HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/27/2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Scruggs, with Vice Mayor Eggleston
and the following Council members present: Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and
Martinez.
Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City
Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDLE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the four ordinances and four of the
six resolutions to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination
and the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting. The two
resolutions that were not posted were read in their entirety at the meeting.
Mayor Scruggs announced a change to the order of the agenda. She said that
the Land Development Actions — Agenda Item Nos. 28, 29 and 30, would be heard
immediately following the Consent Agenda items.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2000 AND JUNE 20, 2000
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the installation ceremony of the Council held on June
13, 2000 and the minutes of the regular Council meeting held on June 20, 2000, as
each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve
them as written. The motion carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS
RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBER
Mr. Paul E. Monaghan, a member of the Community Development Advisory
Committee (CDAC), recently resigned from the Committee to serve on the Planning and
Zoning Commission. During his tenure, he has spent countless volunteer hours
evaluating proposals for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnerships Program funds and advising the Council on community
development funding issues. Mr. Monaghan also served as Vice Chairman. His
service on the Committee has been a critical component of the citizen participation
process for the Neighborhood Revitalization Division and his insight and enthusiasm
has contributed greatly to the success of the CDBG and HOME programs. Mr.
1
Monaghan should be commended for his commitment and dedicated service to the
Community Development Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Martinez joined Mayor Scruggs in presenting Mr. Monaghan with
a plaque in recognition of his outstanding service on the Community Development
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Monaghan thanked the Mayor and Council for their creation and support of
the committees and commissions. He stated that it had been a privilege to learn from
Mr. Orin Bradshaw, the Chair of the committee, and Ms. Gloria Santiago, Neighborhood
Revitalization Manager.
RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR ROBERT BECK AND RICHARD
LOPEZ
The Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods was established
by the Mayor and Council in January of 1995. The purpose of this commission is to
oversee the revitalization of Glendale's older neighborhoods and to make policy
recommendations regarding neighborhood issues to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Robert (Bob) Beck (At-Large representative) has served as a member of the
Commission since its inception in 1995. He served as the first ever Commission
Chairman from 1995 to 1998 and then as a regular member from 1998 to June, 2000.
Mr. Richard Lopez served a total of three years on the Commission (from 1997 to
March of 2000) as the Mayoral Appointee to the Commission.
Both Mr. Beck and Mr. Lopez have been instrumental in helping to build a
program dedicated to the revitalization of older neighborhoods. As a result of their
dedication and hard work, both played a major role in developing the neighborhood
grants process and were instrumental in reviewing and recommending approximately
99 different neighborhood grant requests for revitalization funds. During their combined
eight years of service, each of them spent countless hours providing direction and
guidance to neighborhood leaders and contributed to the success of the Neighborhood
Partnership Program. They are to be commended for their efforts and tireless work for
the citizens of Glendale.
Councilmember Martinez joined Mayor Scruggs in presenting Mr. Richard Lopez
and Mr. Robert Beck with a plaque in recognition of their contributions and dedication to
the citizens of Glendale by serving on the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Neighborhoods.
Mr. Lopez thanked the Mayor and Council for allowing him to serve the
community. He stated that it was an honor to be recognized at the same time as Mr.
Beck. He characterized Mr. Beck as a dedicated, warm and caring individual. He
stated that the real thanks should go to all of the neighborhood leaders, as they truly
made the program.
2
Mr. Beck stated that, in all of the organizations, business and volunteer groups
he had worked with, he had never worked with a more professional group of people
than he had through this commission. He stated that every time he had needed
something from the City or had a question, there was an individual happy to help. He
said that he was very excited to have served on a commission that is so spirited, with
the citizens in mind. He thanked the Mayor and City Council for coming up with and
supporting the idea. He stated that working with Mr. Lopez was an enjoyable
experience. He thanked everyone who took interest in their neighborhood and took the
time to pull their neighborhoods together to make a difference.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, read Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through
13 by number and title.
1. COOPERATIVE PURCHASE OF JOHN DEERE BACKHOE
The Utilities Wastewater Collection division is experiencing increased downtime
and maintenance costs with its JCB backhoe. The 1987 model backhoe, originally
purchased in late 1986, is used for routine maintenance of sewer mains. In addition, it
is used for unscheduled repairs and weekend callouts. Equipment Management has
determined that it should be replaced.
The City of Flagstaff recently awarded Invitation for Bid No. 20001 to RDO
Equipment Co. for the purchase of a new John Deere 410E backhoe. The City of
Flagstaff has granted permission to the City of Glendale to purchase one unit from its
bid. RDO Equipment Co. has agreed to extend its offer to the City of Glendale at the
same terms and conditions as offered to the City of Flagstaff. The City of Flagstaff bid
specification also contained an option to allow the trade-in of its 1986 JCB backhoe.
The City would also like to exercise its option of trading in its 1987 JCB backhoe. Staff
conducted their own market survey and determined that the price paid by the City of
Flagstaff was fair and reasonable, and the City could not expect to receive better pricing
by issuing a new bid for a single unit. The trade-in value is also more than what would
be expected from a normal outright sale or public auction. The equipment is new, with
a full three-year power train warranty.
Funding is available in Utilities, Wastewater Collection Account Number 50-
6445-8400.
The recommendation was to award the purchase of one John Deere backhoe to
RDO Equipment Co. in the amount of $58,527.04, including the trade-in value and
taxes.
3
2. APPROVAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL GRANT AWARD: O'NEIL RANCH
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
The Neighborhood Partnership "Small Grants Program" was created to serve as
a resource for older neighborhoods, to encourage them to seek funding for small-scale
neighborhood improvements, enhancements, and creative "neighborhood building"
projects. As approved by the Mayor and Council, the Small Grants Program requires
each eligible applicant to match at least one-third of the amount requested with any
combination of cash, "sweat equity", and/or donated services or materials. Additionally,
grant amounts are "capped" at $2,500 per grant.
Over the past twelve months, there have been eight small grant-funding
opportunities, all of which have been publicized in program newsletters, media stories,
and on the City's Internet web site. Including this grant, five different neighborhoods
have applied for and received small grant funds over the past twelve months.
As a result of the Spring 2000 Funding Cycle, the following Small Grant request
was received:
The O'Neil Ranch Neighborhood Association (59th Avenue — 67th
Avenue; Bethany Home Road to Camelback Avenue) requested
$1 ,138.17 in funds to purchase printing and duplicating services
for a monthly newsletter.
On June 7, 2000, the "Small Grants Subcommittee" of the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Neighborhoods met and reviewed this request. The subcommittee
voted to recommend approval of the request. The subcommittee then forwarded its
recommendation to the full Commission for review and approval.
At its June 7, 2000 regular meeting, the Commission on Neighborhoods
unanimously voted to accept the findings of the subcommittee and recommend them to
the Mayor and Council for formal consideration and approval.
If approved by the Mayor and Council, the total amount of the grant award will be
$1,138.17. The request meets the required one-third neighborhood match requirement
of the program. Funds are available in the Neighborhood Partnership Fund, Account
Number 01-8968-7330.
The recommendation was to approve the small grant request as recommended
by the Commission on Neighborhoods.
3. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — HERITAGE PARK BASKETBALL
& CHAPPARAL PARK SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS
This was a request for the award of a contract to Carson Construction Company,
Inc. in the amount of $65,050 for the construction of a basketball court at Heritage Park
4
and a sand volleyball court at Chapparal Park. This request is in accordance with the
Parks and Recreation Department's ongoing Parks Improvement Program. These court
game installations are a result of a program undertaken by Parks and Recreation staff,
where public meetings were conducted and improvements planned for a number of
facilities. New courts have already been developed at Bicentennial and Pasadena
Parks under this effort.
Seven firms were solicited to perform the work and two firms responded on May
31 , 2000. Funds for this project are available in Park Bonds, Park Enhancement
Account Number 36-8517-8300.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Carson
Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $65,050.
4. AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-USE PATHWAY IN THE
THUNDERBIRD PASEO FROM MARSHALL RANCH TO SWEETWATER
(PROJECT 990006)
This was a request for City Council approval of a professional services
agreement with INCA Engineers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $58,211 for the
design of a multi-use pathway through the Thunderbird Paseo from the Marshall Ranch
entrance to the Sweetwater Road entrance.
The project includes the construction of a multi-use pathway across the diversion
channel and the enhancement of the park area through the addition of park benches
and landscaping along the path. The project will also include the modification of
existing drainage, irrigation, and landscaping. The new path would connect the existing
Marshall Ranch Drive bikeway to an existing bikeway on Sweetwater Road and
eliminate a major barrier to the heavily traveled north-south 55th Avenue transportation
corridor bikeway system.
Staff prepared a request for proposals (RFP) in order to obtain the professional
services needed to prepare the construction plans and specifications necessary to
construct this project. The RFP was sent to 13 consulting firms and four firms
responded. A team of employees from the Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and
Engineering Departments reviewed the four proposals and ranked the proposals based
on project understanding (35%), related experience (30%), sub-consultants (10%), cost
(15%), and references (10%). After review of the proposals, staff selected the firm of
INCA Engineers, Inc. to perform the required services.
The basic services in the agreement include design and bidding services. The
basic services are scheduled to be completed within twelve months of the Notice to
Proceed.
5
The fee for the professional services agreement to design and prepare
construction plans for the project is $58,211 . Funds are available in the Transportation
Department's Intersection Safety Improvements Fund, Account Number 12-6326-7520.
Construction funds will be provided by a Federal grant administered by the Arizona
Department of Transportation.
The recommendation was to approve the agreement with INCA Engineers, Inc.
in the amount of $58,211 .
5. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — GLENDALE AVENUE BRIDGE
OVER AGUA FRIA RIVER; CACTUS ROAD BRIDGE AT ARIZONA CANAL
DIVERSION CHANNEL
This was a request for City Council award of a construction contract to Bunney's
Inc. in the amount of $69,230.16 for improvements to the Glendale Avenue Bridge over
the Agua Fria River and the Cactus Road Bridge at the Arizona Canal Diversion
Channel (ACDC).
The existing bridge deck joints on the Glendale Avenue Bridge over the Agua
Fria River have deteriorated. The existing deck joint at the Cactus Road Bridge over
the ACDC needs to be filled with expansion joint filler material to prevent water runoff
from eroding the subgrade under the concrete slab.
Three bids were received and opened on May 24, 2000. Bunney's, Inc.
submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $69,230.16. Engineering Department staff
reviewed the bids and the qualifications of the low bidder and recommended award of
the contract to Bunney's, Inc.
Funds for this project are available in Street Maintenance Account Number
12-6232-8300.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Bunney's, Inc. in
the amount of $69,230.16.
6. INTERLIBRARY LOAN AND CATALOGING SERVICES
The City has used the services of AMIGOS Bibliographic Council (AMIGOS), a
non-profit organization established to supply cooperative interlibrary loan and
cataloging for libraries in the Southwest. AMIGOS is the sole source provider of
electronic information about books and other library materials linked to the national
database, OCLC (On-Line Computer Library Center) for libraries in the Southwest. This
database contains over 40 million records in libraries throughout the United States and
62 countries, including all of the large public, college, and university libraries in Arizona.
6
Since it is impossible to own all books needed by the Library's patrons, an
interlibrary loan is the best means of providing out-of-print, obscure, and specialized
materials to Glendale's citizens. The interlibrary loan component increases the
availability of library resources to patrons by enabling libraries to borrow materials from
other libraries.
The cataloging component is combined with the Library's automated system to
form the basis for the Library's on-line public catalog. Its use allows Library staff to
access work done by member libraries instead of manually cataloging items
themselves, which would require a much higher staffing level and add to the time it
takes to get materials on the shelf.
The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to renew services from
AMIGOS Bibliographic Council for cooperative interlibrary loan and cataloging though
the OCLC (On-Line Computer Library Center) network. The cost for this service is
$35,751 and funding for this service is available in the Library Budget for Fiscal Year
2000-01 in Account Number 01-4510-7740.
7. AWARD OF BID 00-37, CHLORINE
Two bids were received to provide the City's water treatment plants and public
swimming pools with liquid chlorine. Chlorine is delivered to the City in one-ton
containers and in 150 lb. cylinders. In order to obtain a better price, the City of
Glendale contacted the City of Peoria to add its annual chlorine requirements to the
Glendale solicitation. The contract shall begin upon award by the City Council and will
continue for one year. The bid specifications contain an option clause that will permit
the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to extend this agreement for four
additional years in one-year increments. Funding is available in the Utilities, Plant, and
Operations budget, Account Numbers 50-6421-7521 , 50-6422-7521 , 50-6430-7521 ,
50-6426-7521 , and the Parks and Recreation's operating budget, Account Number
01-6220-7520. The lowest responsive offer was submitted by DPC Enterprises.
The recommendation was to award the contract for liquid chlorine to DPC
Enterprises in an amount not to exceed $123,100, taxes included.
8. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 00-13, LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER
Landfills are required to cover refuse accepted on a daily basis with either soil or
a foam alternative daily cover (ADC) to prevent the emergence of flies and rodents, and
to control odors and minimize blowing litter. The use of an ADC results in an
approximate 20% savings of valuable airspace at the landfill and extends landfill life by
allowing this space to be used to bury refuse while still complying with local and federal
environmental regulations.
7
Four proposals were received to provide the landfill with ADC material. The
material will be supplied on an "as needed" basis for a three-year period. The proposal
contains an option clause that permits the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to
extend this agreement an additional two years, in one-year increments. An evaluation
panel, consisting of staff from the Landfill, evaluated the proposals using specific
evaluation criteria which included compliance with specifications, response times,
material loading and storage systems, lost air space, cost, and references. The offer
scored highest by the evaluation committee was submitted by Rusmar Inc. The cost of
the cover material in the original ADC contract approved by City Council in May of 1995
was $0.09 per square foot. The new contract reflects a material cost reduction of
$0.034 per square foot. Funding is available in Landfill Operations Fund Account
Number 55-6235-7520.
The recommendation was to award the contract for the supply of an ADC to
Rusmar Inc. in an amount not to exceed $260,000 per year, taxes included.
9. CONTRACT AWARD — GLENDALE AVENUE AND 43RD AVENUE BUS BAY
AND GLENN DRIVE CURB RAMP AT 58TH DRIVE
This was a request to award a construction contract to JMH Company, Ltd. in the
amount of $95,214.25 to construct a bus bay on the north side of Glendale Avenue,
west of 43rd Avenue.
Construction of a bus bay at this location will alleviate traffic congestion in the
westbound curb lane of Glendale Avenue, in the vicinity of the intersection at Glendale
and 43rd Avenues. A new bus shelter will be constructed to facilitate the bus bay
construction and new landscaping and related irrigation system will be installed.
On May 17, 2000 four bids were received, with JMH Company, Ltd. submitting
the low bid in the amount of $95,214.25. A review of the low bidder's proposal and
qualifications revealed that JMH Company, Ltd. is qualified and its proposal was
deemed to be responsive to the City's solicitation. Staff recommended award of the
contract to JMH Company, Ltd.
The Notice to Proceed for this project should occur on or around July 3rd, 2000,
with construction to be completed within 45 days of that date. Funds are available in
43rd and Glendale Avenues Bus Pull Out Account Number 26-8612-8330.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to JMH Company,
Ltd. in the amount of $95,214.25.
10. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION P-99-06: "VISTA ALEGRE APARTMENTS": 6515
WEST MARYLAND AVENUE
This was a request by Whitneybell Architects, Inc., for reversion to acreage of
the "Kristi Acres" subdivision and part of Lot 7 of the "Fertile Acres Amended"
8
subdivision to combine nine lots into one. The site is located on the southeast corner of
65th Drive and Maryland Avenue.
The north portion of this site is part of Lot 7 of the "Fertile Acres Amended"
subdivision which was recorded in 1946. The southern portion of this site consists of
an eight-lot subdivision recorded in 1961 as "Kristi Acres". The applicant proposes to
"revert to acreage" the previously approved plats on this vacant property to create one
3.28 acre lot. The applicant intends to develop a senior apartment complex under the
existing R-4 zoning.
By eliminating the existing plat, the new final plat will result in a larger parcel and
provide more flexibility to meet current City requirements of multi-family residential
development. The final plat is in conformance with the existing R-4 (Multiple
Residence) zoning, and the preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission on
April 20, 2000.
The recommendation was to approve Final Plat Application P-99-06.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
11 . INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION/MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION
The Arizona Department of Transportation/Motor Vehicle Division (ADOT/MVD)
provides a dial-up service to access driver's license, title and registration data. In order
for the City to obtain the data from ADOT/MVD electronically through computers, the
City must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with ADOT/MVD. ADOT/MVD
currently has such agreements with the majority of the other Valley cities.
Revenue Recovery is responsible for the collection of delinquent monies owed to
the City. The City has customers who have relocated without paying liabilities owed to
the City. The use of this dial-up service will provide Revenue Recovery with an
additional tool for locating these customers and will help to ensure successful collection
of delinquent money owed to the City.
In accordance with Arizona Revised States (ARS) 28-446, ADOT/MVD shall not
charge the City a fee for the use of this service. However, the City will be responsible
for purchasing the necessary "secure ID cards" required for access to the system.
These cards cost $56 each and staff plans to purchase two cards within the next six
months.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the entering into an intergovernmental agreement with
ADOT/MVD for the purpose of obtaining its data electronically.
9
Resolution No. 3384 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, TO ALLOW THE CITY'S BILLING
SERVICES AND SALES TAX CENTER ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE MOTOR
VEHICLE DIVISION'S DATA BASE.
12. AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR COMPUTER AIDED
DISPATCHING
This was a renewal of the agreement with the City of Phoenix to provide
computer aided dispatching to the Glendale Fire Department. It is an ongoing contract
to continue services for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 . The total cost for this fiscal year will be
$204,892.15, which represents $151 ,935. for basic dispatch services and $52,957.15
for technical services on the dispatch equipment, automatic vehicle locators and mobile
data terminals.
The dispatching cost for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 is calculated on a per incident
charge of $8.75, using the number of incidents dispatched in the previous calendar
year. Glendale was dispatched to 17,364 incidents during 1999. Funds are budgeted
in the Fire Department budget, Account Number 01-3330-7330.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement
with the City of Phoenix for computer aided dispatching services in the amount of
$204,892.15 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 .
Resolution No. 3385 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX PERTAINING
TO THE PARTICIPATION IN THE PHOENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL
DISPATCH SYSTEM IN ORDER TO MORE EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE EMERGENCY
FIRE, MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICES.
13. TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CABLE LICENSE FROM U S WEST, INC. TO
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.
On June 22, 1999, the City Council approved the issuance of a 15-year Cable
Television License Agreement (the "Cable License") to U S WEST Communications,
Inc. ("USW Communications"). USW Communications is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
U S WEST, Inc ("USW Inc.").
10
In August of 1999, as a part of a corporate reorganization, USW Inc. transferred
the Cable License from USW Communications to USW Broadband Services, Inc.
("USW Broadband"), which is another wholly-owned subsidiary of USW Inc. There was
no effective transfer of control of the Cable License as a result of this transfer, because
both USW Broadband and USW Communications are controlled by USW Inc.
After the cable license was transferred to USW Broadband, USW Inc. and Qwest
Communications International Inc. ("Qwest") entered into a merger agreement. USW
Inc. will be merged into Qwest as a part of the merger, and Qwest will be the surviving
corporation. As a result of the merger, the effective control of the cable license will be
transferred from USW Inc. to Qwest, although USW Broadband will continue to be the
holder of the cable license.
In March of 2000, USW Broadband and Qwest filed with the City an application
for approval of the transfer of control of the cable license (Federal Communications
Commission Form 394). Under Federal law and Glendale City Code Section 10-26, the
City is required to act on this application within 120 days. If no formal action is taken on
the application for approval of transfer of control, the City shall be deemed to have
approved the transfer under Federal law.
Staff reviewed the application for approval of transfer of control and found no
reason to deny this application. There should be no material changes in the financial,
technical or legal abilities of USW Broadband to operate its cable system in Glendale or
to comply with the terms of the cable license as a result of the merger between USW
Inc. and Qwest. USW Broadband will remain subject to the same terms and conditions
under the cable license after the merger.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution approving the transfer of control of the cable license from U S WEST, Inc. to
Qwest Communications International Inc.
Resolution No. 3386 New Series was read by number and title only, it being
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE
TELEVISION LICENSE AGREEMENT HELD BY U S WEST BROADBAND
SERVICES, INC.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
spoke in support of Agenda Item Nos. 3, 4 and 9. He said that he was pleased to see
that the City was putting in another way to access Thunderbird Paseo Park without
having to run up against traffic. He also stated that he was happy to see the City was
putting in another bus bay, as he has a number of physically challenged friends.
11
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 13, including the
approval and adoption of Resolution Nos. 3384 New Series, 3385 New Series, and
3386 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
28. REZONING APPLICATION Z-99-30: 6776 NORTH 79th AVENUE
Mr. Larry Harmer, Planning Manager, presented this request by CoreGroup
Consultants for Waldie Trust and Rad Vucichevich to rezone from R-3 (Multiple
Residence) to R1-6 (Single Residence) on 4.9 acres located at the northwest corner of
Ocotillo Road an 79th Avenue.
This is an infill parcel. The proposed R1-6 zoning is consistent with the 3.5-5
dwelling units per acre land use designation shown on the General Plan. The proposed
rezoning will result in a reduction of the permitted dwelling units from 78 units to
approximately 19 units. The R1-6 zoning is also compatible with the existing
development within the adjacent Chaparral Country Amended and Meadows at
Independence subdivisions.
On May 4, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Rezoning
Application Z-99-30, subject to two stipulations. One person spoke at the Planning
Commission public hearing and stated concerns regarding density, street widths, and
stormwater drainage for the separate preliminary plat application. The companion
preliminary plat for "Porrta Estates" has been filed with the City of Glendale, but has not
yet been scheduled for hearing.
The R1-6 zoning district requires that one of four findings be met prior to
approval of R1-6 zoning. This application meets two of the findings. The property is a
small parcel within a developed neighborhood with barriers that preclude expansion of
development, and the rezoning will result in a significant reduction of future dwelling
units permitted on the property.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-99-30, subject to the two stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 28. As there
were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Martinez, to approve
Rezoning Application Z-99-30, subject to the two stipulations recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously.
12
29. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-00-03 AND REZONING APPLICATION
Z-00-05: 7575 NORTH 75TH AVENUE
This was an application by MNM Holdings, LLC, to amend the General Plan from
Light Industrial to Single Family, 3.5-5 dwelling units per acre, and to rezone from M-1
(Light Industrial) to R1-6 (Single Residence). The 2.38-acre parcel is located at the
southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Carole Lane in the Glendale Business Park.
The property was originally developed as a plant nursery, which still exists and is
a legal non-conforming use. A church is currently using a portion of the property.
Churches are not permitted in the M-1 district. The owners are applying for the General
Plan amendment and rezoning in order to legalize the use. If these requests are
approved, the applicant will apply for a Conditional Use Permit for the church and a
school at a later date.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is inappropriate in this area. The entire
area between 67th and 75th Avenues, and Orangewood and Northern Avenues, is
shown as Light Industrial on the General Plan and is included in the North Grand
Employment Center. The Glendale Business Park is a viable park that should be
protected and reserved for employment uses. Single-family land uses are inappropriate
in an area that accommodates uses such as tool and die shops, heavy equipment
rental and storage, and a slaughterhouse. There are few areas of the City that can
accommodate such uses, whereas a wide variety of alternative locations are available
for churches.
The proposed R1-6 zoning is also not compatible with the existing industrial
zoning on the properties to the north and east. Single-family uses should be protected
from the types of uses allowed in the M-1 district. In addition, the proposed R1-6
zoning does not meet the required findings for approval included in the R1 -6 zoning
district regulations.
At its hearing held on May 4, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of General Plan Amendment GP-00-03 and Rezoning Application Z-00-05. Two
people spoke in opposition to the applications at the hearing. In addition, the Planning
Department received eight letters and five phone calls in opposition to the requests.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and deny General Plan
Amendment GP-00-03 and Rezoning Application Z-00-05.
Dr. Vanacour stated that the applicant had requested that this item be tabled to
the November 28, 2000 City Council meeting.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to continue Agenda
Item No. 29 to the November 28, 2000 City Council meeting. The motion carried
unanimously.
13
30. PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENT Z-00-03: 5902
WEST PEORIA AVENUE
Mr. Gary Fulk, Planning Manager, presented this application by Mr. Michael J.
Curley for Univest Treasury of Arizona to amend the existing PAD (Planned Area
Development) zoning on a 15.9-acre property located at the northwest corner of 59th
Avenue and Peoria Avenue. The property is part of an 80-acre parcel that was rezoned
in 1985 for a mix of single-residence development, multiple-residence development,
office, and neighborhood commercial. All of the residential properties have been
developed. The commercial and office sites are vacant. The location of this proposed
amendment is the neighborhood commercial site. The applicant intends to develop a
148,632 square foot center on the site, including a Home Depot and an Osco drug
store.
The request would make three revisions to the existing zoning: (1) revise the
permitted land uses to allow a retail center with a large, community-level retail use; (2)
revise the development plan for the center to restrict access to adjacent local streets;
and (3) allow 60th Avenue to be constructed without a landscaped median. The
applicant has provided a detailed Development Master Plan and narrative which shows
the locations of buildings, access points, landscaping, and screening on the site and
defines land uses and development standards for the proposed retail center. The
applicant's narrative also includes performance standards that address some of the
concerns that have occurred with large retail users in other centers, such as hours of
operation, outdoor vendors, outdoor storage of materials, and delivery times.
The uses allowed by the proposed amendments are consistent with the
character of the area. The use list is very similar to the uses allowed by the SC
(Shopping Center) zoning district. Uses such as auto repair, outdoor recreation, and
auto sales that are allowed in the C-2 (General Commercial) zone are not permitted.
The PAD will also prohibit convenience uses, except for drugstore pharmacy drive-
thru's. The proposed PAD amendment will allow a home improvement store, but this
proposal includes provisions that ensure the home improvement store has the
characteristics of a retail store rather than a lumber yard or a warehouse, by prescribing
performance standards for the use. These provisions include requirements that the
home improvement store will not keep materials outdoors, will restrict its hours of
operation, and will unload materials only in designated areas. The proposal also
ensures compatibility of the home improvement store with the neighborhood by
restricting access to neighborhood streets, providing a 12-foot screen wall behind the
store, and providing extensive landscaping between the store and 60th Avenue.
The applicant also proposed revising the existing PAD development plan to
restrict access from local streets. This is an improvement over the existing plan. The
proposed plan ensures that traffic will not be able to use neighborhood streets to get to
the center. The applicant will be required to complete 60th Avenue adjacent to the site,
add deceleration lanes to 59th and Peoria Avenues, and install a traffic signal at the
intersection of 59th Avenue and Mercer Lane.
14
On June 1, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this
application. Eleven people spoke at the hearing - four in support and seven against.
•
The Planning Commission's recommendation included five stipulations. The
applicant has revised the plan and narrative to incorporate two of these stipulations
(Numbers 3 and 4) since the Commission hearing. Stipulation Number 3 prohibited the
outdoor sale and display of plants during the spring and fall. Stipulation Number 4
required that the driveway on Mercer Lane be designed to be right turn out only. Since
the application has been revised to incorporate these provisions, stipulations 3 and 4
are no longer necessary.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-00-03, subject to the Planning Commission's recommended stipulations,
Numbers 1 , 2, and 5.
Councilmember Clark asked if there would be any landscaping adjacent to the
12 foot perimeter wall for noise attenuation. Mr. Fulk explained that there would be a
30 to 40 foot landscape buffer. Councilmember Clark asked if the lights adjacent to the
neighborhoods could be made lower in height so as to be less intrusive. Mr. Fulk stated
that the PAD addresses that issue in its design standards. He said that the lighting on
the site must be completely shielded and that fixtures and wall lights shall not exceed
15 feet in height within 150 feet of the 60th Avenue property line.
In response to Councilmember Frate's request, Mr. Fulk clarified that the
application currently in place has a floor area ratio of .25, which would provide for up to
approximately 155,000 square feet. He noted that the applicant was asking for 142,000
square feet. He stated that this application differs from the typical neighborhood center
in that all of the square footage would be in two buildings and a home improvement
store is not a typical use.
Mr. Michael J. Curley, a member of the law firm of Earl, Curley & Lagarde of
Phoenix, Arizona, the Applicant's representative, acknowledged that correspondence in
opposition to the case had recently been delivered to the Council. He pointed out that
staff was in support of the case, the case was consistent with the General Plan and the
Oak Hollow Homeowners Association was fully supportive of the plan. In response to
comments made by a speaker at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,
implying that the citizen participation plan was incomplete, Mr. Curley stated that the
City of Glendale has the most onerous and far-reaching notification requirements of any
city in the Valley. He explained that they were required to notify 722 people residing
within a one-quarter mile of the site. He stated that they also notified four homeowner
associations and 12 individuals who lived beyond one-quarter mile„ He noted that they
also held two large scale neighborhood meetings, which had over 120 attendees, and
held numerous meetings with the Board of the Oak Hollow Homeowners Association.
He stated that, during the course of the meetings, they received dozens of requests to
attempt to mold the site into something which would fit into the fabric of the
neighborhood. He emphasized that the Board of the Oak Hollow Homeowners
15
Association was extremely demanding, rigorous and protective of the neighborhood and
was resolved to making this a better application than what currently exists.
Mr. Curley reviewed the existing 1985 zoning. He explained that there were a
number of concerns on the part of the Oak Hollow Homeowners Association, including
vehicular connections to the existing neighborhood streets and cut-through traffic going
through the single-family area. He stated that they had conducted a progression study
to determine if a signal at their northern boundary would be justified, explaining that the
neighborhood felt a signal at that location might relieve the pressure of all of the traffic
going to Cholla Street. He stated that he had also investigated, at the request of the
neighborhood, having speed humps placed on 60th Avenue and Mercer Lane. He
noted that he had met with Traffic Department staff and Mr. Jim Book, Transportation
Director, who had agreed to allow the speed humps to be placed at locations to be
determined at a later date. He stated that the applicant will bear the financial burden for
those speed humps. He said that they had also received support from the Traffic
Engineering Department on reducing the width of 60th Avenue to help reduce speeds in
the area. He noted that they have also eliminated a number of uses for the property.
Mr. Curley reviewed the new site plan, noting that both Home Depot and Osco
Drugs agreed to switch their orientation so that Osco is located to the north. He pointed
out that they had increased the landscaping and added a median at Mercer Lane. He
reiterated that they had limited their hours of operation and delivery hours, neither of
which exist under the current zoning. He stated that the Homeowners Association was
justified in its conclusion that this project would benefit the neighborhood.
Councilmember Clark asked why stipulations 1 , 2 and 5 were not incorporated
into the plan and if they would be able to accommodate those stipulations if approved.
Mr. Curley replied by saying that they were in accord with all of the Planning and Zoning
stipulations.
In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Curley indicated where
the dock area would be. Councilmember Martinez asked if there would be any exposed
air conditioning units, explaining that they can be very noisy and disruptive to neighbors.
Mr. Curley stated that the air conditioning equipment would be mounted on the roof and
screened. He noted that they have to provide certification that noise levels do not
exceed 55 DVs. Councilmember Frate stated that similar problems experienced at
grocery stores were not due to the air conditioners, but to compressors for the freezers.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there would be any of those types of equipment at the rear of
the store. Mr. Curley referred to the PAD, which gives staff the authority to eliminate
any units which create objectionable noise. He noted that there is a ring road which
separates them from any adjacent properties.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Curley confirmed that there
would be 40 feet between the wall and the back of the building.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 30.
16
Ms. Ana Laura Becerra, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District,
expressed her concern about the children in the community, noting that they do not live
in a gated community. She stated that the traffic from Home Depot, pests and trash
caused by the development also concerned her. Noting that there was an Osco drug
store located at 59th and Peoria Avenues, she questioned the need for another in the
area. She also pointed out that there were Home Depot stores located at 43rd Avenue
and Camelback Road, Bell Road and 67th Avenue, and Peoria and 83rd Avenues. She
asked if another Home Depot on 59th Avenue was necessary.
Mr. Brad Taylor, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, stated
that he lived adjacent to the property and represented 64 petition signers who find the
idea of a full-size Home Depot and drive-thru pharmacy to be ill-conceived. He stated
that the neighborhood would never be the same again. He stated that Home Depot
does not fit in with the neighborhood because of traffic, noise and the aesthetics of the
large building. He said that Home Depot draws traffic of approximately 4,000 to 5,000
trips per day. He questioned why Home Depot did not offer a closing time of 6:00 p.m.,
as had been done in other neighborhoods. He stated that homeowners living behind
the Home Depot at Val Vista and Broadway in Mesa found Home Depot's promises to
be empty and had to sue them. He stated that an employee of that Home Depot told
him that they were told to push the limits. He stated that trucks arrived after 6:00 p.m.
at that Val Vista location and were there overnight. He stated that the delivery doors
open loudly and homeowners in Mesa often complained about shouting. He also
recalled reports that band-saws were used in the loading dock areas. He stated that
homeowners in Mesa videotaped Home Depot's activity for six months to try to prove
their case. He questioned how a 36 foot tall building, with roof-mounted equipment,
850 plus parking spaces, and 131,000 square feet of retail space could blend into the
neighborhood. He noted that he had circulated his petition over a three day period and
nine out of ten residents said that they did not want the development in their
neighborhood. He stated that there was a reason the area was zoned as light
commercial.
Mr. Bud Rouse, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, stated
that he and his neighbors who reside along 60th Avenue strongly supported the Home
Depot application as the best use of the land at 59th and Peoria Avenues. He asked for
the Council's support of the project.
Mr. Pat Percell, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, stated
that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Oak Hollow Homeowners
Association. He explained that his community was comprised of 204 homes. He said
that, when the first notification came out, they had held several meetings with the Board
of Directors of the Oak Hollow Homeowners Association to discuss and formulate
plans. He stated that in February of 2000, at the annual Homeowners Association
meeting, the community identified 20 issues that they felt protected the safety of the
children and preserved the community. He stated that Mr. Fulk had been extremely
proactive in keeping them abreast of the City's review of the application. He stated that
they felt the agreements they had reached with the City and the developer puts
17
everyone in a win-win situation. He asked, on behalf of his community, that the
application be approved.
Ms. Sandra Mahoney, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District,
questioned how the big trucks would turn around and unload in the area. She also
asked what rights the citizens would have if Home Depot did not abide by the rules it
agreed to.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he lived in the neighborhood and had been hit by a car in the area. He noted that
there is a Payless Cashways store located down the road and a Home Depot nearby.
He expressed his opinion that it was illogical to think that there would not be a huge
increase in traffic. He suggested that people living in the Oak Hollow subdivision do not
necessarily support the position of their Board of Directors.
Ms. Pamela Croteau, a resident of the City of Peoria, who also owns a
home in the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, stated that traffic was already backed
up in the area of Glendale Community College and noted that traffic would get worse if
the development was approved. She pointed out that today's paper stated that 59th and
51st Avenues were the two deadliest streets in the City of Glendale. She stated that her
parents own T&M Ace Hardware at 51St Avenue and Thunderbird Road and 44th and
Peoria Avenues. She noted that Sine Hardware, Payless Cashways and Home Depot
were also already present in the area. Acknowledging the revenue Home Depot would
bring to the City, she stated that she would like to see smaller establishments stay in
business. She suggested that Home Depot be located at a larger intersection.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that, although he also had started out as a
small business and grew, he was in favor of the project because of the support of the
homeowners association, the fact that that corner would finally be utilized, and because
Home Depot was willing to put up a different type of store.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Rezoning
Application Z-00-03, subject to the Planning Commission's recommended
stipulations numbers 1, 2 and 5.
Councilmember Goulet spoke about the traffic concerns that were raised. He
stated that, statistically, a neighborhood shopping center would generate approximately
8,500 trips per day , whereas the Home Depot has just over 5,800 trips per day. He
pointed out that the homeowners in the area have a vested interest in the development,
more so than those who live in apartments. He stated that this was an infill
development that would be an enhancement to the corner. He expressed his
appreciation of those who spoke. He stated, however, that he would support the
project.
18
Councilmember Clark acknowledged that Home Depot was a big-box
development and would disrupt the neighborhood. She pointed out, however, that it
would also be a good revenue generator for the City. She stated that, although she
would support this project, she was concerned about several issues. She explained
that every time a big store such as Home Depot or Wal-Mart is put in, it kills off a lot of
small businesses. She expressed her opinion that the location was not necessarily
appropriate. She stated that she had known Mr. Rouse for a long time and she trusted
his opinion.
Councilmember Martinez questioned whether the stipulations address the hours
of loading and unloading and what Home Depot could do to help mitigate the noise
levels that might be generated. He also asked what could be done if Home Depot did
not adhere to the stipulations. Mr. Curley explained that, if a complaint was received by
the City, the City would notify the entity of the alleged violation and if the violation was
not rectified, the entity would be cited and it would become a criminal matter. He stated
that he took issue with the representations that were made with regard to the Mesa
store. He stated that the most effective way to handle a situation was to have direct
communication between the store manager and the City. He noted that the PAD states
that trucks cannot stay after a delivery is made.
Councilmember Martinez stated that, although he would support the application,
he appreciated the concerns of those in opposition. Mr. Curley reiterated the
importance of having an ongoing communication between the City and the store
manager to sensitize them to the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood.
Councilmember Frate stated that, although he had listened to his constituents'
comments and concerns, he believed this plan was better than what was approved in
1985. He noted that it had controlled hours of operation, better landscape buffers,
noise buffers and traffic improvements. He noted that the most important part of this
plan was the citizen participation that had been included. He stated that he also
supported the project.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that, although he understood why some citizens in
the neighborhood may not be happy, there are restrictions in terms of design. He noted
that he lives very close to the location and would be very sensitive if Home Depot
started disregarding the concerns of the neighborhood. He expressed his opinion that
the development would be a good asset to the community.
Mayor Scruggs stated that her colleagues had made good comments. She
agreed that many of the issues raised by the neighbors would be most appropriate if
the land was still zoned agricultural. She stated that the land has 15 year old zoning
that allows commercial/retail development, however, because the applicant has a
slightly different use for the land, the applicant is required to have citizen participation.
She noted that those who are concerned about their children are currently living near
land that is zoned to have three access points. She stated that she has also heard that
the traffic count will actually decrease with the proposed usage. She stated that many
19
of the problems that were brought up have been addressed by the PAD zoning. She
stated that, although she had heard what was said, she did not agree that going back to
what the people have said they did not want was the answer.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Curley if they would be willing to modify the
delivery hours to start later than 5:30 a.m. Mr. Curley stated that he was not at liberty to
concede to anything more. He noted that very few Home Depot stores have hour of
operation restrictions. He stated that the loading docks are depressed and people
would not be able to see the trucks unloading. He noted that the sound would be
buffered.
Councilmember Lieberman asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr.
Curley stated that the hours of operation and delivery would be 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS
14. SPRING 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT GRANT REQUESTS
Mr. Erik Strunk, Neighborhood Partnership Administrator, presented this item.
As part of the City Council's commitment to revitalizing older neighborhoods, the Mayor
and Council established the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Neighborhoods to make recommendations on neighborhood enhancement and
revitalization projects. For Fiscal Year 1999-2000, approximately $700,000 in General
Fund money has been set aside for such projects. Of this amount, approximately
$350,000 has been made available to neighborhoods for the Spring 2000 funding cycle.
Savings from previously approved projects and funds remaining from the Fall 1999
grants cycle bring the total amount available for the Spring 2000 neighborhood grants
process to $466,000.
The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a five-week review
process of fourteen neighborhood grant requests, and recommended thirteen of them,
with some amendments, to the Mayor and Council for approval (each of the approved
grants include a contingency):
1. Ocotillo Rose Neighborhood — $11 ,220 to fully fund the design of
sidewalk, curb and gutter on 60th Avenue from Maryland Avenue to Keim
Drive, new curbs and gutters on both sides of 59th Drive between
Maryland and Marlette Avenues, and new curbs and sidewalks on the
east side of 61st Avenue, between Maryland Avenue and Rose Lane.
2. Glendale Sub-Amended Neighborhood — $15,257.75 to fund the
construction of the block fence adjacent to an alleyway near 51St and
Northern Avenues, to prevent vandalism, trespassing and other security
issues that have caused concern in the neighborhood.
20
3. El Caminito Neighborhood — $62,700 to fully fund a meandering
sidewalk along the west side of 43rd Avenue between Northern and Alice
Avenues. This will be done in conjunction with a planned Fiscal Year
2000-01 landscaping project via the City streetscape improvement
program.
4. Casa Campana Homeowners Association — $30,052.99 to fully fund the
landscaping of two medians, improved decorative lighting and monument
enhancements at the entryway of the neighborhood, located at 67th
Avenue and Camino San Xavier.
5. Casa De Zia Homeowners Association - $17,077.50 to fund right-of-way
landscaping and pedestrian lighting along 61St Avenue just north of
Townley Avenue.
6. Sunburst Farms Homeowners - $169,116.32 to fully fund the
landscaping of an existing equestrian trail located on the west side of 51St
Avenue from Greenway Road to Paradise Lane.
7. Bethany Heights Neighborhood - $14,432 to fund design work that will
develop a solution to improving the flooding problem that occurs at 47th
and Marshal Avenues.
8. Villa Charme Homeowners Association - $15,691 .68 to construct two
new entry monuments. One monument will be located at 43rd Avenue and
Rancho Drive and the other located at 43rd and Montebello Avenues.
9. Wild Horse Ranch Homeowners Association - $40,162.20 to
completely landscape the west side of 58th Avenue between Shaw Butte
and Sunnyside Drive, along with the west side of 57th Avenue between
Sunnyside Drive and Cactus Road. The project also includes the
redesign of the southwest corner of 57th Avenue and Cactus Road to
match the other corners of the Wildhorse Ranch Subdivision.
10. O'Neil Ranch Neighborhood — $5,000 for various landscaping
improvements (decorative granite, plant material, grading) at O'Neil Park,
which is located at 63rd and Missouri Avenues.
11 , Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association - $10,340 to resurface
and repair their internal streets, near 67th and Diana Avenues.
12. Olive Green Villas Homeowners Association - $21 ,428.70 to stucco
and paint its existing walls and to install landscaping along 61st Avenue
between Townley Avenue and Golden Lane.
21
13. Santa Maria Neighborhood - $52,700.56 to fund the construction of
replacement landscaping and irrigation on City right-of-way located on 55th
Avenue from Peoria Avenue to Mountain View Road, 53rd Avenue from
Peoria Avenue to Mountain View Road, Peoria Avenue from 53rd to 55th
Avenues and Mountain View Road from 55th Avenue east to the
elementary school.
The total requested, with contingencies factored, amounts to $465,179.70.
Funds for the Spring 2000 neighborhood grant recommendations are available in
Account Number 01-8968-7330 (Neighborhood Projects). This item was reviewed by
the Mayor and Council at the June 6, 2000, Council Workshop.
The recommendation was to approve the Spring 2000 neighborhood
improvement grants as recommended by the Commission on Neighborhoods.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on this item.
Ms. Danya Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, a
neighborhood group leader, explained that they had recently received a grant to put up
a wall as a buffer between their neighborhood and an apartment complex. She stated
that she was grateful that this program was available to the citizens. She expressed
concern about the process, explaining that hers was the oldest neighborhood to apply
and she had hoped to see more participation by other older neighborhoods. She
suggested that they look at the application process to see if there is something that can
be done to help get older neighborhoods to participate. She suggested that the
neighborhood partnership program should require at least 50% neighborhood support
before a project comes before the Commission. She stated that she would like to see
more documentation in the reports as to why a neighborhood needs a particular project
and who would benefit. She expressed her opinion that scoring was a problem. She
stated that there are a lot of safety issues in Glendale and that they should seek out
neighborhoods that are at risk.
Mr. Joseph Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, stated
that he also wanted to speak regarding his concerns about the program's process.
Mayor Scruggs asked him to defer his comments until the Council asked for non-
agenda items.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, agreed
with the concerns expressed by Ms. Danya Butter and Mr. Joseph Butter. He stated
that, although he agreed with the Spring 2000 grant requests, he was concerned that all
citizens, including those who live in apartments, have a say in the process.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on this item.
22
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the
Spring 2000 neighborhood improvement grants as recommended by the
Commission on Neighborhoods. The motion carried unanimously.
15. PERFORMING ARTS GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Wayne Baxter, Special Operations Recreation Superintendent, presented
this item. In January of 1996, the City Council approved the Performing Arts Grant
Program to promote and support the performing arts in Glendale. Since its inception,
the City Council has authorized funding of 26 Performing Art Grant Programs, totaling
$59,385. This is the fifth year of the program. A total of 19 grant applications totaling
$46,220 were submitted by the entry deadline of April 3, 2000.
At its May 17, 2000, meeting, the Arts Commission evaluated and scored the
grant applications based on the criteria established in the grant program guidelines.
The evaluation criteria includes: the level of artistic quality, community involvement,
affordability and access; how successfully the project reflects the mission of the
organization and its goals and the need for financial support; the organization's
administrative capabilities to assure success of the project, how innovative the project is
for the organization; and the community involvement of Arizona artists and/or groups.
In order for the Arts Commission to stay within its established budget of $20,000,
its members limited organizations and/or artists from benefiting from more than one
grant application. The $20,000 budget is consistent with the last two fiscal years of this
program; initially only $10,000 was allocated for the performing arts.
The Arts Commission recommended funding eight grant requests, totaling
$19,720. This amount will be paid out of the 1% public art levy.
Grants recommended for funding were Peoria Unified School District, Apollo
High School Choral, Sahuaro Ranch Foundation, Glendale Public Library, Glendale
Community Center, Challenger Jr. High, Dove of the Desert-United Methodist Church,
and Desert Dance Theatre.
Eleven applications were not recommended for funding because they did not
comply with the application guidelines or rank high enough to merit funding.
The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts
and documents to complete the awards.
Councilmember Clark asked if the second series of Sunday concerts would be
open to the public or reserved for parishioners only. Mr. Baxter stated that it would be
open to the general public. Councilmember Clark urged the Council to be careful with
regard to issues of church and state and to ensure that any funding that goes to a
church-sponsored facility adhere to any applicable guidelines.
23
Vice Mayor Eggleston complimented Mr. Baxter and the Arts Cornmission on the
job they had done.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 15. As no comments
were made, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark, to authorize the City
Manager to execute the contracts and documents to complete the awards. The
motion carried unanimously.
16. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL — DOWNTOWN ALLEY
IMPROVEMENTS, 58TH AVENUE TO 58TH DRIVE
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, presented this request for City Council
approval of Change Order No.1 and Final in the amount of $25,362.68 to the contract
with Calyber Contracting, Inc., for the Downtown Alley Improvements, 58th Avenue to
58th Drive project.
Additional work was requested of the contractor to sealcoat the existing parking
lot east of the Sine Building, provide a dust palliative for pedestrians during construction
of the alleyway, and backfill and compact excavation due to the removal of the existing
pole and removal of extra soil from the site. The contractor was required to demobilize
during the underground of the existing overhead utility lines by Arizona. Public Service
and remobilize upon completion. Also included were adjustments to bid item quantities.
The amount of the change order is $25,362.68, resulting in a revised contract amount
of $131 ,895.68.
Funds for this change order are available in the Community Development Block
Grant Fund, Account Number 11-8653-8300, Alley Improvements/Economic
Development. Engineering staff reviewed the costs and found them to be fair and
reasonable.
The recommendation was to approve Change Order No. 1 and Final to Calyber
Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $25,362.68
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Change
Order No. 1 and Final to Calyber Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $25,362.68.
The motion carried unanimously.
17. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — CIVIC CENTER ALLEE
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, presented this request for City Council
award of a construction contract to Recon, Inc. in the total amount of $528,178.83 for
the Civic Center Allee Project, which includes the base bid and Add Alternates Nos. 1
and 3. This project is the renovation and redevelopment of 57th Drive from Glendale
Avenue, north to Glenn Drive as the allee' leading to the front door of the Glendale
24
Civic Center. These improvements are located within the right-of-way along 57th Drive
between Glendale Avenue on the south and Glenn Drive on the north.
Add Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $93,244.45 is the inclusion of the
Downtown Standard brick sidewalks. The inclusion of Add Alternate No. 1 necessitates
the deletion of Bid Item 8, concrete sidewalks in the amount of $43,708 Add Alternate
No. 3 in the amount of $56,488 is for the realignment, paving and landscaping of the
parking lot between the Wells Fargo Bank and the Bead Museum. Add Alternate No. 2
in the amount of $96,350 for street furniture, namely benches, trash receptacles and
bollards, was not recommended for inclusion. These items are intended to be installed,
more economically, at a later date as part of the Glendale Avenue Aesthetics
Improvement Project.
Three bids were received and opened on May 4, 2000, with Recon, Inc., a
qualified and licensed contractor, submitting the lowest bid.
Funds for this project are available in Allee Account Number 62-9572-8300. A
transfer in the amount of $32,378.83 needs to be made from the Contingency Fund,
Account Number 01-2450-7000 into the project account to fund the total project costs.
The recommendation was to approve the transfer of funds and award the
construction contract to Recon, Inc. in the amount of $528.178.83.
Councilmember Lieberman asked where the completion date was indicated in
the bid. Mr. Reedy stated that the project would be coordinated with the schedules of
the Civic Center project and would be completed in October of 2000. Councilmember
Lieberman noted that the item came in at $138,000 over the engineer's estimate. He
asked if that was unusual or if there was a particular reason for the increase. Mr.
Reedy explained that it is very difficult to predict what bidders will do in this market. He
noted that this bid was substantially lower than the other bids they received.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the
transfer of funds and award the construction contract to Recon, Inc. in the
amount of $528,178.83.
Councilmember Martinez asked if there would be foot or auto traffic. Mr. Reedy
explained that there is a sidewalk associated with the project, but there is also a street
that would allow automobile traffic. He noted that the brick work is for the sidewalk
amenities and improvements.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the driveway for the bank would stay open.
Mr. Reedy stated that the project will allow the street to stay open during construction
and would allow bank activity. Councilmember Lieberman asked to see line drawings
of the project.
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
25
18. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — PARADISE LANE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, presented this request for City Council
award of a construction contract to J. Banicki Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$306,305 for the construction of the street improvements on the north side of Paradise
Lane between 67th and 65th Avenues. The project will complete the street
improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveways on the north side of
Paradise Lane. It will also construct storm drain improvements in Paradise Lane to help
mitigate flooding in the Granada Estates subdivision.
Three bids were received and opened on May 24, 2000. J. Banicki Construction,
Inc., a qualified and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest base bid in the amount of
$306,305.
Funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget in two separate fund
accounts. To facilitate payment to the contractor, a transfer in the amount of $200,000
from Paradise Lane Storm Drain Account Number 01-9612-8300 needs to be made into
Paradise Lane Storm Drains Account Number 65-8918-8300.
The recommendation was to approve the transfer of funds and award the
contract to J. Banicki Construction, Inc. in the amount of $306,305.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 18. As there
were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Martinez noted that Mr. Jiles brought this matter to his attention
and that it had been a long process. He stated that this project will put in a storm sewer
drain to alleviate the flooding and aesthetically improve the neighborhood.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve the
transfer of funds and award the contract to J. Banicki Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $306,305. The motion carried unanimously.
19. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — GLENDALE AVENUE 18"
WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN, 83RD AVENUE TO 99TH AVENUE
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, presented this request for City Council
award of a construction contract to Hexagon Contracting in the amount of $1,197,000.
This project consists of the installation of an 18" water transmission main which will
meet future needs for fire suppression demands and adequate water pressure in the
western portions of Glendale. This project also consists of an asphalt concrete overlay
of Glendale Avenue, which was included in the 2000 Pavement Management Program,
and the installation of a fiber optic communications conduit ductbank in Glendale
Avenue from 83rd to 99th Avenues for future use by the City. This ductbank will be used
for the installation of fiber optic cable that will provide the communication system for the
26
future computerized traffic signal management system. Also, there will be vacant
conduit installed for additional uses, thus reducing the need to excavate the road.
Eight bids were received and opened on June 8, 2000. Hexagon Contracting
submitted the lowest base bid in the amount of $1 ,197,000. Engineering staff reviewed
the bids and the qualifications of the low bidder and recommended award of the
contract to Hexagon Contracting.
Funds for the 18" water main in the amount of $855,128 are available in Water
Zone 4 Improvements Account Number 50-9232-8300. The following transfers will
need to be made into the project account to cover the overlay and fiber optic ductbank:
• $247,582.00 from Street Maintenance Account Number 12-6232-8300 for the
asphalt concrete overlay
• $94,290.00 from Signal Computerization Account Number 62-8805-8330 for
the fiber optic ductbank
The recommendation was to approve the transfers of funds and award the
construction contract to Hexagon Contracting in the amount of $1 ,197,000.
Councilmember Clark expressed her appreciation to whoever decided to put
conduit in the trench while it was under construction.
Mayor Scruggs opened the meeting up for public comment on Agenda Item
19.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, thanked
the Council for approving this item. He noted that many small business and
homeowners appreciated it.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on this item.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Eggleston, to approve the
transfer of funds and award the construction contract to Hexagon Contracting in
the amount of $1,197,000. The motion carried unanimously.
20. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 — WEST AREA AQUIFER RECHARGE FACILITY
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, presented this request for City Council
approval of Change Order No. 1 to the contract with PCL Civil Constructors in the
amount of $161 ,886. The construction contract was awarded on September 9, 1999.
The Aquifer Recharge Facility receives treated water from the West Area Water
Reclamation Facility and recharges it into the ground as reclaimed water. Reclaimed
water is a valuable water resource to the City. State law requires water providers, such
27
as the City of Glendale, to demonstrate a 100-year assured water supply and to reduce
groundwater withdrawals. Reclaimed water is a renewable resource and can be used
in place of groundwater. Prior to the opening of the facility, an aquifer protection permit
must be obtained from the State Department of Environmental Quality. Also, a water
storage permit and an underground storage permit are required by the State
Department of Water Resources.
This change order provides for the modification of a groundwater monitoring well
designed for the project and the construction of four additional groundwater monitoring
wells, as required by the Arizona State Department of Environmental Quality. This
added work is required as a result of objections received during a public interview
period for the underground and water storage permits. The objections were raised by
the Litchfield Park Service Company over concerns of possible impacts to the
groundwater in the area serviced by their wells. During the design of the project, the
potential impacts to the groundwater were studied and the results indicated that the
drinking water aquifer would not be impacted. The City agreed to the well modifications
and agreed to add four additional wells to monitor the water quality. The addition of
these wells satisfied the objections of Litchfield Park Service Company and they
withdrew their objections, which allowed the issuance of the underground and water
storage permits.
The amount of this change order is $161,886, resulting in a revised contract
amount of $4,438,775. Funds are available in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 West Area Water
Reclamation Project Account Number 50-9246-8300. Engineering staff reviewed the
costs and found them to be fair and reasonable.
The recommendation was to approve Change Order No. 1 to PCL Civil
Constructors in the amount of $161 ,886.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Change Order
No. 1 to PCL Civil Constructors in the amount of $161,886. The motion carried
unanimously.
21 . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE AND
TVI, L.L.P (SOUTHWEST PROPERTIES / INN AT TALAVI)
Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, presented this request to enter
into a development agreement with TVI, L.L.P. (Southwest Properties) for the
completion of an abandoned hotel project at 5511 West Bell Road.
Southwest Properties, a local developer and property management company,
has purchased the abandoned hotel out of foreclosure from the project's original
investors. Southwest Properties has committed to fix any existing code violations and
complete the 78-room facility as an upscale limited service hotel catering to business
and leisure travelers. The hotel will feature upgraded rooms in terms of decor and
technology services, an enhanced pool area with additional landscape and water
?8
features, and conference meeting space. The hotel will be named the Inn at Talavi,
and is expected to open for business in September of 2000.
Currently, $44,000 in unpaid fees exist on this project. In order to enhance the
quality and success of the hotel, Southwest Properties requested relief from
outstanding fees. The development agreement provides for a 50% rebate of future
sales tax generated by the project capped at $44,000. The time frame to meet this cap
is five years.
Southwest Properties has had successful experiences with these types of
projects, as well as residential and retail projects throughout the Metropolitan Phoenix
Area.
The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
development agreement with TVI, L.L.P. to provide a sales tax rebate for up to $44,000
within a five-year period.
Resolution No. 3387 was read in its entirety, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH TVI, L.L.C.; AND DIRECTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE as
follows:
SECTION 1. That it is deemed in the best interest of the City of Glendale
and the citizens thereof that the Development Agreement with TVI, L.L.C., an
Arizona limited liability company, be entered into, which Development Agreement
is now on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale.
SECTION 2. That the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver said Development Agreement on behalf of the
City of Glendale.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward the
Development Agreement for recording to the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
within ten (10) days after the execution thereof.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3387 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
29
22. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, presented this request to enter
into a development agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation to retain and expand
its presence in the City.
Several months ago, the City was informed that the Costco retail store located at
57th Avenue and Bell Road was scheduled to be closed due to a company-generated
market analysis, which indicated the need to locate stores further east and west of the
existing location.
Economic Development staff worked with Costco officials to identify and secure
a site in the City. Costco has agreed to construct a 145,000 SF facility and pay all up-
front development costs in exchange for a development agreement which has no
negative impact on the City's existing sales tax revenue and offsets relocation and
development-related costs for the company.
The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
development agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation.
Councilmember Lieberman clarified, for inclusion into the record, that the City
shall rebate to the developer $2 million of transaction privilege taxes, the rebate for the
cost of constructing the on-site improvements to the property. He stated that each
payment of the rebate shall be an amount equal to 100% of the net-new transaction
privilege taxes paid to the City during the calendar quarter pursuant to the City's
Transaction Privilege Tax Code by the business. He explained that, although the City is
rebating to the developer, it is only doing so on an increase in their sales. He stated
that if they have no increase in sales, there is no rebate.
Mayor Scruggs and Councilmembers Frate, Martinez and Goulet complimented
Mr. Colson and his staff on their hard work on this project. Councilmember Goulet also
recognized Dr. Vanacour and Mr. Beasley for their efforts.
Resolution No. 3388 was read in its entirety, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH PRICE COMPANY (COSTCO); AND DIRECTING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE as
follows:
SECTION 1. That it is deemed in the best interest of the City of Glendale
and the citizens thereof that the Development Agreement with Price Company, a
California corporation (Costco), be entered into, which Development Agreement
is now on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale.
30
SECTION 2. That the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver said Development Agreement on behalf of the
City of Glendale.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward the
Development Agreement for recording to the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Martinez, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3388 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LIQUOR LICENSES
At the request of Vice Mayor Eggleston, Agenda Item Nos. 23 and 24 were
heard separately.
25. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-713 — REGAL WINE COMPANY OF ARIZONA
This was a request for a new series 4 (wholesaler's) license for Regal Wine
Company of Arizona, which is located at 5061 North 51st Avenue, Suite 103. There is
an existing series 4 (wholesaler's) license at an adjacent suite in the same building
located at 5061 North 51St Avenue, but that license is held by Crown Wines of Arizona,
which is not affiliated with Regal Wine Company. The approval of the Regal Wine
Company's application will increase the number of liquor licenses in this area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The applicant was notified by certified mail of
the hearing date, place and time. The Planning Department, the Police Department
and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
26. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-710 — MAX'S RESTAURANT & SPORT'S LOUNGE
This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Max's Restaurant
& Sports Lounge, which is located at 6727 North 47th Avenue. The applicant had also
applied for a transfer of the existing off-track betting establishment license at this
location, which was a separate item on tonight's agenda.
The previous owner operated this business, Max's Restaurant & Sports Lounge,
and held a series 12 (restaurant) license at this location. A new series 12 license is
required for this location because a series 12 license is not transferable. The applicant
is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim permit. The approval of
this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area.
31
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The applicant was notified by certified mail of
the hearing date, place and time. The Planning Department, the Police Department
and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on agenda item Nos. 25 and 26.
As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Martinez, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-713 for Regal Wine Company of Arizona and No. 3-710
for Max's Restaurant & Sports Lounge to the State of Arizona Department of
Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. The motion
carried unanimously.
23. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-711 — 7-ELEVEN 16623C
This was a request for a new series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for 7-
Eleven 166230, which is located at 5925 West Olive Avenue. The previous owner
operated this business as 7-Eleven 16623C and held a series 10 (off-sale retail, beer &
wine) license at this location. A new series 10 license is required for this location
because a series 10 license is not transferable.
The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim
permit. The approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses
in this area.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The applicant was notified by certified mail of
the hearing date, place and time. The Planning Department, the Police Department
and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
24. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-712 — HAPPY FOOD STORE
This was a request for a new series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for
the Happy Food Store, which is located at 15224 North 59th Avenue, Suites 3 & 4.
There have been no prior liquor licenses at this location. The approval of this license
will increase the number of liquor licenses in this area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The applicant was notified by certified mail of
the hearing date, place and time. The Planning Department, the Police Department
and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired about the total calls for police service at both
locations. He noted that there were 98 calls at one location and 111 at the other. He
asked if it would be possible to have police reports specify the exact location of the
calls. Mr. Lynch explained that there may only be one pay phone location generating
the calls. Mr. Randy Henderlite, Police Administration, explained that the 111 calls
were for a five year period and included all suites within the shopping center. He stated
that the other location covered a one-year period and of the 90 calls received, there
were four reports of three separate incidences, none of which came from the 7-11
store. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if future calls could be broken down if the Council
so desired. Mr. Henderlite confirmed that they could. Mayor Scruggs asked if further
analysis is done to determine if something occurred specific to a particular suite
number. If so, she suggested that they forward this information to the Council. Mr.
Henderlite stated that they do and agreed to forward that information to the Council.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on agenda item Nos. 23 and 24.
As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Martinez, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-711 for 7-Eleven 16623C and No. 3-712 for Happy
Food Store to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control,
with the recommendation for approval. The motion carried unanimously.
OFF-TRACK BETTING LICENSE
27. OFF-TRACK BETTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE NO. 4-2038 — MAX'S
SPORTS BAR
This was a request for a person transfer for an off-track betting ("OTB")
establishment license for Max's Sports Bar, which is located at 6727 North 47 Avenue.
The applicant is Max's Sports Bar L.L.C. The applicant has also applied for a Series 12
(restaurant) liquor license at this location, which will replace the existing liquor license.
The liquor license application was a separate item on tonight's agenda.
The original OTB license at this location was approved by the City Council in
1991 . There have been four transfers or repossessions of the OTB license from 1991
to the present, but an OTB license has remained in use at this location throughout this
33
period. The City Council approved the last transfer of the OTB license to Jerry and
Laura Ghan in January of 1997.
The applicant has written agreements with Turf Paradise, Inc., Prescott Downs
and the Phoenix Greyhound Park, authorizing it to provide off-track betting at this
location. The applicant's operating plan, security plan and parking plan are essentially
the same as the previous owners' plans. Overflow parking will continue to be provided
at the Arizona Automotive Institute, which is located at 6829 North 46th Avenue.
The City has issued a provisional permit to the applicant, pursuant to Glendale
City Code Section 5-57, that authorizes the applicant to operate the off-track betting
establishment for 90 days while its transfer application is pending. The provisional
permit will expire on August 22, 2000 and cannot be extended.
This establishment is located over 300 feet from any school or church. The
Planning Department, the Police Department, the Building Safety Department, the Fire
Marshall and the Tax and License Division have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to approve the transfer of the OTB license from Jerry
and Laura Ghan to Max's Sports Bar L.L.C.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve the
transfer of the off-track betting establishment license from Jerry and Laura Ghan
to Max's Sports Bar L.L.C. The motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCES
31 . IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE ADOPTION
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, presented this item. Impact fees are one-
time charges to developers that are used to offset the costs resulting from new
development. 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 to review the work done in the previous study.
On March 21 , 2000, the City Council reviewed the recommendations of the
consultant and directed staff to bring the new ordinance forward for adoption. Arizona
State Law requires that, prior to increasing impact fees, the City follow several required
steps. On April 11 , 2000, the City passed a resolution stating the City's intent to
increase impact fees which completed the first step. The City published a notice in the
Glendale Star on April 14, 2000, setting the date of a public hearing on June 6, 2000,
which completed the second step. The City held a public hearing on June 6, 2000,
completing the third step. Tonight was the fourth and final step in the process - the
adoption of an ordinance changing the fees. Several minor changes have been made
to the fees after reviewing comments received during the review period. The total effect
34
is a reduction in the fees discussed on March 21 by $80 for a single-family detached
home. The revised report shows that the new fees adopted by this ordinance would
total $6,982.
Staff has been notifying developers of the increase in fees for several months in
each pre-application and application meeting. Staff also provided copies of the study to
the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, the Arizona Multifamily Housing
Association, and the Valley Partnership for review and comment. The Home Builders
Association provided review comments that the consultant has addressed and
corrected.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt an ordinance
making the effective date of the new rates Monday, September 25, 2000.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 31 .
Mr. Tom C. Cramer, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District,
commented on a letter sent to him from Mr. Peter Van Haren, the City's former City
Attorney. Mr. Cramer stated that the letter accused him of making misleading claims in
his advertising regarding the proposed impact fee increase and insisted that he cease
and desist. He asked for an apology. He stated that this fee will be cost prohibitive for
buyers.
Ordinance No. 2147 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE
VI, ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES"; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilmember Clark stated that impact fees are designed to recover the cost to
the taxpayers of this community for new homes. She explained that, prior to impact
fees, everyone in the community paid for the infrastructure improvements needed for
new development. She stated that she applauded the use of impact fees.
Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark's comments. He
stated that impact fees makes new development pay its own way.
Mayor Scruggs stated that they have been responding to the vast majority of the
citizenry in revisiting the City's impact fees.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance
No. 2147 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
35
32. FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director, presented this item. As part of the
City's budget process, the total property tax rate for the City of Glendale Fiscal Year
2000-01 is $1.72/$100 of assessed property value. This rate is one cent lower than last
year's rate of $1.73/$100, and this is the sixth consecutive year that the property tax
has been lowered. The primary property tax rate of $0.38/$100 is estimated to
generate $3,167,000, which is used for general City operating purposes as part of the
City budget. In addition, the secondary property tax rate of $1 .34/$100 will generate an
estimated $11,816,404 next year solely for the purpose of paying principal and interest
on general obligation bonds. Current outstanding bonds are for public improvements
that have been completed or are in progress, including land acquisition for parks,
libraries, public safety and field operations facilities, park development, streetlights, and
landscaping and flood control projects.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance setting the Fiscal Year 2000-01 primary property tax rate at $0.38 and the
secondary property tax rate at $1 .34.
Councilmember Martinez asked for further explanation of the consequences if
the rates were not lowered. Mr. McClendon explained that State law requires that, if
they are going to keep the tax rate the same or raise it higher, they have to do a legal
notice so that people understand what the effect would be. He stated that by lowering
the rate, there is no net effect on the average homeowner.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. McClendon clarified that the
aggregate effect would be that the same level of tax is kept. He noted, however, that
new homes would increase revenue.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that people confuse the tax rate with their
overall property tax bill. He noted that the city of Glendale has had unprecedented
increases in home values over the past three years. Therefore, people will pay more,
even though the tax rate dropped one cent. He pointed out that the City's property tax
rate is only one portion of the property tax bill.
Ordinance No. 2148 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, SUBJECT TO TAXATION, A
CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) OF VALUATION
SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE REQUIRED IN THE
ANNUAL BUDGET, LESS THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM
OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE; PROVIDING FUNDS FOR VARIOUS BOND
REDEMPTIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING INTEREST UPON BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS AND PROVIDING FUNDS FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL
36
EXPENSES; ALL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2001;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Clark, to approve Ordinance
No. 2148 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
33. FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director, presented this item. During the course
of Fiscal Year 1999-00, some changes in operation took place, which were not
anticipated in the preparation of the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget. The changes
described in this budget amendment will transfer funds to the appropriate department
and line item so that they are properly reflected in the budget records.
The first change was necessary to reimburse the contingency fund for funds
used for the grant for Habitat for Humanity. The funds in the amount of $100,000 were
used to enable Habitat to acquire the lots it needed for the November Blitz Build project.
The remainder of the changes were done as a result of the Fiscal Year 1999-2000
carryover reconciliation process. When departments prepared their Fiscal Year 1999-
2000 budgets, they estimated the amount of carryover savings they would have. At the
end of the fiscal year, the Budget Department reconciled each department's actual
savings with their estimated carryover and then increased or decreased their budget to
match their actual savings.
Carryover reconciliation transfers to or from the contingency account do not have
any effect on the actual contingency fund balance because additional carryover
increases the contingency fund balance at the beginning of the year above what has
been budgeted.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance on the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget amendments.
In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. McClendon stated that there
would be no net effect on the General Fund because the balance at the beginning of
the year 2000 was higher than expected.
Ordinance No. 2149 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN
BUDGET ITEMS IN THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
37
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez, to approve
Ordinance No. 2149 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the
following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
34. SALE OF CITY PROPERTY AT BETHANY HOME ROAD AND 581H AVENUE
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, presented this item. At its May 30, 2000
regular meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2142 New Series, authorizing
the sale to the highest bidder of a City-owned parcel consisting of approximately 8
acres of industrially zoned land located between Bethany Home Road on the south,
Rose Lane on the north, 57th Drive on the east, and 58th Avenue on the west.
The highest bidder, Harley Smith for 397875 BC Ltd., subsequently withdrew its
offer, as it has a right to do during the due diligence period. As a result, the City may
now approve the sale of the property to the second highest bidder, Jewel Investment
Company (Jewel). Jewel's bid was $1 .61 per square foot of net useable land or
approximately $520,543.59. Jewel proposed a 30-day due diligence period, during
which it will review the preliminary title report, the American Land Title Association
(ALTA) survey, and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the property, and
discuss potential development of the site with appropriate City staff. Jewel proposed
the close of escrow on or before October 12, 2000.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 2142 New Series, and authorizing the City
Manager to sign all documents necessary to complete the sale of property to Jewel
Investment Company.
In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. Reedy confirmed that
they did have an appraisal, however he was not able to recall the amount. Vice Mayor
Eggleston recalled that the appraisal came in at less than the amount offered.
Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Reedy if he knew the amount offered by the
highest bidder and what the difference was between the high bid and the new figure.
Mr. Reedy stated that they had reviewed both bids and observed that both were in
excess of the appraised value. Dr. Vanacour noted that they had only received two
bids in five years.
Councilmember Clark suggested that this item be tabled until the July 11, 2000
City Council meeting.
Mayor Scruggs stated that this item had come before the Council in executive
session and both bids were deemed acceptable.
Councilmember Goulet stated that tabling this item would jeopardize the sale.
He agreed that the bid was previously discussed and deemed acceptable.
38
Councilmember Martinez asked if they would jeopardize the sale of the property
or have legal ramifications if the item was tabled. Mr. Verburg stated that, until the City
approves of the sale, the City Council is not legally obligated. He noted, however, that
the buyer may have a time constraint that would make them want to back out of the
deal.
Mayor Scruggs asked what the City's investment was in the property. Mr. Reedy
estimated it to be approximately $435,000. Mayor Scruggs reiterated that both bids
were brought to the Council as good bids.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman to table this item.
Motion failed on a roll call vote with the following members voting "nay": Goulet,
Eggleston, Frate and Scruggs. Members voting "aye": Clark, Lieberman and
Martinez.
Ordinance No. 2150 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 2142 NEW SERIES, AND RE-
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN BETHANY HOME ROAD ON THE SOUTH, ROSE
LANE ON THE NORTH, 57TH DRIVE ON THE EAST, AND 58TH AVENUE ON THE
WEST, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND
DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THIS TRANSACTION.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance
No. 2150 New Series.
Mayor Scruggs stated that she would support the motion because the Council
has been trying to sell the property for eight of the ten years she has served on the
Council. She noted that, at one point, the sale seemed so hopeless that the City was
going to invest money and turn the property into soccer fields. She stated that the City
has invested over $400,000 in a piece of property it never intended to own or use. She
said that the funds received from the sale could go a long way towards other things the
City would like to see built.
Councilmember Clark stated that she is concerned when other Councilmembers
raise questions and no one knows the exact figures. She said that they did not have
enough factual information for her to be comfortable.
Mr. Reedy confirmed that the appraised value was $1 .50 per square foot and
that the appraisal was done sometime between December of 1998 and April of 1999.
He stated that the current offer is for $1 .61 per square foot.
39
Upon a call for the motion, the motion carried on a roll call vote, with the
following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
RESOLUTION
35. TESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. — TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
LICENSE AGREEMENT
Mr. Chris Ware, Regulatory and Communications Manager, presented this
request by TESS Communications, Inc. ("TESS") for a telecommunications ("telecom")
license. TESS, which is based in Colorado, intends to offer competitive telecom and
video services to its customers, including local and long-distance telephone service,
high-speed data service and video (cable) programming.
This agenda item deals with TESS' request for a license that will authorize it to
provide telecom, but not video, services. Staff is studying TESS' request for a video
license, and a separate video license may be brought to Council for direction and action
at a later date.
TESS intends to offer telecom services primarily by leasing lines from U S WEST
or other providers that own telecom facilities in the right-of-way. Where necessary,
TESS will construct its own facilities in the right-of-way to connect customers to its
leased lines.
TESS has plans to immediately provide telecom services to one subdivision in
Glendale — in particular, the Desert Mirage Estates near 83rd and Maryland Avenues.
Dietz-Crane Homes, the developer of this subdivision, has entered into an exclusive
agreement with TESS to promote TESS' provision of telecom services to the
subdivision. Desert Mirage Estates is not presently being served by U S WEST or any
other wireline service provider, and TESS is offering wireless communications service
to the subdivision on a temporary basis while its request for a telecom license is
pending.
TESS hopes to offer telecom services to other areas in Glendale and the
Phoenix area, but it does not have plans to immediately serve any area in Glendale
other than the Desert Mirage Estates. The only other area in the Valley that TESS has
definite plans to serve is a 1,600-home subdivision near El Mirage.
The proposed License Agreement with TESS contains the following major
provisions:
• The license will be effective for a period of five years, commencing on July 1 ,
2000.
40
• TESS will be authorized to construct telecom facilities and provide telecom
services only if it is in full compliance with all Federal and State regulations,
including conditions contained in the Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity ("CC&N") granted to TESS by the Arizona Corporation
Commission. TESS must comply with 18 stipulations or conditions contained
in its CC&N, including the following:
1 . TESS must obtain an interconnection agreement with U S WEST
to offer local exchange services.
2. TESS must pursue permanent telephone number "portability"
arrangements with other local carriers.
3. TESS must abide by the quality of service standards that apply to
U S WEST.
4. TESS must certify that all issues associated with the provision of
911 services have been resolved.
5. TESS must post a bond equal to a minimum of 120 days' intrastate
telecom revenue and any prepayments and deposits collected from
TESS' customers.
6. TESS must file an application with the Corporation Commission in
order to discontinue service, and TESS must give 60 days' notice
to customers prior to filing an application to discontinue service.
• TESS will be authorized to construct and operate telecom facilities only to
serve the Desert Mirage Estate subdivision. The Council will have to approve
any expansion of TESS' services requiring the use of additional right-of-way.
• TESS will pay a license fee, based on $0.72 per linear foot of right-of-way
occupied by its facilities, to the maximum extent permitted under State law.
• TESS will comply with the same construction, insurance, indemnification and
bond requirements that other telecom providers in the City are required to
follow for their use of the right-of-way. These requirements include a $20,000
general performance bond separate from the bond posted for the Corporation
Commission, as well as additional construction bonds.
Under Federal and State law, the City cannot erect "barriers to entry" that
effectively prohibit a new telecom provider such as TESS from using the right-of way.
TESS obtained a CC&N from the Arizona Corporation Commission on April 28, 2000
that approved TESS' application to provide competitive telecom services in Arizona and
that set forth conditions with which TESS must comply in order to offer such services.
TESS is presently in compliance with all terms and conditions of the CC&N.
41
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Telecommunications Services
License Agreement with TESS Communications, Inc., based on the successful meeting
of the stipulations noted.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for an explanation of the agreement that was made
with the subdivision. Mr. Ware explained that the subdivision entered into an exclusive
promotional agreement with TESS, allowing TESS to put its lines in first and making it,
in essence, the preferred provider. He stated that the situation is unusual in that the
developer made the decision to create a preferred provider in the subdivision. He
explained that when the subdivision was being built and the trenches were open for
utilities, Ditz/Crane did not notify U.S. West or Cox; therefore, TESS got lines in the
ground while U.S. West did not. He stated that, as a consequence, there is no wire line
service and, as a temporary solution, TESS has provided free wireless service to the
subdivision, at its own cost. He stated that he did not know if and when U.S. West
would be serving the subdivision. He noted that the agreement with TESS is a
promotional agreement and would not exclude U.S. West from serving the subdivision.
Mr. Vanacour clarified that service is currently only available through TESS.
Councilmember Clark stated that Ditz Crane created the problem for the 103
homeowners. She noted that approximately 30 homes have been built to date;
however, those homes have been without real telephone service for four months. She
pointed out that the homeowners cannot hardwire their alarms. She expressed her
opinion that it is a matter of public safety and health and that until U.S. West decides to
offer service to the subdivision, TESS is the only service available.
Councilmember Martinez reiterated that the agreement does not preclude U.S.
West from competing for service at a later date. Mr. Ware agreed, noting that COX can
also offer telephone service to the subdivision if it so chooses.
Councilmember Goulet asked if TESS having an office in the area was a
condition to the Corporation Commission issuing the certificate. He also asked what
options the homeowners would have if they chose not to go with TESS and if the office
would go away if TESS only got 50% of the homeowners to utilize their service. Mr.
Ware referred to the representatives from Ditz Crane and TESS.
Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the license to operate in Glendale
would be effective for five years, commencing July of 2000. She also asked if there
was criteria by which the City could determine whether it wants to renew the license.
Mr. Ware stated that, under the recent State preemptive legislation, the State has
basically specified that licenses will be for five years and, unless it meets some form of
specified statutory criteria for not being renewed, it is renewable. Mayor Scruggs asked
if TESS had met the 18 conditions contained in the CC&N. Mr. Ware stated that, as far
as he was aware, TESS was in full compliance. Mayor Scruggs asked if TESS was
connected with 911 . Mr. Ware confirmed that it was. Mayor Scruggs suggested that, in
future zoning matters, it would be good for the Council to know what their legal rights
were in terms of zoning for residential use, possibly requiring that there be a choice of
providers. Mr. Verburg stated that he believed there was a notice requirement,
requiring developers to provide notification to all telecommunications providers, and he
said that it may be possible to require that they coordinate trenching efforts with the
various utilities.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that, under Federal law, they cannot get an
exclusive agreement, nor can anyone else force another company to give service. Mr.
Ware agreed. Councilmember Lieberman asked when TESS would convert from
wireless to hardwire. Mr. Ware explained that the wireless service is only being
provided as a temporary solution. He deferred to the representatives from TESS as to
who would be providing the wireless service.
Mr. Klayton Fennell, Director of Regulatory Affairs for TESS
Communications Inc., explained that, historically, TESS serves under-served areas.
He stated that they do have a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and have met
all compliance terms. He stated that on May 25, 2000, they had a tariff approved to
provide local exchange services on a facilities based network and as a reseller. He
confirmed that there is a choice of carriers within Desert Sunset, explaining that U.S.
West and other competitive local exchange companies can utilize TESS's network. He
stated that TESS is committed to ensuring that it can be effective in competition against
U.S. West; therefore, it is constructing its own local loop. He explained that they have
constructed the local loop and then leased the unbundled network element - a switch
from U.S. West which allows them to connect with everyone else's network and to a
public safety access point where emergency 911 calls are routed. He stated that it also
allows people who move from one area of Glendale to another to keep the same phone
number. He reiterated that the only thing TESS is waiting for is a license from the City
of Glendale. He explained that that license would allow TESS to construct a concrete
pad outside the Ditz/Crane subdivision on which two boxes can be placed. He stated
that those two boxes allow them to interconnect with U.S. West and that, once the
boxes are in place, service can be provided and the wireless interim solutions can end.
He noted that the wireless interim solutions have been totally subsidized and that
service has been provided through Sprint. He acknowledged that there have been
problems and agreed that they need to get hardwire service to the subdivision
immediately. He expressed his opinion that TESS has supplied City management with
the necessary information to review TESS's ability to construct, operate and maintain a
telecommunications system. He stated that they are extremely agreeable to limiting
their service, temporarily, to this one subdivision.
Mayor Scruggs asked if U.S. West was required to serve a customer if they want
U.S. West service. Mr. Fennell stated that, according to the Arizona Corporation
Commission, U.S. West is the carrier of last resort, which means that U.S. West has an
obligation to provide service to anyone who requests service within its operating
territory. He explained that U.S. West is the carrier of last resort because, historically it
was subsidized through universal service. He noted that the Arizona Corporation
Commission is progressive in that it states that whoever controls the last mile also has
some obligation to serve.
43
Councilmember Lieberman asked if TESS would have to retrench. Mr. Fennell
explained that when Ditz/Crane had the trench open, they laid both in the trench and on
the private easement. He stated that they were only waiting to construct the concrete
pad.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if TESS laid wire in the subdivision before they had
a license from the Arizona Corporation Commission. Mr. Fennell stated that, when
TESS initially started, they did not have a Regulatory Affairs Department and when he
came on in March, he immediately began working on this issue. He stated that TESS
was notified by Mr. Ware that they were not constructing in accordance with Glendale
City Ordinances. He admitted that TESS was incorrect on that matter and stated that
TESS's Chief Executive Office and President promised City management that all further
construction would cease and desist, which is why the concrete pad has not been laid.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how they got the exclusivity agreement from Ditz/Crane.
Mr. Fennell explained that the agreement was not exclusive, they are the preferred
provider. He stated that TESS's ability to offer local exchange, high-speed data and
video services makes them attractive to developers. He assured the Council that they
did not pay for that preferred provider status.
Councilmember Goulet asked how TESS would remain in the area if only a small
percentage of the 103 homes wanted their service. Mr. Fennell stated that they
believed, through the offering of local exchange and high-speed data service on one
bundled bill, they would be more attractive than any other local exchange company. He
noted that, even if they do not control the end user relationship, they have the local
loop, making them a wholesale provider to any competitive local exchange company
wanting to serve. Councilmember Goulet asked if someone in another part of the City
would be able to switch from U.S. West to TESS. Mr. Fenell stated that, assuming
TESS requests expansion of its license and the City grants the extension, it would be
able to offer service throughout the City of Glendale.
Councilmember Martinez asked when U.S. West would offer service if TESS was
not there. Mr. Ware explained that if TESS was not there, U.S. West was obligated to
serve the subdivision. He noted that, if TESS was not there, Ditz/Crane would have
notified U.S. West of the subdivision. He stated that the situation arose because of
Ditz/Crane's conscious decision not to notify U.S. West or Cox of the subdivision.
Councilmember Martinez asked if, in the future, it would be a requirement for
developers to notify all service providers of an area in need of service. Mr. Verburg
stated that his department would work with the Planning Department to see if they could
create an ordinance for the Council's consideration.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that the City could not disapprove the item. Mr.
Ware stated that, in his opinion, TESS had met all State and Federal requirements
necessary to obtain a license and, therefore, the City had a duty to process the license.
44
Resolution No. 3389 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH TESS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3389 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
36. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Appointment is to be made to the following commissions that have vacancies or
expired terms.
Effective Term
Date Expires
Arts Commission
Judy Atkins (Cactus) Re-appointment 08/24/2000 08/23/2002
Board of Adjustment
Ann Ransom (Barrel) Appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Daniel F. Drew (Cactus) Re-appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Richard Gitelson (Sahuaro) Re-appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Building Safety Advisory and Appeals Board
Richard DeFranco (At-Large) Re-appoint as Chair 08/27/2000 08/26/2001
Richard DeFranco (At-Large) Re-appointment 08/27/2000 08/26/2002
R. Andrew Dewey (At-Large) Appointment 08/27/2000 08/26/2002
Ron Prothero (At-Large) Appointment 08/27/2000 08/26/2002
Citizen's Commission on Neighborhoods
Jerry Bernsten (Barrel) Appoint as Vice-Chair 07/01/2000 06/30/2001
Terrence Arnold (At-Large) Appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Edward Luiszer (Mayoral) Appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2001
45
Commission on Persons With Disabilities
Glenn Holliday (Cactus) Appointment 06/27/2000 02/27/2002
Stan Grossman (Cholla) Appointment 06/27/2000 02/27/2002
Community Development Advisory Committee
Ray Weinstein (Cactus) Re-appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
John Turbridy (Mayoral) Appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2001
Housing Advisory Commission
Lillie Ojala (At-Large) Re-appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Lillie Ojala (At-Large) Re-appoint as Chair 07/01/2000 06/30/2001
Rita Vacca (At-Large) Appointment 07/01/2000 06/30/2002
Industrial Development Authority
Steve Harnden (At-Large) Re-appointment 08/24/2000 08/23/2006
Library Advisory Board
Anna Rea (Barrel) Appointment 06/27/2000 04/13/2002
Winnif red Kultala (Cholla) Appointment 06/27/2000 04/13/2002
The recommendation was to make appointments to the various Boards and
Commissions.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Eggleston, to appoint the
applicants listed above to the Arts Commission; the Board of Adjustment; the
Building Safety Advisory and Appeals Board; the Citizens' Commission on
Neighborhoods; the Commission on Persons with Disabilities; the Community
Development Advisory Committee; the Housing Advisory Commission; the
Industrial Development Authority; and the Library Advisory Board, for the terms
listed above. The motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to vacate the City
Council Workshop scheduled for 1:30 p.m. On Tuesday, July 4, 2000. The motion
carried unanimously.
46
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Joseph Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District,
referred to a letter he had sent to Mr. Erik Strunk, Neighborhood Partnership
Administrator, in which he outlined his three major areas of concern. He stated that his
first item of concern was that, in general, grants are not being received by Glendale's
older, needier neighborhoods. He stated that, during the workshop, Councilmember
Goulet referenced the fact that grants are providing money to neighborhoods that are
not necessarily target areas the City initially set out to help. He stated that another
concern is that the support for some areas that were funded was well below what was
expected. He stated that the Commission was using a "likeableness factor" in its
recommendation criteria. He identified his third area of concern as being that the
criteria which the Commission uses to determine its recommendation does not seem to
weigh the partnership factor and the need of a neighborhood as high as a likeable
project. He stated that, although he was pleased with getting the funding for the wall,
he felt that the Commission's decision was based on the likeableness of the project.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that immigrants in the City are afraid to call the police because they do not know if
immigration will automatically be contacted. He suggested that there should be a set
policy because criminals are going unpunished.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark welcomed Councilmember Frate to his first nighttime
session.
Councilmember Goulet congratulated Mr. Mark Burdick on his promotion to Fire
Department Battalion Chief. He noted that the City had dedicated the Sine Hardware
building earlier that afternoon. He stated that no one would like to see more
participation from older neighborhoods in the Neighborhood Partnership Program than
he. Would.
Councilmember Martinez noted that the Neighborhood Commission still has
issues it is wrestling with. With regard to older neighborhoods, he pointed out the older
neighborhoods included in the projects which were just approved. He also recalled
other grants awarded to other older neighborhoods. He stated that the City does have
a policy that the Police Department does not contact immigration unless someone
commits a serious crime. He noted that the recycling program will become effective on
July 12, 2000 and the first recycling bins were delivered to the northern area of the City
today.
Mayor Scruggs encouraged everyone to attend the City's 4th of July celebration
at Glendale Community College.
47
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Pamela Oliveira - City Clerk
48