Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/18/2000 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP July 18, 2000 1 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. PRESENTATION OF YOUTH TOWN HALL FINDINGS FOR THE YEAR 2000 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Steven Methvin, Assistant to the Mayor, OTHER PRESENTERS: Adam Shaw, Corresponding Secretary of the Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission (MYAC) Board, and Brandi Goodwin, a member of MYAC. Ms. Brandi Goodwin and Mr. Adam Shaw presented the 2000 Youth Town Hall Final Report to the Mayor and Council for their information. Members of the Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission and approximately 100 high school students, civic leaders, community members, business owners and governmental officials met on March 2, 2000 to study issues related to mass transit and teen political participation. Youth Town Hall participants met in six groups to identify the issues and suggestions. As a result of this process, a report that incorporates the suggestions of the various working committees into a planning document was developed. The suggestions will be reviewed by MYAC at its annual summer retreat. The Mayor and Council reviewed and discussed the 1999 Youth Town Hall Final Report at their July 20, 1999 Workshop. The completed 2000 Youth Town Hall Final Report will be distributed throughout the community. Funding for implementation of Youth Town Hall recommendations is available in the Mayor's Office budget. The recommendation was to review this item and discuss the findings of the 2000 Youth Town Hall Final Report. 1 Councilmember Lieberman mentioned that the graduated drivers license had gone into effect the previous Friday. Ms. Goodwin explained that this was a re-legislated act which covered a loophole. She stated that graduated drivers licenses actually went into effect on January 1, 2000. She said that, previously, teens were not required to get a permit before getting a license, which was a loophole to get out of the education requirement. She stated that teens are now required to fulfill the education requirement before they can obtain their license. She explained that, whether you get a permit at 15 years and seven months or you decide not to get a permit, that education is still required when applying at a later date. Councilmember Lieberman clarified that 25 hours of education or a parent's signature are required. Mayor Scruggs noted that Ms. Goodwin was setting her sights on taking courses that would lead her to be an intergovernmental relations-type lobbyist. Councilmember Clark noted that most teens want to obtain their licenses at age 16. She asked Mr. Shaw if his group had discussed how they could overcome that desire, which she suggested was a main reason that teens do not take the bus. Mr. Shaw stated that that issue had been discussed, but it was also pointed out that a lot of times the privilege of having a vehicle also brings financial consequences. He explained that they were trying to present alternatives to having a vehicle. Councilmember Goulet asked Ms. Goodwin to elaborate on the Political Teen Council, how it would function on the high school campus, and how it might come to the City Council or City offices. Ms. Goodwin explained that it would function a lot like the Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission does. She stated that a member from each high school would be in charge of informing his or her school. She said that, if there was enough interest, there may eventually be a club on campus. She stated that the representatives would meet with elected officials to obtain information and it would be their responsibility to get that information back to their classmates. She noted that it would have to be worked into the curriculum of the school. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Goodwin if she was recommending any particular ideas for implementation to the group that would be following her and if the Political Teen Council was one that she would hope to see implemented. Ms. Goodwin stated that this was something they felt would really help get teens involved. She said that another recommendation they had was encouraging elected officials to visit their constituents and speak at the high schools. Mayor Scruggs noted that Cactus High School has some really intense government classes and she has interacted with that group. She said that this is where you find out how much you know about current events. She stated that Ironwood High School also has good involvement and produces a television show on current topics. She suggested working with the government teachers at one or two schools at first to see how it works. Ms. Goodwin agreed with Mayor Scruggs and suggested that they either work with government classes or student councils. Mayor Scruggs stated that the pre-registration idea was phenomenal and that she hoped the next group will look into the feasibility of that idea. She said that this was the type of idea that a lot of corporate sponsors were looking for in terms of how to involve young people in the political process. Councilmember Martinez thanked Mr. Methvin for the great job he does in working with the Youth Advisory Council. He also thanked Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Shaw for their time and efforts. He noted that the Council was close to implementing one of last year's suggestions, that there be MYAC representatives on the City's Boards and Commissions, specifically on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Library Advisory Board. He pointed out that those representatives will have full membership. Ms. Goodwin thanked the Council. She stated it was amazing that the City grants them the empowerment and the opportunity to be involved to the extent that they are involved. She said that it lays a lot of roads for students who would not otherwise have that opportunity. Mayor Scruggs stated that Mr. Shaw's suggestion to use a middle-of-the-road approach in terms of utilizing a car versus a bus was good. She stated that she had benefited from hearing the issues raised during the discussions that Mr. Shaw's team had. She noted that much of the conversation centered around the fact that the parents of teens do not want them on the buses because of their perception that it is unsafe. She stated that the various entities involved in mass transit need to work on that. She said that the City would embark later this year on a city-wide transportation plan and it should be ensured that the City's youth are represented on that plan. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they would be coming forward with more specific recommendations on mass transit. He expressed his opinion that their conclusion, that times and frequencies are not convenient, was accurate and he suggested that scheduling should be addressed. Ms. Goodwin stated that it is up to next year's executive council to choose what they will pursue. Mr. Methvin explained that the current year's Commission develops the planning document and produces a final report and, when the Commission reconvenes with its new members, they study the final report and determine which of those recommendations they would like to pursue. Mayor Scruggs noted that previous Commissions have come forward with recommendations that required approval at the City Council level before they could move forward, but this year's recommendations seemed to be more self-directed. Mr. Methvin agreed. He stated that this year was unique in that the teens did not study destructive behavior topics, teen pregnancy, gang involvement or gang use. He explained that this year's Commission was trying to look at a proactive approach to mass transit, knowing that the City was developing a new transportation plan, and political participation because there were some members who had a desire to get involved. Councilmember Frate noted that teens could be role models for adults because the City cannot get adults to ride buses. He thanked Ms. Goodwin, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Methvin for the excellent they have done. Mayor Scruggs thanked Mr. Methvin, Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Shaw for the report and for all of the work they have done on the Commission. 3 Mr. Methvin updated the Mayor and Council on developments of previous Youth Town Hall recommendations regarding Teen Board and Commission appointments and the KGLN Teen's Today cable program. Ms. Goodwin thanked Arizona Public Service (APS), U.S. West Communications, Cox Communications, Honeywell, Salt River Project (SRP), and Midwestern University for sponsoring this year's Youth Town Hall. 2. REQUEST BY HIDDEN MANOR FOR INCLUSION IN THE SEWER MAIN EXTENSION PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer; and Mr. Larry Broyles, Assistant City Engineer. As a result of the bond election passage in November of 1999, the Glendale City Council adopted a formal process for the request by neighborhoods of installing main line sewers to serve areas within Glendale that are currently using septic systems. At today's Workshop, the City Council was updated on the application for funding received from the Hidden Manor Homeowners Association. Hidden Manor Homeowners Association submitted a request to pahrticipate in the sewer main extension program for the area bounded by 75 and 78 Avenues and Villa Theresa Drive and Libby Street. The association petitioned 248 homeowners who would potentially be served by the sewer main extension in this area. It received 136 votes in favor of the program, indicating that the they would be willing to enter into an agreement with the City to connect to the sewer and pay the sewer impact fee in advance of the design of the sewer. The association received 71 votes from homeowners who were not in favor of the program at this time and 41 homeowners did not respond. Engineering staff verified that the signatures on the petitions matched the ownership shown on the Tax Assessor's records. They also verified that each individual section of the sewer main extension contained the minimum 40% of properties that would connect to that section, as required by the program. Hidden Manor Homeowners Association has 54.8% of its homeowners who have agreed to pay the current impact fee and connect to the sewer within one year from when it is completed. Based on the conceptual design of the sewer main, the approximate cost to the City for design and construction to serve 248 properties is $2,366,320. This equates to $9,541.61 per property. The price may vary depending on the bidding climate at the time. The estimated cost to each property owner to abandon their existing septic system and connect to the sewer system is $5,000 to $6,000, which includes the development impact fee. The final program was presented at the May 30, 2000 Council meeting. The Council adopted a resolution approving the sewer main extension program. This program was presented at the April 4, 2000 Council Workshop. Evaluation criteria was added to the program and a contract requirement with the City was also made a part of the program. It was requested that the final program be brought to a future Council meeting for adoption. 4 This program was presented to Council at its March 7, 2000 Workshop. It was requested that evaluation criteria be included in the program and that a contract requirement with the City be made a part of the program. The evaluation criteria was added, along with the contract from the City Attorney's Office. It was also requested that these changes be brought back to a future Council Workshop. This program was discussed at the City of Glendale Utilities Committee meeting which was held on February 22, 2000. It was received favorably by the Committee and the recommendation was that it be presented to a full Council Workshop. When this program is approved, it will become the guiding policy for sewer extensions in these areas throughout the City. Since the approval of the program, notification has gone out in newspaper articles and the program has been discussed at various neighborhood meetings. Staff is in the process of setting up a mailing that will go out the first part of August to areas that will be able to request sewer extensions. Engineering staff received one call from Secluded Acres, two calls from Arrowhead Valley Unit No. 1 , and at least ten calls from unidentified areas, requesting information on participating in the program. If all of the required agreements are signed and the impact fees are paid by the end of November, the design of this project can proceed under the budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Because the construction of this project will span the next tvvo fiscal years, additional bond funding could be available in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The property owners will still be responsible for paying the sewer impact fee, obtaining permits, and installing the service line from the house to the new system and abandoning their septic system. The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Anderson if he knew whether or not the "no responses" were from people who may be seasonably gone from the area. Mr. Anderson stated that their criteria was to have the homeowners carry the petition to each home to make a valid attempt. He said that, in talking to Mr. Egan, some homeowners were gone, while some lots were vacant. He stated that other lots consisted of retail spaces where the owner of the property was out-of-state. Councilmember Goulet asked if the blue lines on the map represented sewer lines. He noted that the blue lines stop at certain points and are not connected. Mr. Anderson stated that the blue lines are the preliminary design and that the general fall of the land is to the west. He explained that the gaps between the lines running down 77th Avenue and further to the west are areas that are still covered with sewer systems, but whose flow would move to the south. He stated that this means they do not have to increase the size of the lines and it also provides for better gradient for the sewer flow. Councilmember Martinez asked if, according to the present ordinance, a sewer line could be repaired if the septic system failed, or if they would have to come onto the City's system. Mr. Anderson explained that the last change to the ordinance allowed for 5 a repairable septic system to remain as a septic system and that there is not a requirement to hook up to the City's system unless it is unrepairable. Councilmember Martinez asked if those who did not sign up at this time could choose to participate at a later date. Mr. Anderson stated that the original call for the impact fees would be at the existing rate and, once the design is started, anyone desiring to come into the system would have to pay the impact fee in effect at that time. Councilmember Martinez asked if a mailing would go out to every resident, notifying them of the process. Mr. Anderson stated that all 248 lots will be sent a letter. Councilmember Martinez asked if everyone who is on a septic system throughout the City would be notified to make them aware of the program. Mr. Anderson stated that the program in front of the Council was only for Hidden Manor and letters would only be sent to those residents. He said that, in terms of future neighborhoods, he was not aware that the notification procedure would include a personalized letter for each individual who may be on a septic system within the City. He stated that they know who they are because of water records; however, most of those neighborhoods have become aware of the program and some are banning together to determine if they want to be a part of the program. Councilmember Martinez disagreed with Mr. Anderson, stating that there has not been adequate notification given to homeowners. He said that, when this issue was previously discussed, it was decided that a letter would be sent to every homeowner and all homeowner associations to make them aware of the process and criteria involved. He noted that representatives from Secluded Acres recently asked him for information about the program. He stated that he had told them they would be receiving individual notification. Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, stated that the City plans to send a mailing out in early August to all of the possible participants in the neighborhoods that have been identified. Councilmember Martinez suggested those letters be expedited because, if someone is interested, they need to get their application in by October. He questioned whether they might need to extend the deadline to give other neighborhoods the opportunity to apply. He suggested extending the deadline to allow more neighborhoods to apply and to possibly prevent having to go back for a second bond issuance later. Mr. Anderson stated that the letters will help bring the program to people's attention. He said that they will work with Budget Department staff to ensure that the budget is set up properly for those areas that have met the criteria and look as though they will apply for it in the near future. He explained that the deadline is a budgetary deadline to ensure money is set aside for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He said that he would work with Management staff and Budget Department staff to see if they can make the program work for all interested neighborhoods. Councilmember Martinez stated that people also need to be made aware of the fact that there will be a sanitation fee when they participate in the program and hook up to the sewer. Mr. Anderson noted that the contract points out that there will be a monthly sanitary waste bill. 6 Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Anderson to explain what a "leg" portion would be on the map. Mr. Anderson explained that a leg is just one short blue line and 40% of the people on that leg would have to want it to ensure enough flow for the sewer line not to run dry. Councilmember Clark stated that a minimum of 40% of residents are required to sign onto the septic system to get it started. She asked why 40% was chosen as the criteria value. Mr. Anderson explained that they looked at 40% as a minimum flow characteristic for the amount of sewage that would be flowing down the line which would not cause maintenance problems. He noted that higher participation would provide better flow characteristics. He stated that only the 40% who expressed interest would be required to hook up to the system. He said that no one else would be required to hook up unless their septic system failed. Councilmember Martinez asked if one neighborhood that meets all criteria would be funded, as opposed to other neighborhoods that only meet one or two criteria. Mr. Anderson explained that health and safety criteria would outrank any other criteria. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Anderson how they know when potable water is no longer safe in an area. Mr. Anderson stated that all City wells and Salt River Project (SRP) operated wells are tested. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that it was a good program, driven by the people who voted for it in the bond election. Mayor Scruggs directed Mr. Anderson to proceed with the procedure as he had laid it out. She asked that they ensure clear information is provided as soon as possible, both to the leader of the group and individuals, explaining the time table involved. She stated that, assuming this goes forward and the project is going to be done, they need to remember to implement Number 5 under Terms and Conditions and record this agreement with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office. Councilmember Clark asked what would happen if some of the residents who originally agreed could not afford the fee, resulting in less than 40% participation. Mr. Anderson stated that this was why they have a two-step process. He stated that if they actually had less than 40% participation, the project would not move forward and they would not start designing it. Councilmember Martinez stated that he wanted to speed up the process of notifying every neighborhood on septic systems and to extend the October deadline. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had heard no support for holding back the Hidden Manor neighborhood. Councilmember Martinez stated that he was not suggesting they hold Hidden Manor back. 7 Councilmember Clark clarified that it was Councilmember Martinez' desire to ensure that every neighborhood on septic knows that the program is available. She said that the deadline should be extended beyond October of 2000, allowing for response from those neighborhoods that were hearing about the program for the first time. Councilmember Martinez stated that his main point was, if other neighborhoods join in, the City would know how much money the program will need and it could all be done at one time. He reiterated that he was not suggesting that this particular project be delayed. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that all neighborhoods need to be notified of the program. He said he was in favor of extending the deadline for certain neighborhoods. Mayor Scruggs asked why October was picked as the initial deadline. She stated that it takes a great deal of time for neighborhoods to decide what they want. Mr. Anderson explained that the dates put in the procedure were budget process dates. He stated that there is some flexibility, maybe 30 to 45 days, that they could work with. He stated that this was a multi-year type project, with notification being the first step. He said that other neighborhoods will join in future years. Mayor Scruggs stated that she was not concerned with the October deadline unless it disrupts the budget process. Councilmember Clark stated that she supported Councilmember Martinez' suggestion for enhanced notification. She said that the October deadline will not make any difference because it is a multi-year project. Mayor Scruggs summarized by stating that they were moving forward with the Hidden Manor project and would enhance notification to everyone in the City. She said that they would work with Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, on the October deadline date. 3. GLENDALE ADULT CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer. OTHER PRESENTERS: Ms. Tammy Caraway and Mr. David Hunt with HUNT & CARAWAY Architects, Ltd., the architectural consultant. This item consisted of a presentation by the architectural consultant for the new Glendale Adult Center. The project site is the westerly 5.1 acres of the 14.2 acre site at the north westerly corner of Brown Street and 59t Avenue. Council approved the purchase of the site on May 30, 2000. The remainder of the site will be developed by the First Southern Baptist Church, which is relocating from its present location on Glenn Drive. The purpose of this item was to gather Council input for the design development and programming phase of the project. This presentation was intended to familiarize the Council with the project site and the proportional relationship of a 20,000 square foot structure, required parking, and the facility's relationship to the surrounding neighbors. The Consultant presented abstract facility use relationships in a "bubble-drawing" format. Implications and structural impact of a two-story resolution were also presented. 8 Upon receiving Council input, the architect will proceed with a preliminary design that will be brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Council for endorsement. The project calendar calls for completion of contract documents and specifications/bid documents to allow for bidding to occur during the Fall of 2000. That schedule would have construction commencing the first of the year 2001 . Construction of this type of facility generally takes nine to twelve months. Council approved the purchase of the project site and the professional services agreement with the architect at its May 30, 2000 Council meeting. A public forum effort is presently being organized by staff as part of the design development phase of the project. Multiple public meetings are planned. A meeting is planned, to be held at the Main Library, to gather public input from area residents and a second meeting to be held at the Library to present the findings/results of the first meeting. Additionally, a meeting will be conducted at the existing Adult Center to gather user input, and a follow-up meeting will be held to present utilization of the information. Upon completion of the public meeting process, the architect will proceed with the preliminary plans. The purchase price of $341,700, design fees of $242,500, and an estimated $3,000,000 for development costs are budgeted for this project. There are no additional staff requirements created by this project. The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Mayor Scruggs asked if the decision made by the First Southern Baptist Church to place its building between the City's parking and its parking was the Church's final decision. She explained that shared parking was a big selling point. She stated that this situation does not constitute shared parking. Ms. Caraway stated that she had spoken with the Church's architect and their preliminary plans indicate the building locations as she had shown. She said that they had not furthered any type of discussion or asked them to relocate anything. Mayor Scruggs stated that, while the City cannot tell the Church where to put its buildings, it was not in keeping with the representations the Church made to the City regarding shared parking. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there would be parking on the west side of the building. Ms. Caraway explained that the only parking they had indicated was a fairly small area located west of the building, off 61S Avenue. She noted that that parking was indicated primarily for staff. She stated that they were trying to mitigate the impact to residents. Councilmember Lieberman said he agreed with Mayor Scruggs that they would not be able to share parking with the Church. He asked if the entrance on the north side of the property would also be an entrance into the Church's property. Ms. Caraway confirmed that it would be. Councilmember Lieberman asked if plans had been made for a patio wall or gates to separate the two properties. Ms. Caraway explained that the properties would not be separated. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that a good walkway does not exist between the Church's parking and the City's property. He noted that the City would have 150 parking spaces, not many more than the 118 it currently has. Mr. Beasley agreed that the initial discussion included shared parking. He said that they could have discussions with the Church representatives about meeting the criteria for shared parking. 9 Mayor Scruggs stated that, although it meets the codes, it was not what they had envisioned. She explained that she had envisioned there being very convenient shared overflow parking. Mr. Beasley stated that they could go back and speak with the Church representatives. Councilmember Lieberman asked about scale. Ms. Caraway stated that they had not done the design plans to an engineering scale. Councilmember Lieberman explained that he wanted to know how many feet it was from the front parking lot to the entrance of the building. He stated that he was not happy about the Church's layout and suggested that the City go back into negotiations with the Church. Councilmember Clark pointed out that this is an adult senior center and seniors cannot walk great distances. She questioned why the staff parking lot did not include spaces for handicapped vehicles. She stated that the nodes in the old adult center created a natural sound buffer. She suggested that the auditorium and classrooms in the new adult center be split up in some fashion. She noted that the kiln and storage areas have been reduced considerably. She stated that a kitchen is necessary for cleaning up. Mayor Scruggs explained that the Council's frustration and disappointment over the parking situation was not aimed at Ms. Caraway or Mr. Hunt. She asked Ms. Caraway if she had met with the actual users of the center to assess their primary concerns. Ms. Caraway stated that they had a preliminary meeting with Ms. Coleen Dallmann, Parks and Recreation Supervisor at the Adult Center, and they had toured the existing facility. She said that she was given the impression that the nodes are confusing. Ms. Caraway showed the covered entry/drop-off area on the site plan. With regard to handicapped parking, she explained that her intent was to bring everyone to the same entry point. She showed where handicapped parking would be on the site plan. Mr. Hunt noted that they would be meeting with staff and a committee of users to start refining their program. He explained that they first wanted to get some communication and direction from the Council. Councilmember Martinez asked about the implications and structural impacts of a two- story building. Mr. Hunt explained that the impact of a two-story building is two fold - it costs more and it increases the square footage of the building without proportionately increasing the useable area. He said that he was told by a contractor they have used on other projects that it would cost $5 to $10 per square foot more for a second floor structure. He explained that the cost of a second floor could be absorbed if they had a larger building. He said that another consideration was how much of the site they wanted to cover. Councilmember Martinez stated that it was his preference that this facility be a multi- generational center. He said that a second floor could be useful should that addition occur in the future. He noted the lack of facilities for youth in the City. Mr. Hunt stated that, if the City was even thinking about a multi-generational facility for the future, master planning of the site was very critical. He explained that in a multi-generational facility, a predominate feature would be a gymnasium, which would require a large amount of space. He stated that, if that was being planned for the future, a portion of the 20,000 square feet shown at this time should be put on a second floor to allow for that structure. Councilmember Martinez asked if that would take away from the usable space now available for the Adult Center. Mr. Hunt stated that, in his opinion, it would not have to reduce the space. He explained that they would plan for today's use in such way as to allow for expansion. 10 Mayor Scruggs stated that, because of the tremendous growth in the senior population, they could end up needing two stories just for the seniors. She said that the decision as to whether they would go multi-generational or expand the senior programming would be made later. She asked if the current space available for seniors would have to be reduced if they go under the assumption that the center would be multi-generational and include a gymnasium in the future. Ms. Caraway stated they are already showing a 20,000 square foot footprint, and to add a gymnasium would take away parking from the existing site. She stated that they could be creative and get quite a bit of parking out of the space, but it would be a challenge. She said that the surrounding neighborhood's response to that type of facility also needs to be taken into consideration. She noted that the roof height which would be necessary to accommodate certain sports, such as volleyball, may exceed the zoning allowance. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his appreciation for the way the building is set on the site and for the parking area being located on the east side. He explained that having a large amount of traffic on the streets was the major concern expressed to him by residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. He questioned whether an old plan submitted by the Church was available and asked if the church had made any changes to that plan. Mr. Beasley stated that this was the Church's one and only plan. He said that, based upon what the City is now proposing, City representatives could talk with the Church representatives about revising that plan. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that a multi-generation center should be built at another location. Councilmember Goulet acknowledged the need for a multi-generational facility; however, he agreed with Councilmember Lieberman that this was not an appropriate site. He noted that a new facility will attract new people. He suggested that they build a two-story site, with senior activities conducted on the first floor and office space on the second floor. He expressed concern about the northeast entrance, explaining that some churches close off entrances. Councilmember Lieberman noted that his concept had always been to have a second floor. He said that there should not be a gymnasium because it would take up too much room. He said that he would like to see an outside elevator because it does not take any usable square footage. He suggested that the second story be built now because it would cost more to add it on later. He agreed that the second floor would not necessarily need to be finished, but the physical structure should be put in place. He agreed that the new building will attract more people. Councilmember Martinez stated that, although it would be nice to have one, he did not have a gymnasium in mind because of space limitations. He explained that if a second floor was built, it could be expanded at a later date to include youth services or additional services for seniors. Mayor Scruggs stated that she supported building a second story. She acknowledged that the architects are trying to stretch the building to match the $550,000 available each year. She said that they should not be economical in what they do to the point that it does not deliver what users need. She said that the City would deal with it in terms of whether they need to extend the payoff to twelve years or increase the yearly payments. She said that the City will not build another center like this and it needs to accommodate the needs of the seniors. She asked the architects to talk with the users to determine what they want. She cautioned them not to focus on aesthetics at the expense of functionality. She also suggested that they look at having a check-in desk 11 at the front of the building for security purposes. Councilmember Clark stated that she also supported the concept of a second story. She said that it was incumbent on the Council to develop indoor space for teen use as well and questioned whether some of the space could be used in the evening hours, when seniors are less likely to use the facility. She suggested that the center have lots of light and that a reading room be developed, with magnifying and audio equipment for visually impaired seniors. Councilmember Martinez agreed that security needs to be considered. He noted that everyone enters the City of Mesa multi-generational center by checking in at a reception desk. Councilmember Goulet noted that a magnification reader had been donated to the Adult Center a couple weeks ago. Mayor Scruggs said that she liked the covered entry and questioned if it could be made to accommodate buses and Dial-a-Ride. Mr. Hunt agreed that Dial-a-Ride is an important component in getting seniors to the Adult Center. Mayor Scruggs directed Mr. Hunt and Ms. Caraway to plan for a two-story building. She acknowledged the fact that they would have to have neighborhood support. 4. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN: RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN RNL DESIGN, INC. CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager. Staff discussed the process used for the selection of the consultant to develop the Downtown Master Plan. This project will update the City's previous Downtown Plan that was created in 1989 and amended in 1995. At the April 18, 2000 Council Workshop, staff was provided with direction to proceed with soliciting proposals from consultants, interviewing interested firms, and making a recommendation of the most-qualified firm to the City Council. The Request for Proposal was advertised and 14 firms that have successfully completed downtown plans in other communities (locally and nationally) were invited to submit proposals. The City received 5 proposals from teams of consultants. All 5 teams were interviewed by a panel, which was comprised of City staff, business organization leaders, and outside professionals. The panel included Mr. Ken Reedy (Deputy City Manager), Mr. Grant Anderson (City Engineer), Mr. Tim Quinn (Landscape Architect), Mr. James Holland (Planning Manager), Mr. lain Vasey (Redevelopment Manager), Mr. Don Rinehart (Chamber of Commerce President), Mr. Mo Stanley (Downtown Development Corporation (DDC) Vice President), and Mr. Dave Fackler (Redevelopment Director of the City of Tempe). 12 Following the interviews, the firms were ranked independently by the panel members and the scores were then compiled. Based on the proposals and interviews, the recommended firm was RNL Design, Inc. of Denver, Colorado. If selected, RNL Design, Inc. will be the lead firm and project manager, undertaking planning, citizen participation, urban design architecture, and landscape architecture components. They will have several sub-consultants working on various components of the project: Todd and Associates (landscape architecture), Elliott Pollack and Company (market analysis), Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler (financing), and Entranco (engineering). Completion of the Downtown Master Plan is expected to take thirteen months. The Council identified the goal of developing a Downtown Master Plan as part of the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget process and allocated $200,000 for the study. The Request for Proposal and interview process followed the City's established Materials Management procedures. As part of the Downtown Master Plan process, a comprehensive citizen participation plan will be implemented. This will include public meetings, visioning sessions, newsletters and mailings to residents and property owners, as well as cable television programs to inform the public about the project. An advisory committee, comprised of residents, business owners, professionals, and other interested stakeholders, will be created to provide additional input and assistance to the City in developing this plan. Staff will return to the City Council in September of 2000 to discuss the advisory committee structure. This contract is for an amount of $206,028, plus up to $10,301 for approved reimbursable expenses. The total amount of this award is $216,329. The City Council allocated $200,000 for this project as part of the Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 budget. The Economic Development Department has an additional hold-over of $16,329 in available funds from the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman reviewed a list of improvements, totaling approximately $20 million, made in the downtown area over the last eight years. He stated that he was against adding more improvements to the downtown area at this time, Noting that the 101 freeway will be the next growth area, he suggested that the money be spent in other areas of the City. Mr. Colson explained that they had established four objectives for the economic development program: the creation of quality jobs; the continued enhancement of retail opportunities generating additional sales tax; the creation of a vital downtown; and addressing under-performing properties. He stated that they did not view the activity they were proposing to undertake downtown as shorting the rest of the community. He 13 noted that they were in the process of dealing with the Western Area Plan and he stated that he did not see the two activities as mutually opposed to each other. Councilmember Lieberman explained that he did not mean to imply they were in competition with each other, only that it would be a better use of the funds at this time. He asked if they had $200,000 in the budget for a consultant on the 101 freeway project. Mr. Reedy stated that they had budgeted $375,000 for the planning project related to the Western Area Plan. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was still against the project at this time. Councilmember Martinez disagreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He noted the need to continue to improve on what had been done. He stated that he would support the project. Mayor Scruggs asked what the boundaries were for the plan. Mr. Vasey explained that the plan would include the entire redevelopment district adopted in 1989, generally bounded by Orangewood Avenue on the north, Maryland Avenue on the south, 63 Avenue on the west and 51st Avenue on the east. He noted that certain areas may have higher levels of study than others, but the whole redevelopment area would be included in the master plan. Mayor Scruggs restated, for clarification purposes, that they were looking at a long- range plan for a greater area and for purposes other than retail stores. Councilmember Goulet expressed his disappointment with Councilmember Lieberman's opposition. He said that they had a long way to go to accomplish what they wanted to do in the downtown area. He agreed that the western and downtown areas do not compete. He questioned whether the downtown merchants would say they were thriving and stated that he did not believe the community would want the Council to stop its efforts. He suggested transitioning out some of the industrial uses and creating living facilities in the downtown area. He stated that they had a recommendation on a firm that has a successful track record. He noted the importance of having citizen participation and suggested formulating a Citizens Advisory Committee to deal with downtown issues. Councilmember Clark asked when the General Plan for the western area was last updated. Mr. Reedy replied that he believed it was in 1989 or 1991 . Mr. Verburg agreed that it was 1991. Councilmember Clark stated that many of the comments made by the Councilmembers were valid, but identified timing as her main concern. She explained that they were just beginning the process of redesigning 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue and anticipated completing this project in 13 months. She questioned how those plans would impact the downtown area and change driving patterns. She said that, if she could be assured that the Council could get its portion of the downtown design study done before ADOT finalizes its plans, she would feel the money was well spent. She added that, if they were not finished and ADOT had already designed those streets, the Council would have to do another design plan in a couple years, based on the new traffic patterns. She said that she wanted assurances that what they were doing in terms of the downtown area would be relevant to the design of Grand and Glendale Avenues. Mr. Colson explained that one of their primary objectives was to have a comprehensive plan which takes all of the other activities into account. He said that they had talked to the Traffic Director and Engineering Department and were actively dealing with ADOT. He stated that one benefit to the planning process and the 14 committee structure was that they would be able to address those issues in a comprehensive fashion. Councilmember Clark asked if ADOT would inform the City of Glendale of its design concept and expect Glendale to incorporate it or if Glendale would expect ADOT to incorporate its design concept. Mayor Scruggs asked for a recap of what the public thinks it is getting. Mr. Beasley said that it was important to have something on record or else ADOT representatives could say they had no indication of what the City wanted to do. Mr. Colson stated that the most recent MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) study was started in 1997. He said that part of that study included a lot of public participation and resulted in funding that allowed for the eight intersction improvements to be completed by the end of 2007. He stated that, since the 591' and Glendale Avenues project would be the most difficult, they decided it needed to be one of the first ones planned. He said the traffic impacts of that intersection, as well as the crossover at Maryland Avenue, were considered. He said that, since they are now doing the planning work, they understand and can attempt to mitigate the impacts. Mayor Scruggs asked where they were in defining each intersection. Mr. Colson said that a number of public meetings were held to discuss the design concepts and ultimately it went to the MAG Regional Council and was approved with the City Council's support in May of 1998. He noted that, subsequent to that, a major investment study had been done. Councilmember Clark expressedlconcern about the western boundary of the redevelopment area being 63ru Avenue. She explained that the area between 63rd and 67t" Avenues is never included in any landscaping or redesign for either the downtown or western areas. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Mr. Colson stated that they would look at the State Statutes to see if they can adopt that area into the redevelopment area. Councilmember Clark asked for assurance that the City would not have to redesign the downtown area again, once traffic patterns are established at the Grand Avenue intersections. Mr. Colson stated that they have a total commitment to fiscal responsibility. He said they want a plan that is relevant, practical and achievable and they are making every effort to include the right people in the planning process. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that Number 3 in the Project Approach from RNL offers assurance that they would include all phases of the transportation study. Councilmember Clark stated that she interpreted this statement to mean that the City's design would incorporate ADOT's design into the downtown plan. Mayor Scruggs said that they were locked into certain things happening at the eight intersections because the public was expecting them to happen. She said that the City of Glendale cannot redirect what was voted on with regard to the basic format for each intersection, although minor modifications may be possible. 15 Councilmember Clark stated that she was concerned with the fact that much of the access to people living south of Grand Avenue is presently denied. Mayor Scruggs suggested providing Councilmember Clark with information as to what has occurred since 1997. She noted that the most important thing that was identified by Glendale residents was being able to move across Grand Avenue and not being able to go faster on Grand Avenue. She said that, as a result, they redirected their efforts toward dissolving the separation caused by Grand Avenue. Councilmember Lieberman stated that, if they were going to talk about the size and scope of the plan, he would suggest they go down Glendale Avenue to 43rd Avenue. Mayor Scruggs noted that it is necessary for the plan to stay within the designated redevelopment area. Mr. Vasey explained that an area has to meet a number of State Statutes in order to qualify as part of the district allowing them to study it. Mr. Verburg stated that discussions were held with the Economic Development Department regarding the expansion of the redevelopment area. He said that he would like to see the study that is used to accomplish include those areas mentioned by Mayor Scruggs and Councilmember Lieberman. He stated that he was confident the areas they were talking about would fit under the statutory criteria, but a study would have to be done first. Mayor Scruggs expressed the Council's majority support of retaining RNL Design for the master plan. 5. COMMERCIAL COLLECTION RATES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Hoyt, Director of Field Operations; and Mr. Robert Donovan, Sanitation Superintendent. The current commercial refuse collection fees for front-loading and roll-off bin service provided to commercial and industrial properties, which includes multi-family residential properties, have been in effect since July of 1997. In December of 1999, the City Council approved some minor adjustments, mainly for the collection of commercial recyclables. However, the primary rate schedule for the collection of refuse in steel front-load and roll-off bins remained the same. At today's Workshop, staff presented proposed commercial sanitation collection rates. Inflationary pressures have occurred during the past three years, whereby a general rate increase for the scheduled and on-call collection of commercial refuse is required. Staff recommended an overall average revenue increase of 4.9%. Staff has analyzed both the costs for collection and disposal for each customer type, as well as the market that the City competes in. The costs were analyzed by the size of the bin, the number of collections per week, and disposal costs for the generated refuse. Special services, recycling services, and minimum billing fees were not increased. The additional revenue generated with the recommended rate increase is estimated to be approximately $209,000. The recommended rate increase is an adjustment to the base. Customers outside the City limits will continue to pay the base, plus a 25% surcharge. 16 The new proposed fees will remain very competitive compared to other private commercial collection operations. Council reviewed the basic rate plan and related issues during the Sanitation Enterprise Fund review held from October through December of 1998. If approved by the Council, this fee schedule will be brought forward for formal adoption at an upcoming regular Council meeting, which will enable it to become effective September 1, 2000. Following formal adoption of the rates, customers will be notified by letter and news releases. The recommended rate adjustment will allow container service to break even on service provided to businesses located inside the City and make a small profit to offset residential rates on businesses located outside the City limits. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff direction. Councilmember Martinez questioned why the City of Glendale's rate was considerably lower than that of the cities of Mesa and Scottsdale. Mr. Donovan explained that they were trying to gradually raise the rate in order to get it to where it should be. Councilmember Goulet asked what the timeframe would be for the rate increases. Mr. Donovan stated that it would be done in $3 or $4 increments over a period of five-to-six years. Councilmember Clark asked if the City of Glendale's containers would be categorized by size like they are for other cities. Mr. Donovan explained that the difference in the City of Tempe's rates is based on the fact that they do not include the landfill charge. He said that he did not know why Scottsdale's rates were so high and suggested that, because Scottsdale does not want to be in the market, it prices itself at a level that limits its involvement. He explained that the rate differences in the City of Mesa are due to zoning charges for roll-off pulls. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Donovan explained that a roll-off would hold an average of 5 tons. Councilmember Frate asked for clarification of the fact that it would be approximately six years before the City of Glendale equaled the rates of the other cities. Mr. Donovan stated that six years was realistic because the other cities will continue to increase their price due to general inflation. Mr. Reedy noted that they do not compete with the other cities, they compete with the private sector. Therefore, he cautioned them against pricing themselves out of the market. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that there is an overabundance of landfills on the west side, which drives the price down. In response to questions posed by Councilmember Lieberman, Mr. Hoyt stated that the original Salt River Indian Reservation landfill did close; however, they developed a new landfill that is still in business. He said that other cities also have agreements with the Butterfield Landfill in Mobile, Arizona, although most of its waste comes from out-of-state. He stated that the new landfill between Buckeye and Gila Bend belongs to Allied Waste. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that it was the Council's consensus to go ahead with the increase. 17 6. RESOLUTION TOPICS FOR THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Paschke, Assistant to the Director of Intergovernmental Relations. Each year, The League of Arizona Cities and Towns (League) asks jurisdictions to submit legislative resolutions for consideration by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution Committee. From the legislative resolutions submitted, the Resolution Committee determines its legislative priorities for the upcoming legislative session. As Vice President of the League, Mayor Scruggs will serve as the Chairperson for this year's Resolution Committee. Proposed legislative resolutions can include changes to current laws that are burdensome or need clarification. Each proposed resolution must include a clear explanation of its purpose and effect, its direct municipal impact, and its financial impact (the estimated potential cost to cities and towns if the proposed resolution is implemented and the identification of additional funding sources if appropriate). The Intergovernmental Relations Department staff sent two notices to City of Glendale Department Heads, Mayor Scruggs, and the Council, requesting the submission of resolution topics. Four resolutions were submitted to the Intergovernmental Relations Department. The four resolutions deal with the issues of restoring the aviation fund, group homes, alternative fuel vehicles, and the preservation of military facilities. These four resolutions were forwarded to the Council for consideration and policy direction. All resolutions receiving Council policy approval will be forwarded to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution Committee for its review. In previous years, the Glendale City Council has submitted resolutions on a wide range of topics, including group homes, unfunded mandates and protection for Luke Air Force Base. The recommendation was to review the proposed resolutions for possible submittal to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Council indicated its support of the Aviation Fund and Military Bases resolutions. With regard to the Alternative Fuel resolution, Councilmember Lieberman noted that the large fleet sellers of trucks are not using propane or other conversion units; therefore, the trucks they purchased do not comply with the 1993 requirements. Council voiced its support of the Alternative Fuel resolution. 18 With regard to the Group Homes resolution, Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like to see strict regulations and severe penalties for not registering a group home. The Council stated that it supported the Group Homes resolution. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 19