even rolling over to Phoenix. He stated that the only time they would get a busy signal is if there was a large scale emergency and everyone started calling at once. He noted that the busy signal would occur at US West's central office and not at the Police Department. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City of Phoenix would have to immediately call the City of Glendale if a call rolled over to them. Mr. Ackzen stated that this was correct. He added that there is an inter-agency agreement which states that, if they cannot get through to Glendale's agency, they would respond to handle the call. He stated that they have also set up ring down lines between the Glendale and Phoenix Police Departments that are open circuits, guaranteed to be available. With regard to street projects, Mayor Scruggs asked why this category fluctuates so much. Mr. McClendon explained that one reason was the length of time and the cost it takes to do a project. He stated that the schedule of debt retirement on existing outstanding bonds also means that they have capacity in some years and not in others. Coungilmember Samaniego noted that a serious accident occurred at the intersection of 75t Avenue and Bethany Home Road. He stated that he was concerned that they move on the project at that intersection as quickly as possible. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what was involved in the 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road project. Mr. Reedy stated that it includes some curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements, as well as power lines that need to be placed underground. He noted that, while it is not a two lane street, there are some unusual configurations that need to be modified. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) monies were scheduled. Mr. McClendon explained that the problem with HURF Bonds is that the City uses its street HURF money to repay those and roughly 57% goes into street operations. He stated that the problem with accelerating a project and issuing the debt sooner is that it means less money for the operations. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they could consider accelerating projects if the HURF funds were more than anticipated. Mr. McClendon stated that this was correct. He added that this is the reason why they update the plan every year. He expressed concern with the fact that, if the extremely high fuel prices cause people to drive less, it may be good for traffic congestion and air pollution problems, but it would ultimately reduce HURF revenues. Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, stated that, in terms of looking at the structure of the bonds, the market would also impact the proposed projects that could be done each year. 11 Councilmember Martinez discussed the sound walls for 2001, 2002 and 2003 and asked if there was money there. Ms. Forry stated that those monies are listed under the General Fund. Mr. McClendon stated that they have developed a plan to finance those improvements over the next three years through operating revenues. Mayor Scruggs noted that discussions with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) were continuing and she hoped to get funds from them when ADOT realizes and agrees that they are responsible for building those walls. With regard to the transit projects, Mr. McClendon noted that the projects are contingent upon receiving the grant awards. With regard to the water and sewer numbers, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the numbers were spread out. Mr. McClendon explained that there is an overall expected cost of the project and a timeframe over which it is expected to be completed. Mayor Scruggs asked if the cost on Project 9261 was correct or if the actual expense was $16,000. Mr. McClendon explained that this is what was left on that project, as it has almost been completed. Mayor Scruggs asked if there were any comments on the other capital projects. Council made no comments. 3. SEWER MAIN EXTENSION PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Larry Broyles, Assistant City Engineer. As a result of the Bond Election passage in November 1999, the City of Glendale must develop a formal process for the request of main line sewers to serve areas within the City of Glendale currently using septic systems. The City of Glendale will construct main line sewers and the service taps up to the dedicated right-of-way at no cost to the property owner, subject to meeting the proper application requirements. The property owner will still be responsible for paying the sewer connection fee, obtaining permits, and installing the service line from the house to the new system and abandoning their septic system. One of the issues that need to be determined by the Council is how great a majority should be required prior to starting a project. Item No. 3 in the Draft Program states "a substantial majority of the residents in the affected area must agree". It has been suggested that Council define substantial or use the percentage as a method to help prioritize projects in any fiscal year. This program was discussed at the City of Glendale Utilities Committee meeting held on February 22, 2000. It was received favorably by the Committee and it was recommended that it be presented to a full Council Workshop. When this program is approved, it will become the guiding policy for sewer extensions in these areas throughout the City. If an approval policy is adopted, staff will set up a citizens notification process for the areas that will be able to request sewer extensions. If all the requirements are met and verified, the application will be submitted for inclusion in the Capital Improvement 12 Program for the next fiscal year, if funding is available within the rate structure adopted by the Council. The City of Glendale Engineering Department will administer the policy when citizens apply. The recommendation was to review the attached draft policy and provide direction to staff. Councilmember Goulet asked for confirmation that the current cost to the property owner of $8,000 could go up substantially in a couple weeks. Mr. Reedy stated that $8,000 is the average construction cost per house. He stated that each household would be required to pay an impact fee and may have to pay between $3,000 to $5,000 for additional piping requirements and abandonment of their septic system. Councilmember Goulet asked if any discussions had taken place regarding low interest loans or the creation of a fund to help in particular situations. He said that some people may feel this was being forced on them and he questioned how they could help. Mr. Reedy explained that, because the Council policy was modified last year, there is no longer any requirement that citizens attach to a sewer line until they are ready to do so. Councilmember Goulet pointed out that this applies as long as the septic system is maintained and operating properly, but he stated that this would be a substantial cost to the property owner. Mr. Reedy stated that they have not considered this up to this point, but he suggested that it could be a program they bring forward. Mr. Reedy clarified for Mayor Scruggs that, if the septic system cannot be repaired, they would have to replace it. He said that it was really an issue of the property owner's choice when weighing how much it would cost to fix the septic system against hooking onto the sewer system. Councilmember Martinez asked how much it would cost to do this through an improvement district. Mr. Reedy estimated that it would cost between $15,000 to $16,000 per home for a complete sewer system, including the connection to the house. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that the Council was assisting property owners by offering it to them for $8,000 if they chose. Mr. Reedy agreed. Councilmember Martinez asked if everyone had to sign to indicate yes or no. Mr. Reedy explained that everyone who could connect to the pipeline would have to sign it and indicate yes or no. Dr. Vanacour stated that the 40% minimum in the grant policy was an engineering decision and that it was up to the Council to decide the amount of participation it would require. He stated that it was 51% when the Improvement District did it. Mayor Scruggs questioned how the City could ensure that residents who have committed to participating were not able to change their mind or sell their house and have the new owners decide not to participate. Mr. Van Haren suggested that they could devise a contract for service and have the property owners sign the contract at the time they pay the impact fee and the debt would run with the property. Councilmember Martinez questioned how houses would be prioritized if every household that qualified wanted to participate. Mr. Reedy stated that one criteria could be how many people in the neighborhood signed. He said that he was not sure how they would deal with it if every neighborhood had 100% signatures. Dr. Vanacour suggested leaving maximum flexibility to prioritize. Councilmember Martinez recommended that guidelines be established so that the neighborhoods know how the 13 situation would be handled. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Mr. Van Haren recommended that, before they adopt the resolution, language regarding contracting for the service and a disclaimer about the available funds and prioritization be included. Mayor Scruggs agreed and suggested that they develop their prioritization guidelines before they adopt it. She stated that she would look at whether the neighborhood was working to participate. She asked if they could have criteria developed by March 21st Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with a minimum of 40% of residents who agree to abandon their septic systems and connect to the sewer within one year after completion. He noted, however, that this should be done before the City invests money in the system. He suggested that the Council determine how it wants decisions to be made and not leave it up to future Councils. Mr. Reedy noted that 2,009 homes have been projected to have septic systems in the City. He pointed out that, if there was saturation of the soil in a certain neighborhood, the County could declare that this neighborhood could not repair its septic system and would have to build a system. He suggested that the Council may want to consider that criteria as well. Councilmember Samaniego agreed with Mayor Scruggs and Councilmember Martinez that additional language needs to be added to tighten it up without forcing anyone to enter into the agreement. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had heard arguments that a septic system seriously depresses property values. She noted that this could have positive impacts for the City of Glendale because when property values rise, so do the collection of City property taxes. Dr. Varhacour stated that he would bring back the resolution at either the March 21St or April 4t meeting. Mayor Scruggs stated that it needs to be done quickly so that neighborhoods are notified and can submit their applications. 4. 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 is the fifth 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 Relations staff contacts. Intergovernmental Relations staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. This item was presented for information, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. 14 Mayor Scruggs noted that she had received more public input on HB 2095 than any other bill since she took office. She stated that they have all been concerned and alarmed and are opposed to the bill. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated the City has an ordinance that would be affected by this bill. He questioned what the point was and stated the City should be able to maintain an ordinance that would keep people from carrying firearms on City properties. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that the supporters of the bill feel it is a safety issue and that it is their right. Vice Mayor Eggleston said that he did not like the idea of having the City's ordinance pre-empted by a striker bill. Councilmember Martinez asked if it would be possible to have someone on site to keep people from bringing firearms onto City properties. Mr. Rudibaugh stated that they would not be able to. Mayor Scruggs asked if there were any public facilities that would not come under this bill, where firearms could still be prohibited. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that she did not believe so. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council concurred with staff's recommendation not to support HB 20951. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council concurred with staff's recommendation to support HB 1015. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council concurred with staff's recommendation not to support HB 2559. With regard to HB 2119, Councilmember Martinez asked if they had changed the wording that prohibits a motorized skateboard on a sidewalk, roadway or any other part of a highway, etc. He explained that it seemed that they would not be able to ride motorized skateboards anywhere. Ms. Rudibaugh stated it had been changed and it now coincides with the City of Glendale's ordinance. With regard to HB 2032, Councilmember Lieberman noted that this was a copy of the property tax portion of Proposition 13 in California. Councilmember Martinez inquired as to the status of the Chavez state holiday. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that it was still moving the last time she looked and it was waiting to be heard in the House committee this week. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 15