Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/20/2001 * 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 March 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, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. TRANSPORATION PLAN PROCESS UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Victor Assad, Chair of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI). The process for updating the City of Glendale Transportation Plan has been underway since November of 2000. This includes an extensive public involvement process in coordination with the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI). Presentations by staff and the project consultant have been given to several City Commissions and Committees. Additional presentations were given at twelve City Council district meetings beginning in January and ending in February of this year. The 1989 Glendale Transportation Plan must be revised. State Statutes require that plans be updated by the end of this year. At the City Council meeting held on October 24, 2000, a professional services contract to complete a Transportation Plan for the City of Glendale was approved. The Council recommended members for CACTI, which is composed of 61 Glendale citizens with varying interests in transportation issues. In cooperation with the City Council, Transportation Department staff and the project consultant have conducted two evening meetings in each City Council District. The meetings began on January 22 of this year and concluded on February 16. Meeting attendance by citizens has been very encouraging. 1 Results from a public survey were presented to the City Council on December 13, 2000. The survey identified that there was significant support for a wide range of transportation projects. Transportation Department staff has contacted citizens through a public involvement process which was initiated in November of 2000. Members of CACTI have met three times over the past three months, and three meetings are scheduled during March and April of 2001. In addition, public input is being gathered from a variety of other sources such as City Commission meetings, City Council District meetings, and citizen comments provided through the City's Transportation Plan Internet page and electronic mail number (TRANPLAN C ci.glendale.az.us). Transportation Department staff has coordinated the Transportation Plan Update with adjacent municipalities such as the cities of Phoenix and Peoria. Participation by guest speakers from local and regional transportation agencies have provided expert information on a variety of transportation issues. The purpose of inter-city coordination and current information is to educate citizens and public officials on transportation needs, programs, and issues which will assist Transportation Department staff and citizens in evaluating the future transportation needs of Glendale. As a result of the Transportation Department public involvement efforts, staff has gathered valuable public input through a variety of methods. This input will be evaluated, summarized, and presented to CACTI members throughout the process. The information from the public will help guide the members of CACTI at future meetings, where they will discuss transportation options and funding issues. During the next phase of this process, CACTI members will develop recommendations for project priorities, funding sources, and the development of an election package for potential voter consideration in November of 2001. Based on the recommendations of CACTI, an election package will be prepared which identifies issues, priorities, and funding sources for preferred transportation projects for City Council consideration. This item was presented for information and review. Mr. Ernster asked for confirmation that the Council intends to continue the same level of transit support from the General Fund as is currently being provided and that new sales tax revenue, if any, would be used to fund new and expanded services. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much a half-cent sales tax would bring in annually. Mr. Johnson said it would raise approximately $17 million a year. Councilmember Lieberman said there are four miles between where Phoenix's rail system will end and its border with Glendale. He asked if there had been any discussions with regard to getting the rail system to Phoenix's border. Mr. Ernster said they had to make certain assumptions when developing the 25-year plan: (1) that federal support for light rail would be 50%, and (2) that a cost-sharing agreement would be worked out with the City of Phoenix to bring the rail system to its border. Mr. 2 Johnson said the City of Phoenix is also using the 50% federal support assumption. He stated that federal money is available in 2010 to bring the rail system to Metro Center; however, it needs to be determined if the money would be better spent moving towards Glendale. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the Transportation Secretary stated that air travel is one of the Transportation Department's priorities. He questioned how much would be appropriated towards that issue. He asked what percentage of the $17 million would go towards rail versus other types of multi-modal transportation. Mr. Assad stated that, although the Committee had looked at costs for improved bus service, streets and transit, it had not taken a final vote. Councilmember Lieberman requested that the Committee provide percentage figures on these items when they come back to Council. Mr. Ernster said they were looking at percentages of approximately 60% for transportation/transit services, 30% for street projects, and 10% for other forms of transportation. He admitted that those percentages would probably change by the time they came back to the Council. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that other communities wanting to connect to Phoenix's light rail system would have to help absorb some of the costs of bringing the system to Phoenix's border. Mr. Johnson stated that a formal policy had not been set; however, the Cities of Tempe, Mesa, and Phoenix are paying for the 20-mile starter corridor. Therefore, the need to have other communities make contributions had been discussed. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that there are two different costs involved: (1) the cost of the miles necessary to bring the system to Glendale and (2) the cost of the maintenance yards and terminals. Mr. Johnson explained that there was a capital cost to build the yard, which all participants would be able to use. Councilmember Clark asked if the 60% of federal funds earmarked for transit includes both light rail and bus service. She also asked if they intended to break the 60% down, to show how much of it would be devoted to each service. Mr. Ernster said it is broken down to that level of detail. He noted that specific funding is identified in the plan for Dial-A-Ride expansion, bus route expansion, bus stops, and so forth. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Assad what the ranking order of items in the 25-year plan was. He also questioned the City of Phoenix's commitment to the route it had identified. He asked what would happen if the route changed. Mr. Assad said the Committee had not addressed the issue of the City of Phoenix changing its route. He stated that they had looked at various transportation issues and their associated costs and determined that the City of Glendale needs to have a multi-modal system. Councilmember Goulet asked if the rank order would determine the amount of funding raised. Mr. Assad stated that they had not used rank order, but rather had looked at the recommendations for streets, transit, and other services and the costs associated with those elements. Councilmember Goulet stated that he was not opposed to a multi- modal approach; however, at some point, the Committee will need to look at priorities. Mr. Ernster stated that many of the priorities will be driven by the fact that, in the early years, there will be a number of projects that voters will expect to see happen quickly. 3 Mr. Book noted that they did a major investment study in joint partnership with the City of Phoenix. Therefore, they do have some level of assurance that the City of Phoenix believes the corridor is viable. He said the City of Glendale may need to provide the City of Phoenix with seed money to make going to Glendale a more attractive alternative than going to MetroCenter or up the Squaw Peak Parkway. He pointed out that the Federal Transit Authority has always said that federal money being provided for light rail transit in the Valley is a regional funding source; therefore, as cities come on board, they are entitled to that regional funding source. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Assad to further describe the election package. Mr. Assad said they had not formally addressed the package, but, in their discussions, they had talked about including information they felt the voters should understand about the plan and how the half-cent tax would be spent. Mr. Johnson said they had looked at a specific listing of projects, a specific listing of funding sources, and assurances of how the money would be used to get voters what they expect. Mr. Ernster clarified for Councilmember Frate that they needed to know if the Council still wanted to contribute the $1.5 million of General Fund money towards transit services if the new sales tax does, in fact, generate $17 million. Mr. McClendon confirmed that, on an ongoing basis, they contribute approximately $1.18 million. He noted that they also get $1.2 million in lottery money. He said that, although the lottery money would continue, it would never increase because it is a capped-revenue source. He said there are two views on the General Fund contributions. The first view is to continue to contribute, using the additional money to improve and expand services, and the second view is to redirect the General Fund revenue to other needs. He said they currently contribute $1.18 million because the cost of delivering the services exceeds dedicated revenue sources. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the Council decided at the Budget Workshops to start building additional funds out of the General Fund to replace the RPTA (Regional Public Transportation Authority) money. Mr. McClendon said that was correct and it was a way of closing the gap should they not be able to come up with another revenue source. He estimated the value of the services received from the RPTA to be $1 million annually. Councilmember Martinez asked if the funding package would be voted on by project or as a whole. Mr. Johnson said their concept was to have the list of projects approved as a whole. Councilmember Clark said, since sales taxes generally increase over the life of the tax, they were looking at a base figure of $17 million. She said she had a problem with paying the City of Phoenix to bring the rail system to its border. She asked if the City of Glendale would then expect the City of Peoria to assist in bring the system to Glendale's border. She expressed her opinion it would be in the City's best interest to shift the General Fund portion of their transit contributions into the sales tax appropriation. She explained that she would prefer the sales tax, a dedicated source 4 for all transit needs, rather than relying on annual appropriations from the General Fund. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the cost of rail goes up if the sales tax goes up due to inflation. Mayor Scruggs pointed out they were also paying to operate the system and those costs would probably increase at a rate equal to the increase in sales tax. Mr. Ernster agreed. He stated that Finance, staff from the Budget and Transportation Departments have been working closely on a very complex financing model. Mayor Scruggs asked staff and CACTI to look at what they could tell voters with regard to what would happen to the money they pay in sales tax should the City of Glendale be unable to complete the light rail component. She asked if the 25-year plan means they are planning transportation needs for 25 years or that CACTI is recommending a sales tax that expires in 25 years. Mr. Ernster explained that the projects identified to this point actually extend out 25 years. He stated that the tax would continue indefinitely. Mayor Scruggs asked if they would have to go through another mayor investment study if the City of Phoenix extended its system to Metro Center, and the City of Glendale decided to hook to that system from Olive Avenue. She also asked if the City of Glendale would define the light rail route before bringing it to the voters. Mr. Johnson said, since the route is part of the regional plan, additional studies would have to be done if the route used to connect to Phoenix's system changed. He explained that they placed the route in the Glendale corridor, which can be several blocks wide, and not necessarily on Glendale Avenue. He confirmed that the voters would be voting on a specific route. He stated, however, that because the plan is for 25 years, mechanisms need to be in place to make minor changes to the plan. Councilmember Clark said the City of Phoenix made an attempt to change its route and it caused a lot of problems. She said the voters have to be able to rely on the proposed route and, if a mechanism for change is created, she would suggest they indicate how and what that mechanism would be. Councilmember Frate pointed out that, since voters who do not like one aspect could vote against the whole package, they have to prioritize the items. He said big improvements would have to be made to the Dial-A-Ride service and bus pullouts before voters would even consider light rail. Mr. Ernster agreed. He stated that one of the things that made the City of Phoenix process successful was that, when they went to the voters, the ballot included a map so voters knew exactly what they would be getting. He said the City of Glendale is using the City of Phoenix as its model. Councilmember Frate said voters in Glendale would not support the package if it was presented in any other way. Councilmember Goulet asked what percentage of relief they expected through the implementation of a multi-modal plan. 5 Mayor Scruggs said they also need to factor in population increases. Mr. Johnson said some of the money would go towards intersection improvements and transit improvements. He stated that, although light rail was being discussed, Glendale would have to maintain its existing service and match Phoenix's bus service. He said it would be difficult to estimate the percentage of relief they could expect. Mr. Assad noted that CACTI had discussed the issue of congestion relief in terms of how to obtain effective management of bus routes and streets. He recommended that their plan for an increased number of buses be changed as time goes by. Councilmember Martinez asked if the map being sent to the voters would show a date when the City expects to tie into Phoenix's light rail. Mr. Johnson explained that their models include every detail of the plan. He noted that this type of information should not be included on the ballot. He said the ballot would include general statements and time frames of when improvements would be done. Councilmember Clark said general statements of when improvements would occur would not give voters the level of assurance they are looking for. She questioned whether a series of maps could be used, one for streets, one for bus routes, one for the proposed light rail line, and so forth. She suggested that the City of Glendale revisit the light rail issue with the City of Phoenix to obtain some kind of assurance concerning the route before taking it before the voters. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City of Phoenix showed the route going to Glendale on its map. Mr. Johnson explained that the map showed specific projects, with a number of other lines, indicating possible expansion routes, one of which was an arrow on Glendale Avenue pointing towards the City of Glendale. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the City needs some level of assurance from the City of Phoenix before asking the voters to support the issue. Mayor Scruggs stated her belief that Glendale Avenue was of more interest to the City of Glendale than the City of Phoenix. She said she doubted that the City of Phoenix would be willing to put its intention to build a line along Glendale Avenue in writing. Councilmember Clark noted that, when the City of Phoenix offered its package to the voters, they touted it as being the backbone of a regional system. Mr. Johnson agreed with Councilmember Clark. Mayor Scruggs clarified her position that she had not seen any indication on the part of the City of Phoenix that putting light rail along Glendale Avenue was of any consequence. She agreed that they should ask to see if the City of Phoenix would provide a letter of understanding that it would build a line along Glendale Avenue. She stated, however, that she doubted the City of Phoenix would be willing to do so. 6 Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that lottery funds would continue to go to the Dial-A-Ride service. She said the question was whether the Council wanted to roll all other transit costs into the half-cent sales tax, removing them from the General Fund. Mr. McClendon said they had run the models showing the lottery staying in the transit fund, showing the RPTA money until it ends, and showing it both with and without the $1.18 in the General Fund. He said they found that they could cover the required expenses through that fund either way. Vice Mayor Eggleston said, if the package is successful, it seems logical to use the sales tax income to cover transportation needs and use the General Funds to cover other needs of the City. Mayor Scruggs asked if the $1.18 covers personnel in the Transit Department or just miles. Mr. Ernster explained that, since the $1.2 million in lottery funds does not cover the total cost of Dial-A-Ride and the Transit Department, it receives a General Fund contribution. Mr. McClendon stated that they do not designate where the General Fund money goes. He noted that the total cost of what the City provides exceeds available revenue by $1.2 million. He explained that the $1.2 million allows the City to provide both Dial-A-Ride and fixed route services. Mayor Scruggs asked if the cost for the dispatch center, employees, etc., would come out of another General Fund appropriation or if everything would come out of the sales tax money. Mr. McClendon said, if the Council so chooses, everything would come out of the transit tax. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the $1.18 million does not buy extra miles. He said it is used to cover all of the expenses associated with the Dial-A-Ride and fixed route services. Mr. Ernester said taking the $1.2 million out of the financing model changes the percentage allocated to street projects and other forms of transportation, making it less of a multi-modal plan. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in favor of leaving the $1.18 million in the Transportation Fund. Councilmember Martinez said he would support using the $1.18 million in the General Fund for other projects. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that an additional $300,000 was set aside in the General Fund to cover the RPTA funds they would be losing. Mr. McClendon agreed. Councilmembers Goulet and Martinez stated that they would like transportation expenses paid for out of the sales tax. Mayor Scruggs said there was Council consensus that all transportation costs, except those funded by lottery funds, should come out of the half-cent sales tax. 7 Mr. Ernster stated that they would present a complete package to the Council in May, including the financing model for the transportation plan, projects, and voter assurances. He said they would take the General Fund support out of the financing model. Councilmember Lieberman stated that this would take $2.21 million out of the transportation fund and he, personally, did not want to do that. Mayor Scruggs said the majority of the Council supported having approximately $2.5 million of the $17 million generated with the new sales tax go towards the services they currently have. Mr. Ernster stated that the final package would reflect the Council's direction. 2. TOURISM DIVISION OVERVIEW CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Paula Ilardo, Marketing/Communications Director; Mr. Connie DeCinko, Electronic Information Specialist; and Ms. Melissa Pope, Tourism Assistant. This was an update to the City Council regarding the marketing strategies and accomplishments of the City of Glendale Office of Tourism. The presentation summarized Glendale's product, positioning, research results and implementation, successful partnerships, regional opportunities, and potential market segments to consider. Staff also discussed the many different target markets or "tiers" that exist in the industry and what methods are used to reach those markets. Previous tourism media coverage was highlighted, as well as Glendale's domestic travel industry plan and advertising program. In addition, staff demonstrated how the office fulfills and tracks information inquiries and updated the Council on the progress of the new Glendale Visitor Center. In October of 2000, the Glendale Office of Tourism expanded to open the first Glendale Visitor Center, an official Arizona Tourist Information Center. Interested parties were notified of tourism updates bi-monthly through the Downtown Discovery newsletter that is distributed to approximately 350 downtown merchants and hospitality partners (i.e. hotels) locally, as well as press releases to local and statewide media. The recommendation was to review and discuss the tourism program and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Clark asked if they were listed on any major web directories, such as YAHOO or HotBot. It was stated that they try to list every single page of the site. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification of the meaning of 70% editorial. Ms. Ilardo explained that they write about different attractions and other cities that choose to pay to be included. She said the editorials also include lists of such things as accommodations. 8 Councilmember Martinez asked if a regional tourism effort would require that they enter into agreements with other cities. Ms. Ilardo explained that they would enter into some type of contract agreement, but that discussions with particular cities had not taken place at this point. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Ilardo if she was asking for support to approve the allocation. Ms. Ilardo stated that she was not, unless the Council agreed that they wanted to work as a group. Mayor Scruggs asked if they were looking for direction regarding the regional tourism marketing effort. Mr. DeCinko stated that they were already doing this, although some of the West Valley cities are not aware of it. He suggested that they make presentations to the other cities to let them know about the marketing efforts being done on their behalf. Mayor Scruggs said some of the West Valley cities have expressed an interest in a West Valley tourism effort. She asked if there was Council support for Ms. Ilardo to apply for Proposition 302 funding. Council members Lieberman and Frate expressed their support. Councilmember Clark stated that she also supported the application. She asked if any other entity in the West Valley was trying to spearhead an Office of Tourism. Ms. Ilardo said she had heard that WestMarc was interested in applying for those funds. Vice Mayor Eggleston thanked Ms. Stimson for her efforts. He expressed his opinion that it would be a great idea to apply for the tourist funds. Councilmember Goulet asked Ms. Ilardo if the Tourism Center promotes improvements planned for the area. Ms. Ilardo stated that she did not know if the volunteers know the details about such things as the Grand Avenue improvement. She noted, however, that the volunteers could be educated about those issues in the event visitors bring them up. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they anticipated having booths at various events, such as the Quartzsite motor home event. Ms. Ilardo asked for additional information on the event. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to move forward with the plan. Ms. Ilardo pointed out that the Tourism Center is part of the City's Marketing Department, whereas other tourism centers have to contract for their marketing services. She said this gives the Glendale Tourism Center access to various services, including three designers, the ability to make videos, and the Internet. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Ilardo if the City had discussed selling video loops to shops in Glendale. Ms. Ilardo stated they had not, but it was a good idea. Mayor Scruggs suggested having a video loop at the Civic Center and Councilmember Clark also mentioned the library. Mayor Scruggs complimented Ms. Stimson and the Marketing Department on the work they had done. 9 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. 10