Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/17/2001 (5) * 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 April 17, 2001 4:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. WEST VALLEY CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT SUBCONTRACTORS' COALITION STATUS REPORT (WESTCAPS) CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Doug Kukino, Environmental Resources Director OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Harold Thomas, Jr., Director of the West Valley Central Arizona Project Subcontractors (WESTCAPS) The West Valley Central Arizona Project Subcontractors' (WESTCAPS) coalition was established in 1997 to undertake a five-year West Valley planning process to identify and evaluate options that will allow its members to use their Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. WESTCAPS was formed through an intergovernmental agreement and was designed as a study committee to develop technical recommendations, which would be forwarded to the individual WESTCAPS members' governing bodies for policy consideration. WESTCAPS is presently comprised of six West Valley cities/towns (Glendale, Buckeye, Goodyear, Peoria, Phoenix, and Surprise), three private companies (Arizona Water Company, Citizens Water Resources, and West Maricopa Combine), and the State Land Department. Glendale functions as the lead agency. Full use of Central Arizona Project water is considered essential to the development of the West Valley. While the cities of Glendale and Phoenix are utilizing their Central Arizona Project water, other West Valley water providers are still largely reliant on groundwater. 1 West Valley water providers are predominantly small cities and private water companies that do not have water treatment facilities that would enable them to use their Central Arizona Project water. WESTCAPS has prepared a conceptual infrastructure plan that identifies the type and size of water treatment, distribution, and storage facilities that would be useful in the West Valley. The proposed facilities and locations contained in the conceptual plan should be viewed as approximate, subject to detailed engineering studies, growth patterns, and political considerations. The plan in no way commits any member to any specific action. WESTCAPS has recently begun to examine the types of financing and organizational structures/arrangements that may be necessary to implement the plan. At this time, staff believes that the best approach would be for interested members to develop intergovernmental agreements with each other for projects that specifically benefit their organizations. Staff does not believe that there is a need to establish a West Valley Water Authority. WESTCAPS members are in the process of briefing their respective governing boards and councils on the progress made and on future planning direction. The Western Maricopa Coalition (WESTMARC) is under contract to assist WESTCAPS members in this process. Individual WESTCAPS members are not under any obligation to use WESTMARC to brief their Council or governing boards. On February 22, 2000, a general overview and status report of the WESTCAPS process was presented to the Glendale Council Utilities Committee. No formal action was taken. On April 22, 1997, the City agreed to become a WESTCAPS member and act as the lead agency. In 1997, Glendale entered into intergovernmental agreements with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for in-kind services and with the Arizona Department of Water Resources to obtain a grant on behalf of WESTCAPS. There have been numerous meetings among WESTCAPS members and with representatives from other key organizations, including the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and WESTMARC. The Arizona Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation view WESTCAPS as a model for regional cooperation. The WESTCAPS budget is $150,000 per year. Funding comes from membership dues and a grant from the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Over the past four years, 50% of the WESTCAPS annual budget was funded through the Arizona Department of Water Resources. WESTCAPS has received $300,000 from the State of Arizona over the past four years. The State grant will expire on October 1, 2001. The City of Glendale's WESTCAPS membership dues is approximately $11,000 per year. 2 WESTCAPS also has an in-kind service agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for technical assistance and studies. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided over $1 million worth of technical/professional work, infrastructure studies, and groundwater-modeling services. This item was presented for information and review. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City of Glendale has agreements with any other cities, other than Peoria. Mr. Reedy stated that the City does not have any water agreements, however there are several sewer-related agreements. Councilmember Goulet asked if any of the smaller cities were lobbying the City of Glendale to remain a member of WESTCAPS. He also asked when the other smaller cities will start thinking about their own water treatment plants. Mr. Kukino said smaller cities are part of WESTCAPS for the purpose of beginning the planning process. He reported that the City of Peoria is currently constructing a water treatment facility of its own. He stated that each city has to evaluate the cost of bringing water to its community prior to the treatment process. Councilmember Clark asked if each of the communities to the west would get an adequate supply of CAP water to meet projected demand. Mr. Reedy said there probably is an adequate water supply to meet projected demand, for a price. He explained that there are a lot of alternative water resources that could supply the demand and each community has to figure out how it will deliver the resources and what it costs. Councilmember Clark said, theoretically, the cost of delivering water to some of the outlying areas could make their projected growth plans unfeasible. Mr. Reedy agreed with Councilmember Clark. Mr. Kukino said the communities also have the option to join the Central Arizona Ground Water Replenishment District, which would then be obligated to replenish water used by the communities. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the City is supposed to guarantee a 100 year assured water supply. He asked how that would be affected if the City grows by 60,000 people over the next 10 years. Mr. Kukino explained that the City of Glendale has an assured water supply for its current water service area; however, they would have to come back to discuss the assured water supply if the service area expands beyond 115th Avenue. 2. RENEWAL OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLANS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. La Verne Parker-Diggs; Human Resources Director; Ms. Lupe Sierra, Employee Benefits Manager; and Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Research Director. The costs for the City of Glendale's medical program consist of administrative fees to the insurance carrier and reimbursement to Blue Cross Blue Shield for medical claims paid. The City's medical plan is an experience-rated plan with rates promulgated on the basis of the City's actual claims utilization. Claims utilization for the current plan year increased substantially over the previous plan year. Total paid claims for the 2000-2001 fiscal plan year increased by 28% over the previous fiscal plan year. Expenses for large claims, those with over $20,000 paid, increased over 200% from the previous fiscal plan year. 3 Blue Cross Blue Shield proposed an increase in the administrative fees charged to the City by 16.7% or approximately $185,000. (Administrative fees cover supplies such as identification cards, policy booklets, provider directories; customer service; the Blue Cross medical provider network and the reduced fee schedule negotiated with those providers and insurance to cover catastrophic claims that exceed the City's maximum liability of $125,000 per claimant, per calendar year.) In order to properly fund the anticipated claims activity and the increased administrative fees, a rate increase is required for the medical plan. A rate increase of 30.6% was deemed necessary to fund the anticipated claims activity and increased administrative fees, if no changes were made to the current plan of benefits. The Employee Health Care Task Force reviewed cost-saving options to determine the most viable option(s) for saving claims dollars and premiums. The Employee Health Task Force determined that the option with the highest potential for saving claims dollars and insurance premiums would be to increase co-payments on the prescription drug plan. Increasing co-payments combined with the change to a more cost-effective pharmacy benefit management company, AdvancePCS, reduced the rate increase required by the medical plan by 7.6 points, from 30.6% to 23%, for a cost savings of approximately $500,000. The City's dental benefits are provided through two vendors each with their own rates. The United Concordia (PPO) plan rates are increasing by 5% due to dental inflation trends. The United Protective (pre-paid HMO-type) plan rates are decreasing by approximately 8%. The reduction in rates for this plan reflects the elimination of the current plan of benefits and replacement with a new plan of benefits with increased co- pays for some services. The United Protective Company redesigned their benefit structure by increasing co-pays on some dental services in order to attract more dentists into their network of contracted providers. The impact of the rate changes of these two plans is an increase of approximately $33,000 in the dental program. Rates for the vision, life insurance, Employee Assistance Program and Wellness Program require no change. The administration fees for the flexible spending account program do not require an increase for the next plan year. A new program administrator, the firm of Fitzpatrick, Hopkins, Kelly and Leonard, has enhanced the program. Participants in this program will now have the expertise of a local CPA firm administering the program, plus greater convenience in obtaining reimbursement of qualified medical expenses through the use of a debit card that provides instant reimbursement. Last year, the City's medical plan did not require a rate increase due to favorable claims experience and plan revisions that included revising co-pays for prescription benefits. The dental plan conducted a request for proposal (RFP). The dental RFP resulted in lower rates and improved benefits through a new carrier for the dental PPO plan, United Concordia. United Protective was retained as the provider for pre-paid or HMO-type dental benefits with no change in rates from the previous year. Additionally, charging plan participants a composite rate derived by averaging the rates of the HMO and PPO plans was discontinued. Rates for the vision plan increased last year, with an enhancement in benefits. Vision benefits are optional. 4 The life insurance, Wellness Program, Employee Assistance Program and fees for the administration of flexible spending account did not require an increase. A Health Care Trust Fund was established, without additional costs to the City, by using monies derived from unused benefit premiums contributed by employees and the City. After the claims and administrative fees for each plan year have been finalized, any unused premiums are deposited into the Health Care Trust Fund. The purpose of this Trust Fund was to enable employees, retirees and the City to stabilize future cost increases for the benefit program. The renewal of the medical and dental plans were reviewed and analyzed by the City's employee benefits staff, executive management team and the Employee Health Care Task Force during several meetings. On March 29, 2001, the Employee Health Care Task Force, representing the employees of the City of Glendale, met to analyze the proposed renewal options and to discuss any concerns with the plans. The Task Force expressed concern over the City's budget shortage created by the increase to the medical plan and the impact it would have on employees, retirees, and the City. The Task Force also discussed alternatives for the next plan year, including the possibility of self-funding the program and conducting a review of the insurance market for cost-effective alternatives to the present insurance carrier. The City budgeted $250,000 for a possible rate increase in the 2001-2002 fiscal plan year. The cost increase for the benefit program, if medical claims develop to their projected liability, is approximately $1,350,000, resulting in a budget shortage of $1.1 million dollars. The budget shortage of $1.1 million dollars can be funded by the Health Care Trust Fund, if necessary. Favorable claims, during the plan year, will reduce the projected $1.1 million dollar shortage and minimize the need for the Health Care Trust Fund withdrawal. This item was presented for Council review and to provide staff direction. Mayor Scruggs asked if Blue Cross Blue Shield had raised its rates for other organizations to the same degree. Ms. Sierra stated that they had. She said Blue Cross Blue Shield feels its network is superior to others, thus justifying higher administration fees. Councilmember Martinez asked if a referral was necessary to receive chiropractic benefits. Ms. Sierra stated that HMO plan participants are able to go to a chiropractor directly. Councilmember Clark asked how much was currently in the trust fund. Ms. Sierra stated that, currently, there is approximately $1 million in the fund, with another $1.5 million anticipated in June of this year. Ms. Sierra confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that, while prescription co-pays would increase by $5.00 per level, the doctor co-pays would not. 5 Councilmember Clark complimented Ms. Sierra on her clear and concise report. She stated her support of staff's recommendations. Councilmember Frate thanked the Employee Health Care Task Force for their hard work. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he appreciated the fact that the Task. Force had shopped around to see what other alternatives were available. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that, even with the $5.00 increase, the City's prescription drug program was still inexpensive, Mayor Scruggs directed staff to proceed as they had recommended. 3. GLENDALE ADULT CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director. OTHER PRESENTER: Ms. Tamara Caraway, architect and partner of the architectural firm of Hunt & Caraway. Inadequate space and resulting programming limitations of the existing Adult Center prompted the Council to include funds in the Capital Improvements Budget for a replacement facility. City staff was directed to research and commence planning of a new state-of-the-art facility that would adequately address the community's needs. Staff from the architecture firm of Hunt & Caraway was present to discuss preliminary plans and conceptual drawings for the Glendale Adult Center, which will be located on a 5.1-acre site northwest of the intersection of 59th Avenue and Brown Street. The plans address a center of approximately 30,000 square feet, with a second-story shell for future expansion. Two public meetings were held in September of 2000 and the information from those meetings formed the base for the initial conceptual studies. The conceptual studies were presented to staff and the public at two meetings held in March of 2001. The conceptual architectural perspectives are not intended to be images of the new facility. These drawings are only utilized to help present building mass and the effects of varying structural finishes, i.e. glass, stone, etc. After receiving Council direction, the architect will proceed with finalizing preliminary plans and specifications. The current program estimates the completion of plans and specifications in late August of 2001 , with bids due in late September of 2001. This schedule would allow the construction contract to come before Council for approval in October of 2001 . 6 A presentation was made by the architecture firm at the City Council Workshop held on July 18, 2000 to discuss the project site, gather initial Council input, and determine expectations for the new Adult Center. The City Council previously approved the purchase of the project site and the professional services agreement with the architect at the May 30, 2000 City Council meeting. City Staff conducted two public meetings during September of 2000 for the purpose of notifying the general public of the proposed improvements at the site and to gather specific user concerns and preferences. The first meeting was held at Sahuaro Ranch School and the second was held at the existing Adult Center. City Staff received substantial response from the comment cards that were distributed at the public meetings, along with a number of direct calls from users and neighbors. All the information gathered through the meetings and public input has been incorporated into the design development programming phase. The information gathered was incorporated into the design development process and brought back, during March of 2001, to Adult Center staff and the general public for review. City staff and the consultant have been working with the First Southern Baptist Church regardinq_the site that is located at the easterly end of the presently vacant site which fronts 59m Avenue. The relationship with the design team for the First Southern Baptist Church has been established to ensure aesthetic continuity and user convenience regarding both facilities on the combined site. The project's consulting civil engineer is finalizing grading and drainage plans for the entire site that include the improvements required for both the Adult Center and the First Southern Baptist Church. The amount budgeted for this project is $8,300,000. The recommendation was to review the conceptual design and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Clark asked if the Adult Center would have a kiln space. Ms. Caraway stated that it would be part of the storage area. She acknowledged that the floor plan needs further refinement. Councilmember Clark asked if the glass would filter out ultra violet radiation. Ms. Caraway said she was currently reviewing different glass samples and, although they had not as yet identified the exact glass that would be used, it would be a thermal, dual-pane glass that reduces ultra-violet radiation. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the Foothills Library has a lot of colored dual- paned glass. He pointed out the fact that this drastically cuts the cost of air conditioning. 7 Councilmember Goulet asked if consideration had be given to roof-line characteristics, which would be in keeping with the fire station located adjacent to Sahuaro Ranch Park. He asked if any of the interior rooms would be capable of opening up to accommodate large groups. He also questioned whether the kitchen was adequate in size. Ms. Caraway pointed out that the dance and aerobics room could be opened into one large room, whereas the multi-purpose room could be subdivided if necessary. She stated that they were looking for Council's direction in terms of the exterior architectural characteristics of the building. Councilmember Martinez asked if the current Adult Center had a gift shop. Ms. Caraway said it did. She explained that the Adult Center sells handmade crafts on consignment. In response to Councilmember Goulet's previous question, Ms. Caraway explained that the proposed kitchen is larger than the existing kitchen. She said she also had a plan that takes comments they have received into consideration and shows the kitchen to be a little larger, with a different orientation. Councilmember Martinez asked if the new Adult Center would have a billiard room. Ms. Caraway stated that it is indicated as a game room on the current plan. Councilmember Martinez stated that he liked the two-story rendering best. Councilmember Clark asked what purpose the multi-purpose room would generally serve. Ms. Caraway said feedback they received from the user groups and public meetings indicated the need for various changes to the floor plan. She reviewed a sketch that incorporated those changes. She explained that the multi-purpose room could be used for dances, dinners, and so forth. She pointed out the fact that the dividing petition in the multi-purpose room was moved towards one end, allowing daily lunch activities to be maintained without the distraction of setting up for another event. Councilmember Frate asked how the patio on the north side incorporates into the room. Ms. Caraway said the patio is located on the north side of the multi-purpose room and it will be covered. Councilmember Goulet asked if the second revision drawing shows a ramp at the front entry. Ms. Caraway explained that the footprint of the building is at grade and the stairs and elevator would only become necessary if the Council decided to go with the second-story option. Councilmember Goulet asked if the north side courtyard would include some type of covered ramada or other shading. Ms. Caraway said it would be covered in some way. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he also favored the two-story rendering. He said he believed that the Adult Center should be distinct from other buildings in the area. Councilmember Clark stated that she really liked the plan and believed staff was very sensitive to the concerns of those who will use the Adult Center. 8 Ms. Caraway confirmed for Councilmember Frate that only half of the building would be two story. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that, although he liked the interior plan, he would like to see the exterior plan changed somewhat. Ms. Caraway stated that additional options would be provided to the Council. Mayor Scruggs asked if all of the desires expressed by users of the current Adult Center had been met. Ms. Caraway stated that they had been. Mayor Scruggs asked how the proposed multi-purpose room compares to the current one. Ms. Caraway said the existing multi-purpose room is 40 x 60 feet, whereas the proposed multi-purpose room is divided, with one portion being 45 x 69 feet and the second being 38 x 21 feet. Mayor Scruggs noted that people in the top third section of the multi-purpose room would not be able to see the stage. Ms. Caraway agreed. She explained that they would not seat people in that area for a stage performance. Mayor Scruggs asked about the lobby to be located next to the multi-purpose room. Ms. Caraway explained that the lobby acts as a secondary entrance into the multi- purpose room, allowing the rest of the building to be secured. Mayor Scruggs asked how current users reacted to the proposed exterior designs. Ms. Caraway stated that, for the most part, they had received very positive feedback on the plan. Councilmember Goulet asked if the multi-purpose room would have a two-story ceiling. Ms. Caraway said it would be approximately 18 feet high, not quite two-stories. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Councilmembers should contact her individually if they wished to further discuss the renderings. Ms. Caraway said this would be fine. Mr. Smith asked for direction on the preliminary drawings. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to proceed with the second floor. She stated that it would be in the City's best interest. 4. COUNCIL REDISTRICTING CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Rick Flaaen, City Attorney, and Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Intergovernmental Relations Director. On February 9, 1988, Glendale voters approved the creation of six election districts for the City of Glendale. The City must redistrict its boundaries at least every ten years according to the Code of the City of Glendale, Section 15-2 Redistricting. The City updated its six Council boundaries in 1992 and 1996. The City recently completed the Census 2000 campaign. The City has grown tremendously since the 1995 Special Census Numbers that were used during the 1996 Redistricting. According to the 2000 Census results, Glendale has a population of 218,812, which indicates a growth of 19.82% since 1995, or 48% since 1990. 9 Due to the dramatic growth of the City, it is appropriate to realign the six existing Council Districts to satisfy the City Code. Redistricting must also be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). To be accepted by the DOJ, the redistricting plan must satisfy three criteria: population equality, contiguity, and compactness. The City's previous redistricting plan was completed with the assistance of the National Demographics Corporation (NDC) and legal advice from Greg Jernigan. NDC submitted a proposal to assist in Glendale's Redistricting for $59,500. The proposal includes key dates that NDC will follow so that redistricting is complete for the City of Glendale's 2004 election. NDC would begin work in early June of 2002 and have the final proposal completed by October 31, 2002. This timeframe will ensure that the City has over a year before the election to allow for the DOJ review and to make any necessary changes as a result of the DOJ's review, as well as adequate notice to the public of the new boundaries. Mr. Jernigan provided the City with a letter, confirming availability to provide legal services to the City at a rate of $110 an hour in connection with this redistricting, including securing preclearance from the DOJ. There will also need to be a marketing campaign to ensure that the public is included in the redistricting process and provided adequate notice of the new boundaries. During the redistricting process, six meetings will be held throughout Glendale to provide opportunities for citizen input and for discussions with groups and individuals who may be especially interested in the process. The marketing campaign will include newspaper advertising, mailings, newsletters, notice on the City website, inserts in water bills, and other mediums. Total redistricting costs are projected to be $94,500, which includes NDC's proposal of $59,500, Mr. Jernigan's proposal of $15,000, and a marketing campaign budget of $20,000. This item was presented for review of the National Demographics Corporation proposal to assist in Glendale's redistricting and to provide staff direction. Councilmember Lieberman asked why they were waiting until June of 2002 to start the redistricting. Mr. Flaaen explained that the original intent was to develop a time schedule that would allow them to have the redistricting done in time for the 2002 Council election. However, that was deemed infeasible due to the various time restrictions involved. He said redistricting prior to June 1, 2002 could result in a lot of citizen confusion and disrupt the election process. Councilmember Clark pointed out that the City has experienced a great deal of growth since the last redistricting in 1996. She said she understood the reasoning behind the delay. She stated, however, that she believed waiting until the 2008 election to use the new census material was too long. She suggested starting the redistricting process and, if necessary, placing it in abeyance during the election process. 10 Mayor Scruggs noted that the districts have never been equal. She pointed out that it would be an incumbent's dream to redistrict for the 2002 election because newcomers would not know until the last minute if they were allowed to run. She stated that she was comfortable with staff's rationale for waiting to redistrict. Councilmember Lieberman stated that, while he was not comfortable with the delay, he agreed with the rationale behind it. Councilmember Frate pointed out the fact that other cities will also be affected by the redistricting. Councilmember Clark explained that she was concerned about voter equity and, while she understood the reasoning, she did not like the delay. 5. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Assistant to the 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 was the fifth 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 to the Council for information purposes, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. (Senate Bill) SB 1360 — Mobile Homes, Rules, Stu y Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to remain neutral. (House Bill) HB 2031 — Municipal Utility Liens; Water Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to change its position from opposing to remaining neutral. (House Bill) HB 2605 — Private Property Owners; Traffic Enforcement Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to remain neutral. 11 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 12