Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/6/2001 * 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 March 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. Agenda Item No. 2 was heard first. 2. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Ms. Gloria Santiago, Neighborhood Revitalization Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Orrin Bradshaw, Chairman of the Community Development Advisory Committee. The Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) recently concluded an extensive application process for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds. The Committee reviewed 45 applications for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 CDBG funds and 3 applications for HOME funds. CDBG In Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the City will receive $2,104,000 in CDBG funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funds are allocated to the City to fund programs and projects that meet the national objectives of the program. The national objectives address programs that benefit low and moderate income individuals, projects that eliminate slum and blight, and/or activities that address an urgent community need. 1 All but 18% of the $2,104,000 entitlement will be made available to fund programs and projects that benefit the citizens of the City of Glendale. The $378,720 (18%) set aside will be reserved for program administration. Administrative functions include coordinating the application process, preparing performance plans, providing sub-recipient contract administration, and complying with federal regulations and CDBG program guidelines. Any unspent CDBG funds from completed programs or projects at the close of the fiscal year will be redistributed in the following year's grant cycle. The amount of CDBG funds available for allocation to provide programs and projects in fiscal year 2001-2002 will be $1,866,467. This amount includes $141,187 in unspent CDBG funds from prior-year completed programs or projects. The CDAC approved the redistribution of these funds at its December 19, 2000 meeting. The CDBG funding requests are separated into two categories - Public Services and Physical Improvement Projects. Up to 15% of the CDBG funds may be allocated to Public Services. The City of Glendale allocates the full 15% to these services which benefit seniors, youth, and victims of domestic violence, and provide programs to prevent homelessness. For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the 15% set aside will be $315,600. The following table is a summary of the requests. Fiscal Year 2001/2002 $2,104,000 Entitlement Public Physical Services Improvements Number of Applications 35 10 Total Funding Requests $762,090.97 $1,676,279 Amount Available $315,600.00 *$1,550,867 *Includes $141,187 of prior year funds approved for redistribution by the Committee. HOME For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the City will receive $551,535 in HOME funds from the Maricopa HOME Consortium. The Consortium is comprised of Maricopa County and all of the Valley cities, with the exception of the City of Phoenix. Maricopa County is the lead agency of the Consortium. The purpose of the Consortium is to oversee the administration of the HOME funds. Of the $551,535 entitlement, 6% ($33,093) will be reserved for administration of the program. The administrative functions for the HOME Program are similar to the CDBG program. The amount of HOME funds available for allocation to programs and projects will be $518,442. 2 HOME funds may only be used for affordable housing projects. Such projects may include first-time homebuyer programs and rehabilitation of single-family homes. For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the HOME funds available for distribution ($518,442) exceeded the total funding requests. The CDAC has elected to allocate the remaining funds to the Neighborhood Revitalization Division, as has been done in the past. The following table is a summary of the requests: Housing Rehabilitation Programs Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Entitlement $551,535 Number of Applications 3 _ Total Funding Requests $480,000 Amount Available $518,442 The City of Glendale has been receiving CDBG funds since 1977-78. Since that time, the City has received over $30,789,000. These monies have funded numerous programs and projects that have benefited thousands of residents. An annual grant application process is conducted to determine funding allocations for the following year. To begin the process, the Chairman of the Community Development Advisory Committee, Mr. Orrin Bradshaw, met with the Glendale City Council on October 17, 2000. At that meeting, the Council requested that the CDAC consider programs that increase affordable housing, clearance, and demolition projects and programs that benefit seniors and youth. The CDAC was recommending funding for the types of activities suggested by the City Council. On December 19, 2000, the Committee reviewed the City Council's direction and received the grant applications. On January 24, 2001, the CDAC held a public hearing for verbal presentations by the public service applicants. On January 31, 2001, the CDAC held a public hearing for verbal presentations by the physical improvement and HOME applicants. On February 5, 2001, the CDAC met to formulate their recommendations for Council review. An application-orientation meeting was held on October 19, 2000. A public notice, advertising the application orientation meeting, was published on October 5 and 12, 2000. The CDBG and HOME program funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG projects are totally federally funded. The HOME program requires a 25% match of non-federal funds from recipients of HOME grants. For those HOME projects that are administered by the City, this match is provided for in the Neighborhood Revitalization Division's General Fund budget. The match amount is $25,000. The recommendation was to review the funding recommendations from the Community Development Advisory Committee and provide direction. 3 •Niom aug i!eql uo meqspeis •JiAl pue aewwwoo eq paluewildwoo s66ruosAm •Hounoo et.fl Aq uen!6 Aeuow puny pieueoeq uawaiddns sdiaq qo!qm 'puny weio vole juawdolanea Anunwwoo eq Jo j argue s! pompoqq6!au eq mqi pawls eq s uo!lepossv pompoqq6mN eq 146noiqi palsenbaJ Alleu!6!io sum inq 'wei6oid dwieuped eql q6noiql ewe° pies o6e!lues •sit4 •Wei60.1d dwieupedeqj q6noiql wenn sdwei (samnqes!a qpm sueopawy) Vati pue smemarls oq J! wise zeu!pevl JaqwewHounoo 'ised eqi u! p!p Amp ueq Woad alOW 6uppeei Anuesaid eje swekaid aqi Ian pepu s66ruos JoAwl ieue3 iques eseueder eq pue JO1UB3 Anunwwoo empuelo eqi 'Jaw° unpv appuelo eq 1e pames em jsei ei pue woo Isom AeIleA VOMA eq l P8A-IOS em spew 1011 eq p MOS pies aH •vomA an iB paiedaid am spew e1eGai6uoo Ian paupidxe MBSPBJ iij swe.160.1d spairy ele6aZuo3 nnpy pue sleaqm-uo -wavy VOMA eqi Joj paeu eql U aseenu! lie ueeq peq eioq fl wise s66ruos JoAevi .pepuewwooei oupq sem mqm Jo! poddns s!(.1 pawls aH •sluawanoidw! pompoqq6pu p 6u!punj pue uogeJap!suoo siaell!wwoo eql JO uoRepaidde sq pesseidxe lainoo JaqwewHounoo •91q!ssod se suoRezpv6.10 Auew se Oj spunj alnqpIsllo oi pone ue se)pw eapwwoo oq an paupidxe •puewap 40 Kiss! LIB sem 1! pies o6egues •siAl •pepunj Ai,n4pu aleM `SOO!AJOS uogepodsueu Roads se Lions `swekoJd Jopas AqM paNse >pm Jequiewipunoo •suolmorlde ppm se suopoudde qinoA p Jaqiunu eqj ao!mi aleM aieql 'mai( s!qi 'pue uoReJap!suoo olu! speeu Anunwwoo aNel osie Aeql pies eq s •swei6aid qinoA pue iques qpq Joj uo!pap u9A!6 aleNt Aeql 'maA s!ql 'pue uoRow IeJeue6 uppo 01 Olfl U! nounoo Apo OL l qpm slam aapwwoo eLfl pies 06e!1ues •uoReindod iques eq spiemol spunj 40 uopoolp aqi Li! inqs e pamdplue eq 4! wise eqs .p!p Aaqi )IJOM eq U0 aelnwwoo aqi PUB meqspeig •JiN paluewydwoo NiBio Jaqwewnounoo We.160,1d slqi 0 spunj Aue amoolle 01 jou asoqo 1! `waiboid s!ql Japun eouels!sse Joj an6lle eq prom eppuelo Woad mej 1104 eawwwoo eq aoup 'lops OH •ewoq Jpql Annbe aqi uo peseq lueol e uppo 01 sieumoawoq SMOIIB 1! leg) peupidxe meqspeig •Jvi .wei6oid 96e6poini OSJO/teld eq 40 uoReueldxe ue J04 wise zeulpeini Jeqwewpounoo 009'91.C$ Peppi 'maA s!qi J04 'gown lueweiplue aqi p oi ewe ao!mes oqqnd eqj nw!I suoRein6eJ impel eq pauppxa ofieRues •sini •amenene sem Aeuow 4! 6u!punj 9.10W uan!6 IOU eJam lOeIOJd JiedeIy 6u!loold eqlPUB leouels!ssv Alum 'seopues uoRepodsueu moods Joj sIsenbeJ ao!nias ofiqnd all AqM paNse 9H •speltaid oi pamoolle IOU sem 000`0e$ Alemw!xoidde jeq palm zeu!pen Jeqwewllounoo 1. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Charlie McClendon, Management and Budget Director; and Ms. Sylvia Forry, Budget and Research Analyst The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) coordinates the financing of various capital projects throughout the City. The program includes City Council goals, a long-range evaluation of the City's capital needs, and a five-year financial plan to fund the most critical capital projects. The plan is balanced for the first five years and will not require any increase in the $1.341$100 property tax rate. The unfunded projects listed in the last five years will be re-evaluated in next year's updates. The CIP process was revised to provide the Mayor and City Council an earlier opportunity for input, discussion, and prioritization of the projects within the plan. Budget staff presented the revised process schedule to the Mayor and City Council at the November 16, 2000 Goal-Setting Session, the Council Workshop held on November 21, 2000, and the Council Workshop held on January 16, 2001. The Water & Sewer CIP and revenue bonds are included in the City-wide CIP; however, since they are funded through water & sewer rates, they will be discussed at a future comprehensive workshop session regarding Enterprise Fund issues. The recommended CIP has been reviewed by the Management Team, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Throughout the CIP public hearing process, public notices will be posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law and City policies. The Capital Improvement Plan, as presented for the first five years, is balanced to the City's anticipated revenues for capital expenditures, retaining the $1.341$100 property tax rate. Any additions to the plan will need to be accompanied by an equal amount of deletions from the plan. The recommendation was to review the recommended Fiscal Year 2002-2011 Capital improvement Plan and provide staff with direction. Airport Capital Councilmember Lieberman asked what percentage of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) funding would be City funding versus grant funding from the FAA and State revenue sources. Ms. Santiago said the City's share is 5%. Mr. McClendon stated that they have to budget the entire project cost because of State budgeting laws. He confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that 95% of the project cost would be refunded back to the City. 5 Councilmember Clark asked what would happen to the 95% refunded. Mr. McClendon explained the 95% refunded would go into Fund 34, Airport Capital Expenses, and all expenditures would be distributed from there. He stated that there typically are not any funds left over; however, if there were unspent monies, they would be rolled over. Mayor Scruggs asked if the project would proceed if Federal grant money did not come in. Mr. McClendon confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that they wait until they receive the money before beginning the project. Economic Development Councilmember Clark stated that fiber optic materials tie in with the business park infrastructure. She asked if the conduit has to be continuous in order to work. Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, stated that the conduit has to be continuous in order to make the extension. Councilmember Clark noted that there are a lot of unfunded portions in the Fiber Optic Backbone system, creating gaps. Mr. Book confirmed that those gaps would have to be filled in. Councilmember Clark pointed out that several essential connections are not even programmed at this point. She asked how the traffic signal computerization system would move forward if those connections were not made. Mr. Book explained that, although there are other options available to the City in terms of the traffic program, fiber optics is much more reliable and less expensive. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the three miles along Glendale Avenue, between 59th and 83rd Avenues, are the most crucial. Referring to Streets and Parking, Ms. Santiago noted that $1.8 million is funded in Fiscal Year 2001/02 and $1 million is funded in Fiscal Years 2007-11 for the traffic signal computerization project. Councilmember Clark asked if that funding would be for projects beyond 59th Avenue. Mr. Book stated that a great deal of 59th Avenue has already been completed and they have some grants in the future for more. He confirmed that they do not have anything programmed for the three miles from 59th to 83rd Avenues. Mr. Ernester noted that 83r° Avenue, Glendale Avenue to Bethany Home Road, the Foothills Library, and the Cholla Water Treatment Plant were already in the plan for Fiscal Year 2001/02. He explained that the Council still has to authorize funding in the CIP. Mr. Book said they had been selected for a CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality) grant for 2006 and would probably ask the Council to accelerate the 59th Avenue project. He said Glendale and Litchfield Avenues are not a high priority, but will be requested some day. He stated that Bell Road, from 55th to 83rd Avenues, is funded and currently in design. He added that this project also has a CMAQ grant for 2002. He stated that the problem with the Loop 101, 1-10 to 1-17, is that the outer loop from 1-17 down to Northern Avenue does not have conduit. He said they continue to apply for a grant and to make ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) face the fact they need to put in the conduit. Councilmember Clark asked if staff was hopeful that it would be funded over the next several years or if Council should plan on coming up with the funds. Mr. Book said he was optimistic that it would be funded. He suggested that Council look at advancing the project once it has been funded and look for reimbursement. 6 In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's questions, Mr. Book explained that they want the Loop 101 connection because the City can use it for its own needs, including the signal system. Councilrpember Clark asked if they were relying on developers to supply the conduit from 99t to 91st Avenues and 91st to 83rAvenues. Mr. Book said they initially thought they would do it at the time of development; however, they had an opportunity to get into trunk main projects that the Engineering and Sewer and Water Departments did from 96 to 83rd Avenues. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they could borrow any unused black cable from the cable or telephone companies. Mr. Book said they had approached those companies, but did not have much luck. He said they had gone into the trench with Cox Communications on a couple occasions. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the technology would be replaced with satellite communications in the next few years. Mr. Book said their research indicates that they will not regret using fiber optic with a hard connection. He said reliability is a major problem when you rely on airwaves. Park Bond Fund Mayor Scruggs asked how realistic the $1.5 million was for the Visitor's Center. Mr. McClendon said the $1.5 million was based on the assumption that the facility would be considerably smaller than the Adult Center. Mr. Smith said he was comfortable with this amount. He noted that they have some leeway so that changes can be made once user needs have been identified. Councilmember Martinez asked if the funds allocated for the multi-generational center were still adequate. Mr. Smith said they had contracted with a firm to assess the current cost of the project. He estimated the multi-generational facility to be an 18 to 24 month project. He said the cost per square foot had increased since the time it was put into the plan. Councilmember Martinez asked where the additional money would come from. Mr. Smith said they were budgeting the project over a two-year period, with $1 million coming on July 1, 2001 and another $1 million coming in the successive fiscal year. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the operating impact for the multi-generational west facility needs to be corrected. HURF Bonds Councilmember Clark noted that HURF (Highway Users Revenue Funds) bonds are different from DIF (Development Impact Fees) monies. She asked why monies were being moved from HURF into DIF. Mr. McClendon said, even though they are two different categories, they are used to fund the same type of projects. He noted that, if DIF monies are to be used, they must be for projects that are at least partially necessitated due to growth. Councilmember Clark said she understood that there had to be a connection between where DIF monies are collected and where they are spent. She asked if the City makes an effort to spend funds in relation to where they are collected. Mr. McClendon said the DIF study which was done last year treated the streets as an interconnected system. He said the fees were calculated and the nexus requirement was met, based on the philosophy that it is an entire street system. He 7 noted that street improvements tend to be needed in the areas where development is occurring. Mayor Scruggs asked if the new philosophy for impact fees on streets carries over to residential impact fees collected for parks. Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, said the latest study of development impact fees identified two separate categories, City-wide and zoned. He explained that approximately $364 per home is directed to Zone 1, 2 or 3 and used for neighborhood parks, while fees collected for open spaces and trails, City-wide parks, and facilities go into a City-wide fund and can be used anywhere. Councilmember Clark asked about parks in the central part of the City. Mr. Smith said the Parks Master Plan, which they will bring to Council on March 20, 2001, addresses the north, central, west and eastern part of the City. Councilmember Martinez noted that the new Adult Center is in the central part of the City. He stated that he still hoped they would add a second floor to the new Adult Center, which could be used for youth at some point in the future. Councilmember Clark questioned whether the area between Camelback Road and Northern Avenue, where there are few, if any, facilities, would be considered the central part of the City. Mayor Scruggs noted that the biggest problem with making the new Adult Center a multi-generational facility was the need for a gymnasium, which would have used up a majority of both space and funding. Mr. Smith said the user group at the Adult Center also preferred that it not be a multi-generational facility. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that it will be good to have a center dedicated to the special interests of the growing senior population. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Smith if the concept of a multi-generational facility was to have economy of use, with separate activities for youth and seniors. Mr. Smith said a multi-generational center offers activities for the entire family. He said the facility is flexible and can accommodate the different users expected to be there at particular times of the day. He stressed the fact that all of the facilities are revenue centers. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the centers require a lot of staff. Mr. Smith said the facilities would be run by recreational faculty and would use temporary employees. Mayor Scruggs said citizens will be surprised to learn that they will have to pay to use the multi-generational facilities. She stated that the Community Center, as it is presently used, fits the description of a multi-generational facility. Mr. Smith explained that the Community Center is still necessary because of demographics and density in certain areas. Mayor Scruggs asked what would happen if they built the multi- generational facility and no one joined. Mr. Smith said he did not believe that would happen because it is seen as the place to be and it has something for everyone. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what Red Mountain and other facilities charge. Mr. Smith said the cities establish the fees. He said they would conduct a study to determine what the fees should be and bring it back to the Council through the Parks and Recreation Commission. He noted that the City would offer a scholarship fund for citizens who cannot afford the fees. 8 Councilmember Martinez said it was his understanding that the facility in the City of Phoenix charges fees for activities that require special instructors, but other activities and services are free. Mr. Smith acknowledged that the Phoenix facility does not charge an entrance fee. He explained that each city determines its own fee philosophy. Councilmember Martinez asked if mentoring had occurred at any of the centers in the Valley. Mr. Smith said it had. Adult Center Relocation Project Councilmember Clark said, based on previous conversations, they may need more than $4.2 million. She suggested adding more to this fund in outgoing years if the City has additional bonding capacity. Ms. Santiago said they currently have a total of $4.05 million and the $4.25 million is in addition to that amount. Mr. Smith said they believed the new Adult Center, with the second floor shell, would cost approximately $8.6 million. He said, without the second floor shell, the cost would be approximately $7.5 million. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that those figures include all costs, including the cost of all equipment and furnishings. Councilmember Clark asked for a breakdown of the costs. Mr. Smith explained that the costs include $4.5 million for construction, $370,000 in architectural fees, $342,000 in land, $150,000 for the information system, $450,000 in equipment, furniture and fixtures, and $10,000 for moving costs. Mayor Scruggs said the cost of constructing the building comes to $115 per square foot. Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager, noted that the square footage of the existing Adult Center, if it was all under one roof, would be approximately 19,500 square feet. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the second story shell seems worthwhile. Ms. Kavanaugh said they would bring those options back to the Council after meeting with the neighborhood. She confirmed that they would have 30,000 square feet in the one-story building and would gain an additional 14,500 square feet with the second story shell. 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 were present to discuss the most significant bills and their current status. This was the third legislative update of the 2001 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration and asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations Department staff. 9 Intergovernmental Relations Department staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. This item was presented to the Council for information, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. SB (Senate Bill) 1504 (Emergency Telecommunications Tax) and HB (House Bill) 2625 (Tax 911 Service) Councilmember Clark asked where the bills were at the present time. Ms. Tranberg said neither bill has crossed over at this point. She stated that both bills could be passed and sent to the Governor, who would then decide which bill she would sign. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that wireless services should pay the freight since they create the demand. Councilmember Lieberman noted a recent article which stated that one of 911's problems, since the advent of cellular phones, occurs when an accident is called in numerous times and overloads the system. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the City has to learn to deal with cellular phones because they are becoming the preferred means of communication. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's support of both bills. SB 1105 (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) Councilmember Clark stated that she supported staff's suggestion to work with the sponsors of the bill to make it better. Councilmember Martinez said current laws require the investigation of any death. He questioned why a special law was necessary in the case of sudden infant death syndrome. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that proponents of the legislation felt adequate consideration was not being given to people who were going through this circumstance. She said they had not heard this from police officers and, if abuse is suspected, a proper investigation needs to be conducted. She said, the way the bill is currently drafted, police officers would not be able to do their job. Mayor Scruggs stated that the legislation seems to limit investigations of child abuse. Ms. Rudibaugh said it needs to be handled in a more delicate fashion. She stated that there would be problems if the bill proceeds in its current form. Councilmember Lieberman said he thought the proponents were wanting police officers to be trained in recognizing other forms of death. Mr. Harold Brady, Police Department Lieutenant and Assistant City Attorney, explained that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), by definition, is only at the end of an investigation, when no other explanation has been found. He said the bill intends to require law enforcement officers to be more sensitive to the issue and the people going through the circumstance. He agreed that there should be sensitivity. He stated, however, that attention needs to be paid to details so as not to overlook instances of child abuse. 10 Councilmember Goulet stated his hesitation in having non-law enforcement people tell the Police Department how to conduct its investigations. He said the intent of the investigation is to find the cause of death and he believed it would be impractical to try to legislate sensitivity. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Police Officers Association had given testimony. Mr. Brady said the Police Chiefs Association initially took a position in opposition to the bill; however, after numerous changes to the bill, its current position is probably one of neutrality. Mr. Brady confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the Medical Examiner's Office makes the determination of cause of death. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that additional training to help police officers more readily understand the cause of death, regardless of circumstance, would be helpful. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to work with the sponsors and try to re-write the bill. HB 2431 (Strike Everything Amendment: Chemical Reporting) Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the basic concept is good because people are exposed to hazardous materials more often than they are aware of. She said she would like to see another bill that would work brought forward in this area. Ms. Tranberg agreed. She noted that the Fire Department believes it is something that should be pursued. SB 1235 (Juvenile Group Homes) Councilmember Clark asked where SB 1235 currently stands. Ms. Rudibaugh said the bill reached opposition in the Senate; therefore an amendment was placed on it, which could pass this session. She explained that the amendment deletes the requirement to comply with local laws and the reference that they have to evaluate comments received from municipalities. Councilmember Clark said the amendment makes the bill virtually useless. She said, as a municipality, they have little, if any, ability to regulate the conduct of juveniles in the homes. Ms. Rudibaugh said the bill would require that notification be given to cities as to the location of group homes. She said, now that the bill is at the House, they will see if any provisions that were taken out by the Senate could be added back in. Mayor Scruggs questioned why new laws are necessary to deal with juveniles at the group homes who engage in inappropriate activities and aberrant behavior when such activities and behavior would be considered a police matter at a regular home. Councilmember Clark stated that one of the elements they lost in the amendment is the ability to have group homes follow municipal codes and other issues that integrate them into a community. Ms. Rudibaugh confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the inhabitants of a group home are held to the same standards as any other community member. Councilmember Lieberman clarified that Council was supporting all three bills on the distribution of the Flight Property Tax. 11 SB 1525 (Military Airports; Preservation) Councilmember Lieberman inquired as to he status of this bill. Ms. Rudibaugh said the bill changes on a daily basis and the current status was that the companion bill, HB 2602, would be heard on Thursday, March 8, 2001 in the House Military Veterans and Aviation Committee. She said SB 1525 would go to the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2001. She said the striker, the compromise language reached after numerous meetings with homebuilders and other interested parties, would go before the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, together with two amendments. Slee noted that the same language would be in the House on Thursday, March 8u'. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they could live with the striker amendments. Ms. Rudibaugh said they could. SB 1566 (Gun Shows; Instant Background Checks) Councilmember Lieberman asked if they were striking the requirement of a background check. Ms. Tranberg explained that the original bill failed in the committee, but the Senate has a rule that the committee can bring a bill back, even if it fails. She said they were proposing a strike everything amendment, which is essentially the same basic language as the first bill, except that the striker only applies to gun shows in public facilities. Ms. Rudibaugh noted that a failed bill in the Senate is considered a held bill. Ms. Tranberg confirmed that a background check through the Department of Public Safety would be required prior to the sale of a weapon. Mr. Flaaen confirmed that a background check would not be required at gun shows which are held at non-public facilities. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Ms. Rudibaugh stated that SB 1268 (State Regulation of Firearms) had not yet been heard. HB 2277 (Traffic Violation Penalties; Red Light) Councilmember Martinez asked about the status of HB 2277. Ms. Tranberg explained that a strike everything amendment was offered in the Transportation Committee, which retains the current fines for red light running. She noted that violators would be required to attend defensive driving school however the points would not be removed from their record. Councilmember Lieberman said one part of the bill that was struck, which the Council hoped would be retained, was the ability of a city to serve its summons through the mail. He said he supported the requirement that violators attend traffic school, but that the points not be removed from their record. Mayor Scruggs congratulated Ms. Rudibaugh and Ms. Tranberg for their work on the military preservation bills. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. 12