Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/20/2001 * 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 20, 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. DISCUSSION OF PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. La Verne Parker-Diggs, Human Resources Director; and Ms. Lupe Sierra, Employee Benefits Manager. The actuarial study conducted for the Employee Benefit Program last year projected the costs of the program for the next three, five, and ten years. The study identified the primary factors that drive health care costs and identified opportunities for mitigating future costs. The study recommended that the City evaluate strategies to better manage prescription drug cost since this is the most rapidly accelerating segment of the overall benefit costs for the City, as they are for most employers. The City's cost for prescription benefits has increased dramatically over the past few years. The increase in cost for prescription benefits has significantly outpaced the increase in enrollment and general inflation trends. During the past four plan years, enrollment in the medical plan has increased by 14%. By contrast, during the same time frame, in terms of dollars spent, the cost for prescription benefits increased from $694,900 to $1,288,000, or 85%. Prescription claims comprise over 25% of the City's total medical plan costs. In order to stabilize the rising cost of this large component of the benefits package, the Employee Health Care Task Force developed goals for enhancing the value and performance of the pharmacy benefit program. These goals were incorporated into a request for proposal (RFP) that solicited bids from pharmacy benefit management (PBM) providers. The goals were to: • stabilize rising costs; • maintain a broad access of retail pharmacies; 1 • maintain the excellent service of the mail order drug program; and • educate the consumer, physician, and pharmacist regarding best use of pharmacy benefits for enhancing clinical outcomes and cost management . A request for proposal was conducted for the pharmacy benefits services contract. Four companies submitted proposals to provide PBM services for the City's medical plan, beginning with the next plan year on May 1, 2001. The Employee Health Care Task Force recommended awarding the pharmacy benefit management services contract to AdvancePCS on the basis of its ability to meet the goals of the RFP. AdvancePCS has: • Excellent resources for providing patient education in disease management; • An extensive retail pharmacy network that surpasses the current network; • A quality mail order drug program; • Improved pricing for drugs due to its volume purchasing power; and • Excellent references for service standards. After the conclusion of last year's benefit renewal process, the Employee Health Care Task Force agreed to review alternatives to the current pharmacy benefit manager in order to curtail the increased cost. The Task Force agreed to a request for proposal (RFP) process for the fall of 2000. The RFP was conducted in November of 2000 and four companies submitted bids. The Employee Health Care Task Force conducted an analysis of the proposals submitted. On December 13, 2000, the Employee Health Care Task Force met to review the bids received in response to the RFP for prescription benefit manager services. A committee was formed to analyze the bids in detail. This committee met on December 22, 2000 to select two vendors as finalists to be considered for final selection. On January 16, 2001, the Committee interviewed representatives from the two vendors. The Committee conducted the reference checks. The Employee Health Care Task Force met on January 23, 2001 and agreed to recommend AdvancePCS as the provider of pharmacy benefit management service to the City. This proposal has the impact of reducing the costs for prescription drugs through better pricing and educational programs intended to educate employees to take medications correctly to prevent overuse, underuse, and misuse which can result in increased costs for doctor visits and hospitalization. The savings for this program, derived through more efficient administration and better pricing, is anticipated to be approximately $300,000, based on the current utilization and inflation trend. By curbing the costs of this large, fast-growing component, the cost for the overall medical plan will be mitigated. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. 2 In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Sierra said approximately 9% of the employees currently use the mail order service; however, they are now promoting the service and expect that percentage to increase. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why they could not require employees to use the mail order service. Ms. Sierra explained that some people want immediate access and some prescriptions are only needed one time. She said the mail order service is more suitable for people on long-term maintenance medications. She said some programs require that the mail order service be used for maintenance-medication prescriptions. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Ms. Sierra to further investigate requiring use of the mail order service. Mayor Scruggs recommended providing an escape clause if the mail order service is made to be mandatory. She explained that delays in the mail or a person who forgets to place his or her order could cause disastrous results if a prescription could not be filled at a local pharmacy. Ms. Sierra said she and her staff work with employees to obtain refills on an emergency basis. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City pays more for drugs obtained at retail stores. Ms. Sierra said the administrative fee for dispensing prescriptions at the retail level is higher than the fee incurred in the mail order program. She noted that the cost of the drugs is the same. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City would actually benefit by having people purchase their drugs at retail pharmacies, where they pay higher rates. Ms. Sierra said the employee, rather than the plan, benefits from the mail order service because the employee incurs a larger portion of the overall cost when purchasing drugs at retail pharmacies. Councilmember Clark agreed that staff should further explore making use of the mail order service mandatory. She asked Ms. Sierra how many employees use generic versus brand name drugs. Ms. Sierra said 40% of employees use generic prescriptions. Councilmember Clark asked who decides the co-pay rates. Ms. Sierra explained that the City of Glendale negotiates the benefits with the carrier every year and determines how much of a co-payment participants in the plan should bear, based on the overall cost of the program. Councilmember Clark asked if they could give employees an incentive to use generic drugs by slightly lowering the co-pay on generic drugs, while slightly increasing the cost of brand name drugs. Ms. Sierra stated that, although the prescription drug co-payments had been revised for the past three years to try to accomplish what Councilmember Clark suggested, it has not been enough to drive people away from brand names. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that several medications do not offer generic substitutions and some doctors do not believe that generic substitutions work as well. She said a lot more information is needed on the issue before moving forward to further penalize those who use brand name drugs. She said very little of the brand name use is employee driven. She questioned where the additional money would come from to offer an incentive to use of the mail order service. She asked if there was Council consensus to make use of the mail order service mandatory, to establish an incentive for use of the mail order service, and/or to establish an incentive for use of generic prescription drugs. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that some drugs are not available in a generic form. He noted that new drugs are patent-protected from generic substitutions for a specific period of time. He asked where the extra $16. difference goes when an employee uses the mail order service rather than paying each co-payment separately. Ms. Sierra stated that the volume purchasing power of the mail order program results in better pricing for the medications. Although the plan participants pay just one co-payment for 3 a 90 day supply, as opposed to three co-payments on the retail side, the lower cost of the medicine offsets the one versus three co-payments difference. The mail order program also incurs less administrative expenses, as they can stock huge quantities of medicines, which reduces shipping expenses. Because the prescriptions are filled by robots, they do not have the human administration expenses of the retail pharmacy, which range from the pharmacy clerks who call doctors' offices to the pharmacist who fills the prescription and counsels the patient. The robots have also proven to be more accurate than humans. Therefore, although the plan participant is paying more co- payments to use the retail pharmacy, the savings to the plan are reduced by the higher dispensing (administration) costs. In instances when employees purchase the lower priced drugs at the retail pharmacy, the co-pay pays a larger portion of the drug's cost, saving the plan money. (This is especially true of generic drugs.) Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that making the use of the mail order service mandatory would actually cost the City more money. Ms. Sierra agreed. She pointed out that another benefit to the mail order program is its increased accuracy when filling prescriptions. Councilmember Martinez asked why the City should require employees use generic substitutions when the employee pays the cost difference when choosing a brand name drug. Ms. Sierra explained that the cost of a brand name drug is significantly higher than a generic drug and the employee pays only a small fraction. She said the co- payment is not reflective of the cost of the drug. Councilmember Goulet said some people are more comfortable taking brand name drugs versus generic substitutions. He asked if the people who are responsible for checking for overlapping medications would be doctors or pharmacists. Ms. Sierra confirmed that the consultants working with the plan are all pharmacists or doctors. She explained that a pharmacist may refuse to fill a prescription if it is flagged as having the potential for adverse interactions or, at least, apprise the person verbally of the potential risks. She said the consultants would interact with a doctor if they saw they were prescribing the same medication on a frequent basis. Councilmember Goulet said being able to talk to the pharmacist is a benefit of the program and the City should not discourage employees from taking advantage of it. Councilmember Clark said she would not support mandating use of the mail order service because it increases the cost to the City. She said she believed they should continue to provide incentives to use or increase usage of generic drugs. She said those who must use, or wish to continue to use, brand name drugs may do so at an increased co-payment. Councilmember Frate said he liked the fact that AdvancePCS would monitor doctors and the educational component of the program. He said he supported the Task Force's recommendation. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that there are two lists of brand name drugs (a preferred list and a non-preferred list) and the drugs are moved on and off those lists at the provider's will. She said everyone who uses brand name drugs has experienced an increase in their co-payment, regardless of their plan. Councilmember Martinez asked if there would still be an increase in costs to employees and the City for the overall medical plan if recommendations made to reduce costs were taken into consideration. Ms. Sierra said she expected the cost to increase, but the recommendations would help significantly reduce the overall increase. 4 Councilmember Lieberman expressed concern with the length of time it would take to get prescriptions from Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Sierra said AdvancePCS and Walgreen's both give themselves a two-week period in which to deliver prescriptions; however, both usually deliver within three to four days. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he supported the Task Force's recommendations. Councilmember Clark said she supported the recommendation to use AdvancePCS. She said taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for prescription drugs. She stated that, as costs continue to rise, employees should shoulder more of the costs. Mayor Scruggs asked if all aspects of the medical, dental, and prescription plan were reviewed as a whole or if each aspect was reviewed separately. Ms. Sierra said they were reviewed separately because, at the time the committee reviewed the plan and made its recommendation, they did not have all of the information. Mayor Scruggs asked if the increased prescription drug co-payments offset higher medical premiums. Ms. Sierra said, since the drug benefits are part of the overall medical plan, increasing the co-payments would reduce the cost of the whole plan to some degree. Mayor Scruggs asked if, once they were given all of the information, the Task Force could be given the choice of where to place the burden. Ms. Sierra said they would have the final rates within the next week and they would be able to see the overall impact of adjusting the co-payments. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would be beneficial for the Task Force to make its decision based on the whole package and to be given options as to where to put the increases. Ms. Sierra said she believed that it would be. Councilmember Clark agreed that the employee Task Force should be allowed to decide which costs it was comfortable in mitigating. Councilmember Martinez asked if the committee had compared the City of Glendale's plan to those of other cities. Ms. Sierra said the City of Glendale's plan was comparable to other cities' plans. Councilmember Martinez cautioned against arbitrarily increasing the employee's burden just because it is a cost to the taxpayers. Mayor Scruggs said the Council agreed not to incent or disincent the use of generic drugs and not to mandate use of the mail order service or to provide incentives or disincentives for its use. She asked if there was Council consensus for having the Task Force look at the medical plan as a whole to determine where it would prefer increases be placed. Councilmember Clark said she supported the suggestion. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the committee would take the overall package into consideration when determining how much more the plan will cost. Ms. Sierra confirmed that they would look at prescription, medical, and dental costs. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Sierra explained that the plan renews on May 1, 2001, with open enrollment occurring in April of 2001. She stated that they need approval of the recommended pharmacy vendor and would continue to review the co-payments and overall impact to the medical plan when final rates are obtained. Mayor Scruggs directed Ms. Sierra to proceed with AdvancePCS as the pharmacy vendor and to have the Task Force further review co-payments as they relate to the plan as a whole. The Council concurred. 5 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer; and Ms. Kristine Luna, Property Manager. The Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church ("Grace Church") has requested that the City abandon 56th Avenue, between Palmaire and Myrtle Avenues, to accommodate its future church and school campus expansion. Grace Church does not anticipate finalizing its development plans for approximately two years, and does not expect to begin construction for approximately three years. The timing of the City Center development plan, as it may impact this request, needs to be discussed. The City does not want to abandon the roadway without some assurance that the church and school campus expansion will occur. Grace Church cannot obtain final plan approval for its expansion from the Planning Department without some assurance of the City's willingness to abandon the road at the appropriate time. The goal is tying specific performance requirements to the eventual abandonment of a portion of 56 Avenue. Issues of timing and utility service relocation schedules need to be addressed. The Council has not previously acted upon this matter. Staff has discussed the possibility of a development agreement to abandon the roadway with Grace Church representatives. The proposed agreement between the City and Grace Church will require that, before the City will formally abandon 56th Avenue at this location, the Church must, at its expense, have the following occur: • Relocate existing water services presently within the roadway; • Install a new fire hydrant on Palmaire Avenue to replace the existing hydrant presently on 56th Avenue; • Relocate existing irrigation pipes presently within the roadway or, in lieu of relocation, provide the City with sufficient evidence that all property owners currently served by such irrigation have formally relinquished rights to such irrigation. • Accomplish a formal lot tie of all Grace parcels along the west side of 56th Avenue, and provide evidence of same to the City; • Submit to and receive approval from the City for its expansion development plan; and • Any additional development stipulations or requirements imposed during the normal development approval processes. 6 At such time as the Church has satisfied all of the requirements imposed by the City, the abandonment request will be brought to the Council for formal action. Should the Church not perform, or should the proposed development or use of the property change in the interim (e.g., the Church sells the property to a residential developer), the City will not be obligated to abandon the road. There are no costs associated with the development agreement. The abandonment of 56th Avenue, between Palmaire and Myrtle Avenues, will be accomplished only at such time as Grace Church has satisfied all of the City's requirements and stipulations imposed on the expansion development plan as it is reviewed, revised and approved through normal planning and development processes. Relocation of existing utility services is one of the City's requirements and Grace Church will be required to accomplish this at its own expense before the abandonment request can be taken forward for formal Council action. This item was presented for information and review Councilmember Lieberman noted that Section 3.3 of the agreement states "The duration of this agreement shall be three years from the effective date first set forth above." He questioned whether that section meant that the agreement would end after three years, regardless of any progress made or only if construction had not started within that three-year timeframe. Mr. Anderson explained that the agreement is in draft form and that point would be revised to reflect the City's current agreement with the Church. He said the Council's desires would also be incorporated into the agreement before being brought back to the Council for approval. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for confirmation that the Church would have three and one-half years from the date of the agreement to complete construction. Mr. Anderson explained that the process takes three and one-half years, but construction would begin within two years. He said the Church desires to have a completed development agreement brought to the Council so that it can then present its plans to the Planning Department for review. He said they were looking for the Council's comments regarding the draft agreement and for some direction as to whether the Church could move forward or if it should change its plans. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that staff was also asking for Council direction regarding abandonment of the street and the terms under which they would abandon it, should they decide to do so. Mr. Anderson agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Public Safety Department had reviewed abandonment of the street. Mr. Anderson said the Transportation, Public Safety, and Planning Departments had reviewed the request and indicated that workable solutions could be found if the street was abandoned. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the Police and Fire Departments had signed off on the abandonment. Mr. Anderson said they had agreed that abandonment of the street would not cause a public safety issue. 7 Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that his department had looked at the plan and had no comments at this time regarding the desirability or appropriateness of the actual project. He said their only concern was that they are in the middle stages of the City Center Master Plan and addressing land use issues, economic feasibility issues, and traffic circulation issues. He said it was their preference that the City wait to address this issue until they get the results back from the consultants regarding the City Center Plan. He said they would have a better idea of how the issue would effect the Plan within the next two to three months. Councilmember Clark questioned what would happen to the Church's plans if the City Center Plan determined it was critical that the street remain open. Mr. Anderson said the current plan submitted by the Church puts the chapel in the middle of the road; therefore, if the road was to remain open, the Church would have to change its plan. Councilmember Clark asked if the consultants had been made aware of the Church's desire to abandon the street. Mr. Colson said the issue had been discussed and they did not anticipate any problems. He noted that he believed the process should be completed prior to moving forward on this issue to ensure that there are no problems. Councilmember Clark asked how long the Church had been working on its plan. Mr. Anderson explained that the Church has existed in its current location for approximately 40 years and has worked to acquire property for the past 20 years for the purpose of expanding its facility. He said the Church finalized the purchase of necessary lands over the past ten years; however, the plan submitted to the City has only existed for the last one and a half years. Mayor Scruggs noted that the issue came before Council previously and staff was directed to contact the Church and ask the Church to be part of the City Center Master Plan. She asked if the Church was, in fact, asked to participate and if it accepted the invitation. Mr. Colson said the Church has been part of the process. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Church would be comfortable with delaying the issue until staff reviewed the consultant's report on the City Center Plan. Mayor Scruggs deferred the question until the Church was brought forth to address the Council. Councilmember Lieberman asked for confirmation that a representative of the Church was involved in the City Center Plan. Mr. Colson said the Church had been included in the discussions; however, he was not sure of its actual role. He confirmed that the Church's position had been taken into consideration. Councilmember Lieberman suggested that a Church representative be made an official member of the committee. Mayor Scruggs noted that one issue refers to the formal lot tie of all grace parcels along the west side of 56th Avenue. She asked how many parcels that would be. She also asked if structures currently exist on those parcels. Mr. Anderson confirmed that structures currently exist on the parcels, which structures would be incorporated into one parcel to assure comprehensive development. Mayor Scruggs asked if the church 8 structures would be removed. Mr. Anderson explained that the intent of the Church Master Plan is to remove the structures on the six lots on the west side of 56th Avenue, with new Church facilities being built in their place. He said the timing for removal of those structures would be part of the development review process. Mayor Scruggs noted that the agreement does not indicate a penalty would be assessed if construction was not completed within three years. She suggested staff look into it. Councilmember Frate said it would be a good time to remove the alley bordering the properties along 56th Avenue. Mr. Anderson said, if the alley was abandoned, half of it would go to the property owners to the west and half would go to the Church. He stated that they would need to further review vehicle access issues and the public's need for an alley before making any decisions. Councilmember Frate asked staff to look into the issue further. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the outline of the current plan was different from the one he had previously seen. Mr. Anderson explained that the plan which was reviewed a number of years ago showed possible parking in the area to the west; however, the City has not moved in that direction. Councilmember Goulet asked for confirmation that the Church accepts any additional development stipulations or requirements that could be imposed during the normal development approval process. Mr. Anderson explained that the Church cannot proceed with its plan until the Council directs staff to look at a plan that utilizes the right- of-way. He said, once staff is given such direction, the Church can proceed with looking at all the other code stipulations and development review processes. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Colson if developers abstain from looking at a particular area when they know another developer has plans for it. Mr. Colson said he believed that to be true in this case. He said he and his staff supported the concept of a church because churches are good destination drawers and add to the aesthetic value of the downtown area. He clarified the fact that Mr. Lyle Koch is a member of the Citizens Advisory Group (CAC) and the Church. He said Mr. Koch has been active in attending the meetings. He stressed the fact that the Church's position was taken into consideration during conversations regarding the downtown area. Mr. David Clark, Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, stated it is their intention to remove the homes on the parcels located along the west side of 56th Avenue. He said the chapel, parish hall, and parking lot would be built during the first phase. He noted that this would include the street and everything along the west side. He said they had already gathered almost $1 million for the project and have written commitments for an additional $700,000. He said they were already given an offer by one bank and one other funding mechanism for funding the project. He said time was of the essence because, in the year 2002, the congregation will celebrate its 75th anniversary and that is their goal for groundbreaking. 9 Councilmember Clark asked how Phases 11 and III would be funded. Pastor Clark said they would be funded through ongoing gifts. He explained that Phase 11 would include turning the present church into a two-story office building, with adult bible study classrooms. He said the current parish hall would also be turned into a preschool. He stated that the third phase would include retrofitted improvements to the school. He noted that none of their buildings currently have air-conditioning. He said the building along 56th Avenue that currently has classrooms would be torn down and replaced with a two-story, six classroom building. He explained that this would provide more access to the property in case of fire and would improve the property aesthetically. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that Phase II was not fully funded at this point. Pastor Clark agreed with Councilmember Clark. He noted, however, that the Church was confident that funding would be available. He said their intention was to complete all three phases over the next five years, with Phases II and III being done as soon as Phase I has been completed. Councilmember Martinez asked Pastor Clark for his opinion on delaying the decision on this issue until staff has had a chance to review the consultant's report on the City Center Plan. Pastor Clark said he would prefer not to wait. He confirmed that a member of their congregation is on one of the subcommittees. He stated, however, that they had not been asked about the overall picture for the development. He explained that waiting will cause people to lose their enthusiasm for the project, thereby making fund raising more difficult. He said additional delays would also cost money. Councilmember Martinez said he understood the Church's position and asked Pastor Clark to understand staff's position. Councilmember Goulet asked what percentage of the footprint would be comprised of Phase I. Pastor Clark said Phase I represents 75% of the project in terms of dollars but, from a physical standpoint, it represents approximately 85% of the project. Mayor Scruggs asked Pastor Clark if it was their intention to match the architecture of the new structures to the existing buildings. Pastor Clark said that it was their desire to do so. He noted that their first church still exists on the property and it is their intention to restore it during Phase III to its original condition. He stressed the importance of staying at their location because that is where their roots are. Mayor Scruggs asked Pastor Clark how many total parking spaces they would require. Pastor Clark said they would need 128 parking spaces and they were currently working with the Planning Department on that issue. He said they believed they could get 102 parking spaces on the present property and they have had discussions with an adjacent property owner, who has expressed a willingness to sell the property to the Church, which property could then be used for additional parking. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he had talked to Mr. Larry Rovy, whose family owns two properties in the area, regarding complaints about the condition of the buildings. He said Mr. Rovy told him he was willing to donate the property to the Church for parking, but could not do so because the properties were not contiguous. Pastor Clark said staff had recommended that Mr. Rovy's properties not be included because of rules 10 regarding development of property in the Catlin Court area. He stated that they would like to include Mr. Rovy's lots, but not at the risk of further delaying the project. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he believed the plan was good and would be an asset to the downtown area. Pastor Clark asked Vice Mayor Eggleston if he was suggesting that they include the two lots in the plan. Mayor Scruggs noted that, since the Church cannot proceed until adequate parking is identified, including the two lots in the plan would not cause any delay. Pastor Clark explained that the two lots would not be considered contiguous because of the alley. Dr. Vanacour noted that the two lots are located in Catlin Court, which has different guidelines regarding parking lots. Mr. Anderson said Catlin Court is intended to be a pedestrian area. Councilmember Clark asked Lyle Koch if he told the CAC about the Church's plan. Mr. Koch replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Frate asked Pastor Clark why, if time is of the essence, the agreement allows up to two years for construction to begin. Pastor Clark explained that they feel time is of the essence in the sense that it is impossible for them to move forward until the City Council makes its decision on the abandonment of 56th Avenue. He said their plan has not been completed because it is difficult to work through parking, building height, and setback issues without knowing about the abandonment. He explained that, once they receive the Council's approval on the abandonment, they still have to work with staff on those issues, request bids, and have an architect develop working drawings before breaking ground. Councilmember Lieberman said he was in favor of the project. Pastor Clark noted that they also have to obtain a Special Use Permit for the school. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what would happen if the Council gave its approval and the Church found other issues to be insurmountable. Pastor Clark acknowledged the fact that other steps are required in the process and other issues could stop the project. Councilmember Clark asked if the proposed agreement and abandonment were contingent on other issues being resolved. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the draft agreement requires that the Church obtain a building permit within two years or the development agreement would be void. Councilmember Clark said she was comfortable with abandoning the street since the CAC was fully informed of the Church's plan and she assumed the CAC would have taken the Church's plan into consideration when they formed their plans. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the Council consider having Grace Lutheran Church go back and continue working on its plans, with a clear indication that the abandonment of 56th Avenue would fit into the City's overall plans. She explained that the Church would benefit by being able to proceed and the City would benefit by allowing the consultants 11 to complete the City Center Master Plan. She said the development agreement could then be drawn up, detailing particular steps that must be taken in terms of other pertinent issues. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Colson if anything had surfaced during their conversations that would indicate a problem with the Church's plan. Mr. Colson said nothing had surfaced and their only real concern was traffic circulation, which is already being addressed. The meeting recessed for a short break. Pastor Clark said they would accept Mayor Scruggs' suggestion and he asked for the City's help on the other issues. He said the Church strongly believes its plan is in the best interests of downtown Glendale. Mayor Scruggs said Mr. Beasley had offered to commit staff to the project to help expedite it. She said extending the footprint in any way could raise additional issues. She asked that Grace Lutheran Church be given two weeks to review the final development agreement before it comes back to the Council. She said she would like to see the final development plan by the end of May. Dr. Vanacour said they would put together a team and make sure the church is involved in finalizing the development agreement. 3. 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 was present to discuss the most significant bills and their current status. This is the second legislative update of the 2001 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration and were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations 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. 12 House Bill 2096 (Elections. Consolidated Local) Councilmember Clark stated that she did not support the bill because she did not agree with the premise behind it. She mentioned the fact that Page 7 of the City Charter states that the Council takes office in April, yet they currently take office in June. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that the Council should not support this bill. Mayor Scruggs confirmed that the Council would not support this bill. House Bill 2419 (Publicity Pamphlets) Councilmember Lieberman said he interpreted the bill to state that the City could, for the first time, take a positive attitude towards a bond election and advertise as such. Ms. Rudibaugh said it would provide an opportunity for pro and con arguments on bond propositions. Mr. Flaaen explained that, if the Council authorizes a publicity pamphlet, both pro and con arguments have to be included. He said the aspect of the City remaining neutral and not spending public funds to influence an election is still in effect and would have to be complied with. Vice Mayor Eggleston said the bill is intended to correct the problem of people sending in early ballots prior to receiving the publicity pamphlet. Councilmember Martinez said he thought it was already possible to include pro and con arguments on the publicity pamphlets. Mr. Flaaen said it is presently possible to include both pro and con arguments; however, the bill clarifies that, if a city supports a bond proposition and chooses to produce publicity pamphlets, the city is obligated to provide con arguments as well. Councilmember Clark asked if municipalities have always been authorized to issue publicity pamphlets. Mr. Flaaen said municipalities are not required to issue pamphlets and the bill simply provides for that possibility. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to support this bill. House Bill 1097 (Property Tax; Assessment Percentage) Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus not to support this bill. Senate Bill 1347 (Neighborhood Preservation) Councilmember Clark stated her support for the bill. She said she believed anything that could be salvaged out of the bill would benefit the neighborhoods. She noted the fact that any neighborhood in the state can apply for a portion of the $3 million. Councilmember Martinez asked who would conduct training for home managers. Councilmember Clark said the Police Department currently conducts crime-free, drug- free multi-housing training. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to support of this bill. 13 House Bill 2527 (Enterprise Zone Program Changes) Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to support this bill. House Bill 2277 (Traffic violation Penalties; Red Light) Councilmember Lieberman said he would not worry about the excessive fine because judges have discretion when assessing fines. Ms. Rudibaugh pointed out the fact that the bill stipulates a person in violation would be subject to a civil penalty of at least $250., plus surcharges, for a total of approximately $500. Councilmember Lieberman said judges are not held up for review on decisions they make regarding fines. Councilmember Clark asked if someone who could not pay the fine would be sent to jail. Councilmember Lieberman said service fees could also be waived by a judge. Councilmember Clark said she would not support this bill. Councilmembers Frate, Lieberman, and Martinez voiced their support of this bill. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Flaaen if judges have discretion with regard to fines. Mr. Flaaen said, while judges have some discretion, they are required to follow minimum fines imposed by the Statutes. He said, although a prosecutor could appeal to the Superior Court for a lesser fine, that is not typically done because of the time involved. With regard to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Flaaen said if a person could not pay the fine, it would go through a civil collection process, unless the person did not show up for the ticket, in which case a warrant would be issued. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to support this bill. House Bill 2347 (Firearms State Regulation) and Senate Bill 126LJState Regulation of Firearms) Councilmember Lieberman said he strongly opposed Senate Bill 1268. He said every registered gun owner and gun dealer received a letter containing six postcards, lobbying their position, which they were to mail to the various State Senators. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's opposition to these bills. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's request, Ms. Rudibaugh offered to report back to the Council on the status of House Bill 2278. Dr. Vanacour said a meeting would be set up with the gun lobbyists and he would report back to the Council once the meeting has been held. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 14