Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/21/2000 * 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 21, 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 Rose Day, Acting City Clerk. 1. PUBLIC ART FOR THE CIVIC CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Mr. Wayne Baxter, Recreation Superintendent — Special Operations. OTHER PRESENTER: Ms. Judith Olsen, Chair of the Arts Commission. Ms. Judith Olsen summarized this item for the Council. The Arts Commission recommended commissioning artist Howard Ben Tre of Providence, Rhode Island to design works of art for the Civic Center. Howard Ben Tre is an artist/sculptor of international acclaim, specializing in the medium of cast glass. Mr. Ben Tre will be asked to submit a design and proposal for four sculptural art forms of cast glass to be wall mounted in the rotunda/main lobby entrance of the Civic Center. The final design will be selected by the Art Commission and submitted for review by the City Council. From December of 1998 to January of 1999, the Arts Commission completed one-on- one surveys with Mayor Scruggs and the City Council and toured art galleries to gather information for drafting the "Call to Artist" proposals. From February to May of 1999, "Call to Artists" were distributed locally, regionally, and nationally to over 800 artists. Eighty-Five artists responded by the deadline. Thirteen artists were invited to submit detailed proposals. In June of 1999, preliminary review/ranking of the 13 proposals was completed by the Arts Commission. The Commission used the following criteria: aesthetic merit and concept designs; appropriateness/compatibility for the Civic Center, cost factor and the artist's experience. The Commission rejected all proposals. Arts consultant, Mrs. Joan Prior, was contracted by the Arts Commission to acquire artwork for the Civic Center. 1 In July and August of 1999, detailed information regarding potential works of art was presented to the Commission by Ms. Prior, the arts consultant. The Arts Commission voted to select artists Kim Cridler and Christian Vincent and their respective works of art for the Civic Center. On September 21, 1999, the Arts Commission presented a proposal at a City Council Workshop to acquire artwork from artists Kim Cridler and Christian Vincent. The City Council recognized the quality of the artwork, but did not select it. The total project cost of these sculptural art forms will not exceed $350,000. This project will be funded out of the Municipal Arts Fund, which has a current balance of $677,264. This cost includes $300,000 for the art and $50,000 for contingencies, lighting, and miscellaneous costs. The recommendation was to review the recommendation of the Arts Commission and provide direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Mr. Tre currently has, or has had in the past, any pieces displayed at the museums listed in the brochure. Ms. Olson answered yes. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the collection would be large enough to cover the walls. Ms. Olson stated her belief that Mr. Tre would come up with something that is appropriate for each wall space. Councilmember Martinez stated that they had examples of work that Mr. Tre has done, but they did not know what the actual work would look like. Ms. Olson agreed and stated that they would ask Mr. Tre to prepare renderings and then come before the Council for final approval. Councilmember Martinez asked if they first have to enter into an agreement with Mr. Tre. Ms. Olson explained that they would because there is a small window of opportunity to approach him with a contract. Councilmember Martinez asked if the costs outlined were his estimates. Ms. Olson replied that the Arts Commission was asking for up to, but no more than, $350,000 for the four pieces of art. Councilmember Goulet commented on the appropriateness of this type of finishing touches to the Civic Center and stated that he believed they complement the elegance of the Civic Center. He thanked Ms. Olson and the members of the Arts Commission for their efforts and stated that he was pleased with their suggestion. Councilmember Lieberman noted that he had seen one of Mr. Tre's pieces in a museum in Washington and he would be honored to have some of his sculptures in the Civic Center. Councilmember Samaniego thanked the Arts Commission for the fine work that its members have done. He stated that he liked the selection which the Arts Commission has made and was looking forward to seeing Mr. Tre's renderings. Mayor Scruggs stated that the direction of the Council was to move forward. She thanked everyone and noted that the decision to move to glass was a good one, as it will complement the Civic Center. She noted that there is a soft color to the glass, in addition to a back-lit mirror. Ms. Olson explained that Mr. Tre uses very soft colors; however, it is possible that he may also use an iron powder. Mayor Scruggs directed the Arts Commission to get in touch with the artist and start the process. Mayor Scruggs asked when they could expect to see renderings of what the artist feels would be appropriate for the Civic Center. Ms. Olson estimated that it would take 2 approximately one to two months. Councilmember McAllister noted that Channel 8 had recently aired a program on glass making and recommended that others watch it if they had the opportunity. Ms. Olson noted that until the glass settles, everything affects it. She stated that there are times when they may see a crack that is actually part of the nature of the glass and adds to the final piece. 2. IMPACT FEE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Dwayne Guthrie, Planning Consult with Tischler & Associates, Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland. Mr. Guthrie presented this item to the Council. Impact fees are one-time charges to developers that are used to offset the costs resulting from new development. Tischler & Associates was asked to evaluate the results of the Bond Election process and calculate the impact fees that could be charged to developers to recover the actual costs of growth. Those numbers were presented today for consideration of what the City Council would like to have brought forward for adoption of new fees. The City Council has the latitude to adopt any fees it deems appropriate. Tischler & Associates have recommended several changes in the structure of the model and the evaluation of the categories for the charges. The current fees are collected in eight categories: Sanitation; Streets; Water; Sewer; Parks; Library; Fire; and Police. The new study recommends nine categories: Libraries; Parks, Recreation and Open Space; Sanitation; Water System; Sanitary Sewer; Transportation; Police; Fire and EMS; and General Government. For comparison purposes, the current fees for a single-family residential unit total $3,354 for the eight categories. The recommended total for the new nine categories total $7,062. These fees would put Glendale in the upper group of cities in the amount of impact fees charged compared to other Valley communities. Below is a listing of other communities and the fees they charge for a single-family detached home: Phoenix $8,869 Peoria (south) $8,109 Queen Creek $7,309 Surprise (proposed) $7,189 Glendale $7,062 Chandler $4,781 Goodyear $4,746 Gilbert $4,717 Avondale $4,570 Scottsdale (north) $4,539 Mesa $3,195 3 Tischler & Associates also recommended that an annual inflation factor be added to the fees and adopted each year to keep the fees on a par with inflation. When Council has determined that the fees need to be adjusted, the City will need to follow an adoption process that will comply with the Arizona State laws pertaining to fees and rates. That process will include: posting the study for public review, publishing a notice in the newspaper, a resolution of intent to raise fees, a public hearing to allow input on the proposed fees, and an ordinance amendment making the desired changes. The time frame for the adoption process is approximately 60 days. The new fees will become effective 90 days after the adoption of the new ordinance. In 1994, the City undertook an impact fee study that was completed and implemented on February 1, 1997. At that time, the Council requested that the fees be revisited and updated every three years. In July of 1999, the Council approved the selection of Tischler & Associates, Inc. to provide the update of the study. In October of 1999, Mr. Dwayne Guthrie of Tischler & Associates, Inc. provided the City Council with the comparison of recommended changes to the Glendale impact fees that would make them more in-line with what other cities are currently charging. The City Council will need to follow the adopted state requirements to modify the City impact fees. That process includes a published notice, a public hearing, and a 90-day delay in the effective date. Additionally, the staff has been notifying all developers that the City has been studying new impact fees and that the fees were likely to increase. After the adoption process is complete, the staff will make a special effort to contact the associations that represent developers in the City, including the Arizona Home Builders Association, The Arizona Multifamily Housing Association, and Valley Partnership. The impact fee study was approved in July of 1999 at a cost of $88,700. The impact fees generate a significant portion of the capital improvement projects cost that is related to growth. In fiscal year 1999, impact fees collected a total of $8,530,027. It is difficult to estimate the impact of the rate changes due to the changes in development volume in the different areas each year. If the Council adopts the higher recommended fees, a substantial increase in impact fee revenues are anticipated. The recommendation was to review the final report on development fees from Tischler & Associates and provide staff direction on how to proceed with the impact fee update process. 4 Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Guthrie why Phoenix' transportation fee was so high. Mr. Guthrie replied by stating that he did not know, as his firm did not do that particular study. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that Glendale seems to be exceptionally high in sanitary/sewer fees. With regard to the library development fee, Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Guthrie for a definition of debt service credit. She then asked if the amount of debt that is outstanding at the time is taken into consideration when they adopt the fees or look at the capacity based on the bond election. Mr. Guthrie explained that it depends on the method and that this particular one is based on existing bonds that are issued. Mayor Scruggs asked if they would not use the bond capacity since they were using impact fees to build the library and buy the books. Mr. Reedy explained that there may be some bond indebtedness if they do not have all of the fees before they start the library construction. Councilmember Samaniego asked for confirmation that, as growth takes place, development fees will pay for the library, as opposed to going into debt. Mr. Reedy stated that this was true for the part of the library that is related to growth. He explained that the entire cost of every project has not necessarily been included in the impact fee model because some of it is for improvements that were already needed. Mayor Scruggs stated that the level of detail in the book was very impressive. She explained that, since they had not dealt with some of the concepts before, she wanted to make sure that she understood them correctly. Mr. Guthrie stated that, since they had experience in dealing with the concepts, staff was familiar with it and could keep it updated. With regard to parks, recreation and open space, Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he very much liked the idea of having City-wide parks. He asked for confirmation that the City-wide parks were in addition to the neighborhood parks that the City already has. Mr. Guthrie explained that they will still use the zones they presently have for the neighborhood parks. Councilmember Martinez asked how and why the new category, entitled government, came about. Mr. Guthrie explained that one of their first priorities was to do an overview and look at the different categories that were eligible and recommend the ones that would be good for impact fees. He stated that the main items in that category include the new field operations center and the new office building. Mayor Scruggs asked if what they were saying was that they would still have zones for the neighborhood parks and everything else would become available City-wide. Mr. Guthrie stated that this was correct. Mr. Reedy noted that it allows them to bring new parks and City-wide recreational facilities online that are not necessarily related to growth in a certain area. Mayor Scruggs noted that the component for neighborhood parks is higher than what they presently get in the residential development fees fund; therefore, they would not be cutting back on what any zone would be getting in order to 5 shift more money to City-wide recreational facilities. Mr. Reedy stated that many of the projects are directly related to the bond election which the citizens of Glendale approved last fall. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question regarding the sewer development fee, Mr. Reedy explained that, since they do not bond as much for sewer capital projects, much of the cost of the infrastructure and the wastewater reclamation facility was paid for with sewer monthly fees. He noted that the new impact fee will allow them to re-evaluate water and sewer fees and, if adopted at this rate, could delay increases in sanitation fees in the future. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the fee was per new home. Mr. Guthrie replied that the fee was $767 for a single-family detached home. Mayor Scruggs asked if they could come back with rate increases. Mr. Reedy explained that the impact fee should preclude the need for a sanitation rate increase for several years. Mr. Mike Hoyt, Director of Field Operations, explained that the City has absorbed the cost for all of the growth since the early 1980's and that all of the increases have come from the existing ratepayers. He stated that, with the impact fees, they are covering the actual cost to extend service up front, which will modify and minimize rate increases in the future. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the debt service is very low. Mr. Reedy explained that it is per gallon of capacity, and not per household. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he saw this as a positive way to view the issue. Councilmember Samaniego stated that he liked the way new growth was paying for itself, rather than raising rates for others to pay for new development. Mayor Scruggs asked if they had taken into account businesses that do not use water or sewer to the degree for which they are paying. Mr. Reedy stated that they asked the planning consultant to specifically evaluate that type of situation and come up with a new rate associated with that type of use. He stated that it will be substantially less than it is for commercial purposes. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question regarding arterial scallops, Mr. Reedy explained that the model only contains those scallops related to future growth. He stated that those not related to new growth are backed out. Councilmember McAllister asked if scallops were important when there was not much development. Mr. Reedy stated that, if it should have already been done, they did not put it in the new growth category. Councilmember McAllister asked if photo radar and red light running signals at intersections were factored in. Mr. Reedy stated that they were not factored in because they do not have a policy in the Capital Plan that says 6 they will install photo radar or red light running signals. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they could insist that developers make improvements on the scallops beyond what their own subdivision would require. Mr. Reedy explained that they could require them to do the portion that is related to their impact on that adjacent street. He noted that if the developer pays an impact fee and constructs the street, the City gives the developer a credit. He stated that the Nolan/Dolan case limits the amount of offsite improvements that the City can require a developer to do. Councilmember Samaniego noted that there is a cost savings by having it done at the time of development. Mr. Reedy agreed and stated that they often work with developers to have it done, at which time the City pays for the portion that is related to the scallop. Mayor Scruggs asked if, under commercial/shopping center, it is 1,000 square feet of building or of the entire site. Mr. Reedy replied that it is new floor area. He explained that, if they are redeveloping a property, they are only charged on the net new floor area. Mayor Scruggs asked how much floor area a typical 15-acre corner shopping/ commercial center would have. Mr. Guthrie stated that one with a small grocery store is usually between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet. Mayor Scruggs noted that, using this example, they would pay approximately $200,000 for transportation. Mr. Guthrie noted that the City should receive projected revenues of $830,000 annually over the next ten years from commercial retail development. With regard to the police development fee, Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the retail sales tax enters into the calculation. Mr. Reedy stated that it primarily goes towards operating costs. Regarding the general government fees, Mayor Scruggs asked why they did not include anything relating to cultural facilities or other downtown facilities that were in the bond election. Mr. Guthrie explained that they could not estimate how much of it would be related to growth. He stated that, after a facility is established, they may establish a fee for predicted enhancements or future enlargements. Mayor Scruggs asked if this study was a baseline system and if they could plug in new components over the years, as warranted. Mr. Guthrie stated that this was correct. Mr. Reedy noted that it was a very flexible model that allows them to adjust construction costs when necessary and to take out development that has already occurred. Mayor Scruggs asked if staff would be doing an annual balancing. Mr. Reedy replied by saying that, although they have been keeping track, they will probably do an inflation factor adjustment for construction costs each year and an overall audit every three years. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the fees for homes in the $800,000 and $700,000 bracket are the same as for less expensive homes. He expressed his opinion that this was not equitable. Mr. Reedy explained that all homes, regardless of their size and/or cost, have the same impacts on the infrastructure. 7 Councilmember Martinez asked why the increase for townhouses seemed to be so much higher. Mr. Guthrie explained that the multiplier is based on 1995 census data. He offered to obtain more information for Councilmember Martinez. Councilmember McAllister asked if it was taken into consideration that, as the density of the City increases, the addition of one more person makes more of an impact. Mr. Guthrie stated that they had looked at that type of factor when looking at fire and EMS calls. He explained that they looked at the relationship between the amount of development and the calls for service and found that there was a non-linear relationship. He stated that, as the City gets denser, the demand goes up. Mr. Reedy explained that it would be necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution of Notice of Intent to increase impact fees at its next regularly scheduled meeting. He stated that the resolution of Notice of Intent needs to set a date and time, at least 30 days after the resolution, for a public hearing on the increase. He noted that, at least 20 days prior to the public hearing, it needs to be published in the Glendale Star. He stated that they would then wait a minimum of 14 days to adopt an ordinance, which would take effect 90 days later. Mayor Scruggs stated that those projects that are already in progress need to be taken into account because the new impact fees could make a project no longer feasible. She noted that some entities may misuse the process and pull building permits for homes that will not be built for another year or two. She asked how they should best handle this situation. Mr. Reedy recommended that the Council adopt the fees as rapidly as possible and let the day that a developer pulls a building permit be the date that drives the fee paid. He stated that, because building permits only last a certain amount of time, developers cannot pull them early to avoid the fees. Mr. Vanacour stated that they could come up with a policy and make exceptions, as necessary. Mayor Scruggs noted that there comes a time when a project is no longer economically viable for the developer and there may be some projects that are important to Glendale that it may want to consider before agreeing to set the date as soon as possible. Mr. Reedy stated that this does not have to be decided until the ordinance is adopted. He suggested that more discussions take place in the interim concerning the effective date. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Reedy to compile data for everyone to look at in terms of who would be impacted. Mr. Reedy agreed to gather this information and prepare the resolution in 60 days. He noted that they have already started telling people at the counter to expect a substantial increase in their impact fees. 3. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager. A presentation was made to the City Council on the opportunities and challenges associated with redevelopment. The presentation focused on the elements of a successful downtown redevelopment plan. 8 The purpose of the downtown redevelopment plan is to enhance the economic vitality of the downtown area. It establishes a well-defined vision for the future. The goal of the redevelopment plan is to: 1. Create additional employment opportunities in the downtown area; 2. Generate tax revenue through increased retail and investment activity; 3. Improve land values by upgrading blighted and under-performing properties; and 4. Create a more vibrant city center, which will attract people both day and night. Major components of the plan include: 1. Market Analysis — which measures the market capacity for various uses, including retail, dining, entertainment, commercial, office and industrial; 2. Physical Design — which addresses the proposed physical design characteristics of the redevelopment area; and 3. Financing Mechanism — which reviews and identifies methods for financing redevelopment activities. The planning process will encourage participation and input from many interested parties including citizens, downtown business owners, developers, brokers, potential new businesses, City staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council and other interested parties. The use of a consultant specializing in redevelopment provides a great benefit to the community by expediting the planning process and delivering critical technical resources. In 1989, the City Council adopted a Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan, which was amended in 1995. In the Fiscal Year 2000-01 goal setting session, the City Council set aside $200,000 for the preparation of a downtown redevelopment plan. A complete Citizen Participation Plan will be developed as part of the planning process. As a part of the proposed Fiscal Year 2000-01 Budget, $200,000 has been allocated for the development of the plan. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman noted that City ordinances prohibit tables, chairs and displays on the sidewalks. He asked why the pictures which were shown in the slide presentation depicted those items on the sidewalks. Mr. Reedy explained that the policy had recently been amended to exclude sidewalk café tables. He stated that the sign policy could be relaxed if the Council so chooses. He said that they need to work together to adopt policies that reflect what they want to accomplish in the downtown area. 9 Councilmember Martinez asked if landlord issues triggered that policy. Mr. Reedy stated that this was an issue because if someone should trip over something that is placed on the sidewalk, it is then a liability. Councilmember McAllister said that they should draw on their strengths and put in things that blend well together. He stated that they need to keep a good balance. He pointed out that other cities seem to be able to deal with the liability issue. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember McAllister's comments that balance is the key and they can learn from what other cities have done. Mayor Scruggs asked if they wanted to move forward on this item. Mr. Colson explained that their goal was to introduce the topic and they planned to return with more specific plans that address issues raised by the Council. He stated that they will also be specific in their objectives and how they plan to proceed through the planning process. Councilmember Goulet noted the importance of this topic and stated that they need to look at what can be done to continue to enhance the downtown area. He expressed his opinion that the plan submitted by Messrs. Colson and Vasey is the type of program that is needed. Mr. Vanacour explained that they will hire a consultant to determine the short-term and long-term vision and discuss other factors, including condemnation and tax incentives. Councilmember Samaniego stated he agreed with the comments that were made and supported setting up a plan that is balanced. 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. Staff also provided an update on the 2000 Census. This is the sixth 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. 10 Vice Mayor Eggleston summarized HB 2338 by stating that contractors are viewed as wholesalers until a home is built, at which time they are seen as retailers. Ms. Rudibaugh agreed with his analogy. Councilmember Lieberman asked how the State could lose money if the tax was paid at the point of purchase. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that the issue was if someone purchases goods outside of Arizona and builds a home in Arizona, then Arizona no longer gets the tax when the home is built. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that they do not audit how much of the home is labor and how much is taxable. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that only 65% of the item is taxed because the other 35% is considered labor. Councilmember Lieberman also noted that the State would not collect as much on the wholesale price of the items as it would with honest contractors for the retail value. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that it would be best to collect the tax at the point of purchase. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that the Department of Revenue has indicated that, if it switches to that method, the state would lose $95 to $105 million. Mr. Van Haren suggested that both points be taxed and a deduction be allowed for the materials which were purchased in Arizona. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that getting the language amended at this point was very unlikely. With regard to HB 2554, Mayor Scruggs asked what the penalty would be and on whom it would be imposed. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that the way the law is written, it would not be the Council's responsibility to make sure that lobbyists were registered. She explained that people would have five days after speaking on behalf of an organization to register with the City Clerk. She stated that if they did not register, it would be considered a Class I misdemeanor, which imposes up to $2,500 in fines. Mayor Scruggs questioned how the City would enforce this law. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that it would be up to the City Clerk to ensure that the people coming before the Council on behalf of a group were registered. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that this could get nasty, particularly in zoning issues where one side knows the other side has not registered and turns them in or accuses the Council of favoritism because they are not prosecuting the non-registered representative. With regard to HB 2095, Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, expressed the opposition of the Police Chiefs Association to the bill as worded. He stated that if the Kamiski amendment was approved, the Police Chiefs Association would be in favor of that bill. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that it was incomprehensible that they were having to consider a bill that would allow anyone to carry a gun into a public place. Mayor Scruggs stated that this particular legislation has the public very concerned. She suggested strongly recommending that the public call their legislators and let them know their feelings. Mr. Van Haren reviewed the areas of the City Code that would be affected if the bill went through. With regard HB 2559, the Mayor and Council agreed to draft a letter to the Governor of the State of Arizona. Ms. Rudibaugh gave a ten-minute presentation, updating the Council on Census 2000. 11 Councilmember Goulet asked why the census percentage reported had dropped so significantly over the years. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that it was because people were too busy. She stated that citizens should call Dana Paschke at 623-930-2874 if they needed help filing out their census form or call 1-800-471-9424 to get another census form if they lost their form. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 12