Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/6/2001 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP February 6, 2001 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; Rick Flaaen, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Intergovernmental Relations Director; and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Relations. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Intergovernmental Relations Department staff discussed the most significant bills and their current status. This is the first legislative update of the 2001 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration. They were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations Department staff. Intergovernmental Relations Department staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. This item was presented for information, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. 1 Aviation Fund Bills Senate Bill (SB) 1251 (Tax Distribution; Flight Property) House Bill HB 2374 Aviation Fund Revenue HB 2369 (Flight Property Tax) With regard to SB 1251, Mayor Scruggs noted that she had repeatedly heard the Legislature cannot make a commitment beyond two years. She asked what the Legislative Intent section meant. Ms. Tranberg explained that the Legislative Intent section states their desire to restore the fund in future years. She said SB 1251 has been amended to only address Fiscal Year 2001/02, with full restoration being called for in 2002. She stated that legislative intent is not binding on future legislatures. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Legislative Committee called for in HB 2369 would supercede the State Transportation Board on decisions regarding expenditures of Aviation Fund deposits. Ms. Tranberg said the Legislative Committee would only make recommendations on those revenues still going to the State General Fund, not those that go into the State Aviation Fund. Councilmember Lieberman asked for confirmation that, under amended HB 1251, the full amount would go to the Airport Revenue Fund in 2002 and would not be split in the second year of the budget cycle. Ms. Tranberg said the funds would be two-thirds restored in Fiscal Year 2001/02, with full restoration in Fiscal Year 2002/03. SB1235 (Juvenile Group Homes) Councilmember Martinez asked if the spacing requirement of one-quarter mile was still in the bill. Ms. Tranberg said the bill does not specify one-quarter mile, but that they comply with local laws. Mr. Flaaen said the spacing requirement exists in the City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Goulet asked if local law can supercede federal law. Mr. Flaaen explained that the federal statutes addressing an issue take precedence. He stated that, absent federal statutes, state or local statutes take precedence. Councilmember Clark asked what objections were made with regard to the Fair Housing Standards. Ms. Rudibaugh said the two issues raised were that last year's bill just went into effect and should be given a chance to work and that the group home licensees felt the Fair Housing Act already covers these issues. Councilmember Clark asked if anyone had researched the Fair Housing Standards to determine if there had been any duplication of effort. Ms. Rudibaugh said her understanding was that there had not been any. She offered to obtain a more complete answer for Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Lieberman said he was concerned about the number of homes that were not registered with state and local agencies. He said he would like to see legislation that includes strong language regarding penalties for not registering a home. Councilmember Clark suggested that they model the language after the provisions 2 contained in the Rental Housing Ordinance. Ms. Rudibaugh stated the fact that there being three licensing agencies, each with their own definitions of what constitutes a group home, complicates the matter. She offered to meet with the different agencies to discuss the issue further. SB 1525 (Military Airports; Preservation) Councilmember Clark said she thought the signs that the City of Phoenix uses were great. She asked if the City could post its own signage in public rights-of-way if developers were reluctant to indicate that their houses were within a noise contour zone. Mr. Flaaen said a municipality is allowed to post notification signs. He noted, however, that he would need to work with the Council to determine if it was permissible to use specific funds for that purpose. Councilmember Clark asked what good it would do to provide information to the State Real Estate Department without a mandate that the Department issue the information to interested parties. Ms. Rudibaugh said, as a state agency, they do not like unfunded mandates and would be more willing to embrace the concept if money came forward. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark's suggestion of having the City put up signage. He said he believed money should be taken from the budget to do so. He asked if the 10x10x10x4 clear zones were included in the bill. Ms. Rudibaugh said the current draft requires compatible land use in the vicinity of the military airport. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the new bill would relax the notification requirements to those areas within arrival and departure zones and contours themselves. Ms. Rudibaugh said that was true for two of the bases, Luke and Davis Monthan. She said the other bases would just have the contour, with notification and information going to the Attorney General. Ms. Rudibaugh clarified for Councilmember Martinez that notification of a property being located within a noise contour would be much more predominant in the packet of information potential buyers receive. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that compatible land use was not defined. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that SB 1514 (Military Airports) from the 2000 legislative session had compatible land use as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation. She stated that since homebuilders would prefer to have the table in the statute this year, they were working with the military bases to find out what they deem as compatible land uses. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned whether second and subsequent owners would be aware of their location in the noise contour. Ms. Rudibaugh said they had met with the Department of Real Estate to discuss notice to people buying new homes versus people buying pre-owned homes. She offered to obtain specific information with regard to how purchasers of pre-owned homes would be notified. 3 Councilmember Frate questioned whether the Department of Real Estate could force homebuilders to post signs in their office so that buyers know up front that the homes are located in a noise contour. Ms. Rudibaugh said the issue was complicated, but she believed signs would be the best way of informing people of the effects of living near the Air Force base. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that realtors would not point out that kind of information unless a signature was required. Councilmember Clark said the current dispute between the cities of Tempe and Phoenix is forcing air traffic to approach Sky Harbor via the western part of Glendale. She asked if it was possible for Intergovernmental Relations staff to contact their Phoenix counterparts to find out what was happening. She noted that she had started receiving complaints from residents who live under the apparent new arrival path. Ms. Rudibaugh said they were attempting to set up that meeting. Mayor Scruggs said the whole issue was particularly difficult because the areas that are the most affected are not that close to the airport. HB 2393 (Workers' Compensation; Fire Fighters) Councilmember Goulet asked if any other emergency personnel assigned to hazardous calls on a regular basis were included. Ms. Tranberg said they had not seen any amendments to that effect; however, discussions about including other emergency personnel had taken place. Councilmember Clark asked if those who utilize chewing tobacco would be excluded in any way. Ms. Tranberg said that was not delineated in the bill. She noted that she would look into it further. Councilmember Clark said she believed firefighters who deal with HazMat situations wore extensive gear to protect them from the hazardous materials. She asked if the bill implies that the gear is not effective. Ms. Tranberg said she had no knowledge that the gear was ineffective. She noted that the occurrence of firefighters contracting cancer on the job was rare. She said the bill would protect the firefighters in situations where they are exposed to toxic chemicals. Councilmember Clark stated that firefighters should be responsible for exposure to hazardous materials if they were not wearing protective gear, especially if directives were given requiring that such gear be worn. She noted that the City invests a great deal of money in protecting firefighters. She questioned how they could relate cancer incidences to their work when they wear protective gear. Mr. Brooke Edwards, Fire Chief, said firefighters often wear their "turnouts" to a scene, not HazMat suits, and that a lot of chemicals are absorbed through the skin. He said a lot of states have adopted presumptive heart/lung disease for firefighters. He noted they have the highest rate of cancer in all professions. Councilmember Clark asked why firefighters do not suit up in protective gear since they do not know what chemicals may be present when they first arrive on the scene. Mr. 4 Edwards said part of the standard operating procedure is to wear a self-contained breathing apparatus before entering a fire, but HazMat suits cannot be worn in a fire because they would burn. He said a concern they had with the bill was that police officers who are often on the scene with the firefighters were not covered. Councilmember Martinez asked why police officers were omitted. Ms. Tranberg said she believed, since the bill was proposed by firefighters, it was drafted specifically as it relates to them. Councilmember Martinez noted that police officers are usually the first ones at the scene. He suggested that their inclusion in the bill be considered. Ms. Tranberg said the proponents of the bill were open to looking at expanding the bill, but to date, no language had been proposed to do so. Mr. Edwards confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that studies show firefighters have one of the highest rates of cancer in all industries. He pointed out the fact that many times police officers are not aware that they are going into a drug lab and have no protection at all. Mayor Scruggs asked if Council would like the Intergovernmental Relations team to talk with the proponents of the bill to add language specifically for police officers. The Council agreed. Mr. Edwards suggested that the bill be modified, to become effective immediately upon becoming a firefighter or police officer. He explained that firefighters and police officers can be immediately exposed to chemicals and that cancer can develop much faster than the five years specified in the current bill. He stated that physical exams given at the time of employment would be adequate to detect existing cancers. He explained that an incident report is filed any time a firefighter is knowingly exposed to hazardous materials. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that some type of documentation should be required to prove that a person was actually exposed to hazardous materials. Ms. Tranberg noted that firefighters would be covered prior to the five years as long as they met the six criterion. She said those working on the bill did not want to insure pre- existing cancers. She noted that, in the medical world, if a person who suffered from cancer was treated effectively and remained cancer free for five years, any recurrence of cancer would be considered a new cancer. Mayor Scruggs noted that the Mayor of the City of Surprise had asked her for a letter of support for this bill. She said she would send a letter of support, indicating that they would like it extended to include police officers who find themselves in similar situations. SB 1547 (Improvement Rights) Councilmember Clark said, based on their understanding of vested rights, the bill goes against concepts that have existed for a long time. She stressed the fact that she would not support the bill. 5 Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the term "vested rights" was misused and has different meanings depending on who is using it. Mayor Scruggs asked what the purpose would be for establishing vested rights and then terminating them after 18 months. Mr. Flaaen said the intent was to provide a limitation so that, in the event a developer did not exercise its rights within 18 months, any changes that have taken place in zoning, land use regulations or development standards would then apply to any subsequent development that occurs on the land. The Council indicated its consensus to oppose the bill. HB 2507 (Transportation; Noise Attenuation Barriers) Councilmember Lieberman asked if the bill would be retroactive and if the City would be reimbursed monies already spent on sound walls. He also asked if it would finish areas where sound walls were not built. Ms. Tranberg said the bill does not contain a retroactivity clause; therefore, it would not be retroactive for monies already spent. She stated that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) would be required to install sound walls in areas that currently do not have any. Councilmember Clark said the bill was too confusing for her to support at this time. She said the bill basically shifts the noise attenuation burden from the developer to ADOT. She noted that the bill does not address the issue of sound walls which the City paid for up front. She stated that, at this time, she remained neutral on the bill. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion ADOT should have paid for the City's sound walls. He stated that, because of the effects that the bill would have on the freeway system and Grand Avenue, he believed the Council should oppose the bill. Vice Mayor Eggleston said the intent of the bill was to force ADOT to plan noise attenuation walls as they proceed; however, he believed it may be too strong. Councilmember Lieberman said he saw some good in the bill because they are spending, and have agreed to spend, millions on sound walls to cover what the state did not. He agreed with Councilmember Clark that the Council should remain neutral to see what develops as the bill progresses. Councilmember Goulet said he would hate to see anything jeopardize the redevelopment of Grand Avenue and, therefore, he opposed the bill. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that ADOT did not treat the City of Glendale equitably. She questioned whether the money was available for ADOT to uphold its commitments. She noted that the majority of the proponents of the bill were from the City of Mesa, where the majority of new freeway construction is being done. She questioned whether money would be available for older freeways. She suggested it would be safer at this time to oppose the bill. 6 Councilmember Frate said he opposed the bill. 2. LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Hoyt, Director of Field Operations; and Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Deputy Director of Field Operations. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. Bryan A. Steerit, President of Bryan A. Steerit and Associates; and Mr. James Garvin, Project Manager of Earth Tech. The City of Glendale has a very successful landfill program and operation. The reason for the landfill's success is the willingness of the Mayor and City Council to spend time, over the years, continually reviewing the landfill plan. It is now time to bring a new long- range plan forward for Council review. The landfill is a major municipal operation and it is one aspect of city government that many citizens know very little about. The new landfill plan will do the following things: • Extend the life of the landfill. • Bring the City into compliance with new stricter federal and state regulations. • Allow for flexibility of the property after closure. • Enhance aesthetic improvements. • Allow for potential cost savings by using dirt from the current site. • Allow for potential partnering, which could create new revenue. The Council approved the original Landfill Development Plan in 1989 to provide development and operational direction for the Glendale Landfill. The plan identified major goals and provided recommendations for landfill design and management, environmental protection, landfill closure, and land use planning. The goals and recommendations have served as the foundation for landfill decisions since 1989. The plan currently needs to be revised to reflect evolving landfill development, regulatory changes, and emerging landfill technology opportunities. The four goals initially identified in the plan were intended to guide the landfill through the 1990's. The goals included: (1) protecting the environment and planning for future environmental requirement; (2) maximizing the landfill's site life; (3) maintaining cost effective operations; and (4) providing an aesthetically pleasing environment. The City has successfully achieved these goals since 1989. Numerous changes and operational improvements have occurred since 1989: • Required landfill design plans and operating permits have been approved. • An award-winning alternative final cover study was approved for implementation. 7 • Portions of the landfill nearing completion must be made ready for closure. • Flood protection structures and environmental monitoring devices have been constructed. • Residential, commercial and city-owned developments have occurred near the landfill. • The City has acquired additional land adjacent to the landfill. A revised plan has been drafted to reflect the landfill changes since 1989, and identify issues currently requiring Council direction. The plan is intended to be finalized following review of the issues and incorporation of Council directives. The draft plan encompasses the following actions: • Add the goal of maximizing flexibility for final land use of closed portions of the landfill. • Expand the capacity of the North Area of the landfill through excavation of a deeper hole. • Modify the current landfill permit and Solid Waste Facility Plan, as required by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). • Expand the landfill gas management system by July of 2002, per recent federal and state requirements. • Develop a landfill gas reuse project. • Extend landscape and screening berms to provide visual barriers to landfill operations. • Develop a bioreactor demonstration project in the North Area of the landfill as a means of accelerating decomposition of buried refuse and thereby reclaiming landfill capacity. • Develop a system to deliver effluent from the City's West Area Water Reclamation Facility to the landfill for use in irrigating landscape and screening berms, controlling dust, and accelerating decomposition of buried refuse through the bioreactor demonstration project. • Develop end use alternatives (non-irrigated or irrigated) for closed portions of the landfill. • Relocate the landfill entrance to enhance efficient and safe landfill operations. 8 The five key benefits of the proposed landfill development plan are as follows: • Landfill life increases from 28 years to 43 years. • Landfill construction costs per ton over the life of the landfill decrease 36%, from $5.50/ton to $3.50/ton. • The increase in the landfill's capacity increases opportunities for additional revenue. • The possibility of partnering with other municipalities and/or waste management firms is one way of bringing in additional tonnage and, as a result, increase revenue opportunities. • Potential end uses of the landfill site, once it closes, are maximized. The City Council adopted the original Landfill Development Plan in 1989. An Aquifer Protection and Operating Permit was issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in 1994. In 1995, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality issued a Solid Waste Facility Plan. Several citizen events have been conducted at the Landfill, the most recent of which was the Glendale Environmental Campus Dedication that included tours of the Landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility. This event occurred on November 18, 2000. This was the introduction and first review of a proposed revision to the Landfill Development Plan. All future costs associated with revisions to the plan will be funded from the Landfill Enterprise Fund. After the proposed landfill development plan presentation was completed, the City's Budget staff presented a short- and long-term financial analysis of landfill operations, based on the current design and the proposed design. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff direction. Councilmember Martinez asked if the 280 acres of buffer could be used for landfill. Mr. Hoyt explained that that land cannot be used for landfill purposes because it is in the 100-year flood plain. Councilmember Lieberman asked if it was BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land. Mr. Hoyt said part of the 280 acres is BLM land. He noted that most of the area is already mined out to approximately 40 feet. 9 Councilmember Goulet asked for clarification on the height of the power wires. He noted that the elevations of the current plan permits most passive recreational uses, while the proposed plan permits all recreational uses. Mr. Steerit said the Council would have the ability to select the grading of the site for almost any recreational use. He noted, however, that other site restrictions, such as the high-tension towers, would prevent certain recreational facilities. Councilmember Clark asked if there would be enough soil to do the daily cover on the north side if they used the soil from the 80 feet they now dig out for daily and final cover. Mr. Steerit explained that they would stockpile some of the soil excavated out of the north parcel for daily operations and future covering of the parcel. Councilmember Clark asked what the difference was in slope lines between the current and proposed plans. Mr. Steerit stated that the side slopes would not be used for recreational uses. He explained that one slope has a four-to-one slope and the other has a three-to-one slope, with a bench located approximately every 40 feet. He stated that the guidelines allow them to design at the steeper slope to reduce erosion, allow for better drainage and gas control and enable additional capacity. He confirmed for Councilmember Clark that they were proposing going from the equivalent of an eight-story building to a ten- story building. Vice Mayor Eggleston said the plan suggests that they dig down 80 feet on the north side. Mr. Steerit agreed. He confirmed that they would make it 20 feet higher overall, with steeper sides. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if it was more cost efficient to dig down rather than to pile more on top. Mr. Steerit said the difference would be shown in costs. He noted that it is much more economical to dig the hole to get dirt rather than importing dirt. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Steerit explained that they need 5.6 million yards of additional soil to meet the daily operation and closure needs of the current plan for the landfill Mayor Scruggs asked if any of the recreational area would be under the power wires. Mr. Hoyt said it would not be under the power wires. Councilmember Lieberman said he thought they used foam for coverage instead of dirt. Mr. Hoyt stated that they use foam for daily cover, but regulatory requirements require that they do dirt lifts every 15 feet. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they would have to put liners in to protect from water seepage. Mr. Hoyt stated that would be required by law under either plan. Councilmember Martinez asked why they could not extend into the south parcel. Mr. Steerit said that 5 of the 15 years which they gain with their plan comes from the slopes and deck on the south parcel. 10 In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Steerit showed pictures of what the final height and grade of the current plan would look like. He stated that they would barely see a difference between the current and proposed heights. He said the landscaping they would put on the site would buffer the benches and eliminate them from view. Councilmember Goulet asked if there would be a graduated effect for the terraces in the new plan. Mr. Steerit explained that there would be approximately four benches, one every vertical 40 feet. He noted that the bottom of the proposed plan is still 80 feet above the ground water table, which more than exceeds all federal and state guidelines for separation of landfill and groundwater. Councilmember Clark asked for an explanation of the percolation rate on the soil. Mr. Steerit said there would not be any percolation if designed properly. He said he was unable at that moment to say how long it would take, should a leak occur, for the water to reach the water table. He said groundwater is 180 feet deep at that location. Councilmember Clark asked when they would start building the gas recovery. Mr. Steerit said the proposal calls for the gas systems to be installed as the landfill is developed. Mayor Scruggs asked how much distance there was between the walls and the berm. Mr. Steerit said the easement was 320 feet wide, with approximately 300 feet separation between the walls and the berm. Mayor Scruggs asked how high the berm was on Paradise Lane. Mr. Reedy said the proposed berm would be similar to the berm on Paradise Lane, but located further from the houses, thus reducing the visual impact. Mr. Steerit confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the berm is high enough to block the view of the landfill. Councilmember Clark asked about improving the right-of-way between the fence and the road. Mr. Steerit said their project covers the landfill itself, and not the right-of-way. He agreed that landscaping in the street right-of-way would also enhance the view. Mr. Hoyt said that was a development issue and he would expect the City to undertake that project. Mr. Reedy said this was a capital improvement program that would have to come back to Council for approval. He stated that the Field Operations Division and the Engineering Department would work together to bring forward that kind of project. Mayor Scruggs asked if an estimate of what needs to be done and associated costs would be developed and put into the later years. Mr. Reedy said that would be done at the time the Council feels it is appropriate to interject the project into the capital program. 11 Councilmember Lieberman asked about the status of previous discussions regarding a park in the area, east of the monument along Glendale Avenue. Mr. Hoyt said that project could be done at Council's direction. He noted that the area serves as a flood retention area. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like to see that done. Councilmember Clark noted that passive recreation requires four feet of cover, while active recreation requires five feet of cover. She asked how many feet of cover the proposal incorporates. Mr. Steerit said the additional foot of cover on the entire landfill is approximately 400,000 cubic yards. He said the proposal provides for the additional soil, as well as some contingency. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. Hoyt explained that construction costs would be spread out over 43 years. Councilmember Clark pointed out that numerous advances had been made over the past 43 years. She questioned what advances would be made over the next 43 years. Mr. Hoyt said they were, in fact, proposing a new technology that might extend the life of the landfill. He noted that, several years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected the City of Glendale as one of its model solid waste agencies in terms of using good financial analysis for decision making. He stated that they were one of six agencies being featured in an EPA case study document on the appropriate use of low cost accounting and solid waste management. Councilmember Clark asked if they would have to finish the south landfill before moving to the north landfill. Mr. Steerit said that would be correct if it was done on full-scale basis, when the landfill is in operation; however, they are proposing to do the bioreactor pilot project on a small cell of the northern parcel in as early as 2002. Councilmember Goulet asked what benchmark they had to determine if the pilot project was successful and whether it should be expanded into a much larger project. Mr. Steerit said, as the plan develops, they will need to determine how best to get moisture to the trash and if they would be able to collect and re-circulate that moisture. Councilmember Goulet asked what the timeframe would be to determine if the project was successful. Mr. Steerit said they hoped to do the project over a two-year period. Councilmember Clark asked if the anticipated costs could change, depending on the results of the tests. Mr. Hoyt said Councilmember Clark was correct. He explained that they were presenting a forecast based on the current plan and using existing technology. He said a new economic forecast would need to be developed if the new technology is successful and Council decides to proceed. He stated that the biggest challenge of the project is to determine its economic viability. Councilmember Clark noted that Mr. Hoyt's department would have to pay for the effluent water, which would also affect cost estimates. 12 Mr. Steerit said the projections for capacity do not take into account the 15% to 20% additional capacity gained through the bioreactor project. He said, if they are able to show it to be a viable project, part of the economics and costs would be offset by the gain of the additional capacity. Councilmember Clark asked what the rationalization was for moving the entrance to the landfill at a cost of $800,000. Mr. Hoyt explained that the road and scale house area is ten acres in size and could be reclaimed to provide a considerable amount of air space that could be filled with additional refuse. Councilmember Clark expressed concern about having two competing types of traffic using one road. Councilmember Clark asked which department would be responsible for the cost of developing recreational uses on top of the landfill. Mr. Hoyt said other communities that have developed recreational uses on top of landfills have had their Public Works Department continue to maintain the gas facilities and environmental controls, but held the Parks Department or a private developer responsible for development costs. Councilmember Clark asked if the next Parks and Recreation Master Plan would take it into consideration should Council decided to put a recreational facility on top of the landfill. Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director, said it would be in the second five years of the Master Plan. Councilmember Clark asked if putting recreational uses on top of the landfill would be detrimental to the landfill itself. Mr. Hoyt said they had created a park on one of the test cells, irrigated it, and found that the moisture never went below three feet. Councilmember Clark asked if the $84.1 million includes a factor for cost overruns. Mr. Steerit said the projections include a contingency. Ms. Schurhammer noted that the projections were done in today's dollars and were not inflated for the future, when construction would actually occur. Councilmember Clark questioned the reliability of the figures, given the number of indeterminate factors. Mr. Hoyt explained that they would bring back a comprehensive update each year, allowing the Council the opportunity to make any necessary adjustments to the plan. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City has been putting a portion of the sanitation rates towards the south cell closure. She asked if the numbers reflect the amounts already collected. Mr. McClendon confirmed that they have been saving for, and should have, the south cell closure costs by the time they are required. He explained that the south cell closure costs are slightly higher because the new plan pushes the closure out into the future. Councilmember Clark said she thought a portion of the current landfill revenues were placed in a fund dedicated to landfill closure. She said she was surprised to discover that there were no dedicated funds. 13 Mayor Scruggs said they had recently needed large sums of money and some Councilmembers asked about contingency funds, one of them being the landfill contingency fund. She stated that all of the rate models they had been shown included a component for closure. She asked for clarification that the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) operations were being paid for out of the landfill reserves. She said she would be disappointed to hear that other operations were also coming out of the landfill closure reserves. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the tipping fee is the amount the City pays itself for use of the landfill, which is then collected through customer rates. Mr. McClendon agreed. He noted that the tipping fee would also apply to outside haulers and other users of the landfill. Mayor Scruggs asked why the fund would need to be restored if it was depleted by the closure of the south cell, the reason it was established. Mr. McClendon explained that they need to start building up reserves for the ultimate north cell closure. Councilmember Clark asked if a future rate increase, varying from $1.75 to $2.75, would be necessary regardless of whether they went with the current or proposed plan. Mr. McClendon said rate increases would be required because the costs associated with developing the landfill in either case have to be covered. He noted that the increases would be less with the proposed plan. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they had ever pursued partnering with the City of Phoenix. Mr. Hoyt said the City Phoenix had indicated an interest and talks were currently underway. Mayor Scruggs asked if the 5 million cubic yards of dirt that they did not know they would need resulted in there not being enough money to close the south cell. Mr. McClendon said, while that was part of it, the operating expenses and some of the programs supported by the landfill have contributed to the situation as well. Mr. Hoyt clarified that Mr. McClendon's figures do not include the cost for dirt. He said the draw down is on the startup of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF). He explained that the MRF was built on a regional basis to possibly serve other west side cities and, if and when those other cities come in, the situation would change. He said the figures assume that the City of Glendale is the only user of the MRF. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the cost of excavating the dirt was figured into the schedule. Mr. McClendon said the cost of excavation was included in the Landfill operating costs every year for Fiscal Year 2002-2011. Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification that there was an underestimation of soil needed for the landfill under the adopted plan. Mr. McClendon said dirt was not part of the proposed plan because it is available onsite. He explained that dirt and other costs associated with the current plan were contributing factors. 14 Councilmember Clark said she had read, and agreed with, the goals of the Landfill Division. She suggested adding a fifth goal to develop strategies that maximize the energy producing capabilities of the landfill. She said she supported the concept of a bioreactor because anything they could do to maximize landfill space should be researched. She stated she also supported the idea of getting a partner, if possible. She said she needed time to process all of the information and was not ready, at this point, to give consensus to move in a certain direction. She explained that finding out there were no dedicated funds for closure of the landfill bothered her and she suggested mandating that part of the landfill fund be reserved for closure. Mr. McClendon clarified that money for the closure of the south landfill was being accumulated, just not in a reserved fund. He said those funds would be used if revenues were not sufficient to cover expenses. Councilmember Clark asked how much was in the fund balance. Mr. Lynch said the approximate balance, as of June 30, 2000, was $17.8 million. Councilmember Clark asked when they had established the concept of reserving a portion of the rate increases for closure of the south landfill. Mr. Hoyt stated that they had talked about a solid waste facility reserve during discussions for the 1989 plan. Mr. McClendon noted that $2 million of that balance came from lease proceeds designated to finish construction of the MRF and $1 .4 million came from proceeds of bonds sold in June of 2000. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that enough money currently exists to close the south landfill. Mr. McClendon said it did, as long as a financing structure was adopted over the next five years that does not deplete the fund balance. Mayor Scruggs asked how much of the current sanitation rate goes towards the landfill reserve. Mr. McClendon offered to identify what parts of the rate go to each of the components of the Sanitation operating expenses and Landfill. He said the largest components are salary; equipment, maintenance and fuel, and landfill charges. Councilmember Lieberman said the individual increase in sanitation rates over the next ten years of $1.75 is much less than the 44% increase in the cost of living. Mayor Scruggs noted that individual rates would actually increase $2.75 over the next five years. Mr. McClendon said that represents a 21% increase, approximately 4% per year. Councilmember Lieberman stated that it was still less than half of the projected cost of living increases. Councilmember Martinez complimented the staff on their presentation. He said his initial concern regarding adequate money being available for closure of the south landfill had been addressed. He expressed his opinion that Council should not stop the process from going ahead. He pointed out that this was only the first review. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Councilmember Goulet thanked the staff for their presentation. He said he wanted to move forward with the proposed plan. He said he specifically liked the fact that the onsite soil would be used. He noted that the increase in truck traffic on Glendale Avenue would be a significant factor if all of that dirt needed to be trucked in. He said 15 doing an innovative pilot program, as suggested by Mr. Hoyt, was a smart strategy. He said he was comfortable that the money for closure of the south landfill was there, even though it was not specifically designated as such. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much they were paying for dirt from the freeway. Mr. Hoyt explained that they never actually purchased soil, but received some excess soil at no charge. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if any immediate expenses would be incurred. Mr. McClendon said the most immediate impact would be in Fiscal Year 2002, when berming and excavation costs would appear in the budget. He noted that excavation would provide the dirt required for the berming. He stated that, as a result of the plan, the total outlay in Fiscal Year 2002 would be $2,55 million, which reflects the costs of berming and excavation, as well as the initial phases of the bioreactor project. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification that they were talking about a $1.75 increase over the first five years, with another $1.00 increase in the second five years, for a total increase of $2.75. Mayor Scruggs clarified that the increase in the first five years would be $2.75, Councilmember Clark stated that it would result in a $3.75 total increase over the ten years. Mr. McClendon said that would be correct, assuming nothing occurred during that time to mitigate against the required tipping fee increases. He explained that the numbers do reflect a partner on the landfill side, but do not take into account any benefit they would receive if they secured a partner to share in the costs of operating the recycling facility. Mr. McClendon confirmed for Councilmember Goulet that the proposed increases would not put the City of Glendale at the top of the list in terms of having the highest rates in the Valley. He explained that the City is currently among the middle to the lower end in terms of sanitation rates. He said he believed the City would continue to maintain this position because cities that do not have some of the same benefits to their landfill operation will have larger increases. Councilmember Clark pointed out that they were only discussing one of the three components that make up a resident's water, sewer, and sanitation bill. She said, based on the information she had heard, water will also require an increase. She said the Council needs to take all components of the bill into consideration to see what the true impact on the citizens would be. Mr. McClendon agreed. He noted that they had agreed to come back to the Council with a very comprehensive view of the water and sewer situation, including their capital components, the effect of impact fees, and a full rate analysis. 16 Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that staff was asking if the Council supported the plan to increase the landfill life to 43 years, to do the bioreactor pilot project, and to secure a five-year partner, none of which would be paid for until Fiscal Year 2008/09. Mr. McClendon stated that Mayor Scruggs was correct. Mr. McClendon assured Vice Mayor Eggleston that they had the reserves currently required to close the south landfill and, under the proposed plan, it would not be drawn down for other purposes. Councilmember Frate complimented the staff on their presentation. He said he would hate for Glendale to be a city that does not have a landfill. He said he believed the citizens should be made aware of the money that the City saves by not having to transport waste to a facility outside the City. He stated that he supported moving forward. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that the City could do things cheaper if it did not care about aesthetics, but it is trying to make the facility look nice for those who live in the area. Mayor Scruggs stated that Council supported doing those things that will extend the landfill life to 43 years, doing a bioreactor pilot project with an assessment of the project being brought back to Council, securing a partner for five years, and making sure that money is identified for closure of the south landfill. Mayor Scruggs suggested having an Earth Day every year so that people can become familiar with the landfill and understand how it works. Mr. Flaaen informed the Council that he would be placing a matter that recently arose on the Executive Session agenda as an emergency measure item, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02 Paragraph J. He said the purpose of the item was to discuss legal matters, give Council advice, and have Council give direction to the City Attorney's Office. Councilmember Martinez proposed adding an additional item to the Executive Session agenda to determine if there was support for the Mayor and Council to send a letter in support of having the football stadium being located on the west side of the Valley. Mr. Flaaen said he would look at the item to see if it was an appropriate item for an Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 17