Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/1/2001 * 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 May 1, 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 . UPDATE ON FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Hoyt Director of Field Operations, and Mr. Stuart Kent, Deputy Director of Field Operations The Field Operations Center (FOC), located at 6210 West Myrtle Avenue, opened in 1976. The facility is in a mixed land use area consisting of industrial and commercial uses, a trailer park, and some single-family homes along Myrtle Avenue. The facility was originally designed to store and maintain 350 pieces of equipment and included a refuse transfer station and a warehouse. It also provided for necessary space for all administrative and field staff. Today, the facility is home to the Utilities Department, the Field Operations Department, Traffic Signs and Signals, Parks and Recreation maintenance staff, and the Warehouse. In the past 25 years, the fleet of vehicles and equipment has grown to over 1,400; staff at the site has grown from 189 to almost 400 today. Future growth can no longer be effectively accommodated within the current facility. At today's Workshop, staff was present to update the City Council on the plans for the phased development of a new FOC. The need for a new facility is included in the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP includes $8 million in Fiscal Year 2001-02 and another $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003-04. The most immediate need at the FOC is expansion for the equipment maintenance shop and the warehouse to relieve overcrowding and to update the facilities to contemporary standards. For example, the equipment mechanics today are working on machinery, such as automated refuse trucks, which are larger and more electronically complicated than was anticipated in the 1970's. These new facilities will provide employees greater ability to meet our customers needs and, in turn, provide greater service to the citizens in the community. Furthermore, staff has eliminated other functions from this first phase, including administrative offices, so as to maximize resources towards key service areas. Staff proposed that the construction activities be phased over several years. The first phase of the project will include: • Updating the existing field operations conceptual master plan; • Constructing the new equipment maintenance shop and warehouse; • Demolition of a portion of the Spring City Knitting building; • Tenant improvements for the vacated equipment maintenance facility and warehouse; and • Half-street improvements to Orangewood Avenue Staff presented the updated Master Plan for City Council review in the Fall of 2001 and the design concepts for the new facilities in the Spring of 2002. It is anticipated that this first phase will be designed and construction completed by the end of 2003. In 1989, to alleviate equipment overcrowding at 6210 West Myrtle Avenue, the City acquired 7.7 acres of land on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, just east of 65 Avenue. Today this property is the base of operations for Commercial and Residential Sanitation collection operations and is also used to store refuse and recycling containers. In 1997, the City acquired the Spring City Knitting property totaling 18.2 acres. Today this facility is the base of operations for the Streets Division and Dial-a-Ride, and provides indoor storage for almost every City department. In 1998, the City contracted with APMI Incorporated to develop a conceptual Master Plan for the new Field Operations Center, using the current footprint and adjacent properties owned by the City, as well as the available land area. This report was used as the basis for the cost estimates for the new facility. In May of 1999, the City Council reviewed a conceptual Master Plan of the Field Operations Center. At that meeting, the Council asked questions about specifics in the plan, as well as funding sources to construct the facility. Staff was given direction to continue developing the details of the project. A total of 13 proposals were received from architectural firms wishing to design the first phase of the FOC. A panel of eleven City staff independently reviewed each proposal and the top four firms were invited for interviews. Staff is currently in negotiation with the top firm and will bring forward a contract for design services for Council review later this month. Currently there is $8 million identified in the CIP for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and another $8 million identified in Fiscal Year 2003-04. It is anticipated that all of the $16 million in the current CIP will be used for the first phase of this project. 2 The recommendation was to review the proposed project scope for the construction of the new Field Operations Center and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Goulet asked what would happen to the materials currently being stored in the existing building if it was modified. He also asked if the buildings would be the same size or larger. Mr. Kent said the original Master Plan referred to storage facilities within the property. He said they would go through the Master Plan with the architect to see if permanent storage could be accommodated onsite; if not, temporary storage would be arranged. He explained that there are 13 bays in the equipment shop, encompassing approximately 6,900 square feet. He said, based on the increased size of the fleet, they need to increase the size of the facility and modify the traffic circulation pattern. Councilmember Martinez asked if a portion of the Spring City Knitting building would be used for storage. Mr. Kent said final use of the property had not as yet been decided and would depend on how much of the building is salvageable. Councilmember Martinez suggested that it would be best to determine if the entire building would eventually need to be demolished and to do it all at the same time. Mr. Kent agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Councilmember Martinez asked if any consideration had been given to acquiring the mobile home park property. Mr. Kent said that might be something the Council would want to look at in the future. He explained that the architect is developing two plans, one that incorporates the mobile home park in its existing site and one that shows it ultimately not being there. 2. SERVICE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE PENDERGAST WEST AMENDED SUBDIVISION CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer Residents of the Pendergast West Amended subdivision have requested annexation into the City of Glendale. Pendergast West is located along the North side of Missouri Avenue, between 91st and 95th Avenues. At the request of representatives from the neighborhood, an informational meeting was held on August 24, 2000 with Councilmember Clark and City staff, as well as Messrs. Charles Thomas, James Davies and Walt Aydlett of the Pendergast West Amended subdivision. Staff was presented with 54 signed letters requesting the annexation. These letters reportedly represent 84% of the homeowners, 82% of the valuation, and 77% of the total lots within the subdivision. The City Manager received a copy of this information. A public meeting was held on November 20, 2000 at Desert Mirage School. This meting was attended by residents of the Pendergast West Amended subdivision, City staff, Mayor Scruggs, and Councilmembers Goulet, Eggleston, and Clark. Staff made presentations that addressed the topics of a service impact analysis, police and fire services, enforcement of City codes, development issues, planned recreation amenities, taxes and fees for services, infrastructure and the process of annexation. Pendergast West neighborhood members had the opportunity to raise neighborhood 3 questions, expectations and concerns. The Mayor and City Councilmembers who were in attendance presented the City's issues and concerns and addressed the questions, expectations, and concerns of the Pendergast West neighborhood. Minutes of the meeting were recorded. At the December 12, 2000 City Council Workshop, staff was directed to prepare and present to the City Council a comprehensive service impact analysis of the proposed annexation. Pendergast West is a subdivision comprising 69 lots that include 63 residences and 6 vacant lots. While the exact number of residents in the subdivision is not known, it is estimated that approximately 197 (63 x 3.12 average number residents per single family residence = 197) residents live in the Pendergast West subdivision. The subdivision is characterized by a variety of housing constructed from the mid-1970's to the present on one-acre parcels. The subdivision presently has no street lighting, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, or sewer. To conduct the service impact analysis, all City departments were requested to provide anticipated costs for program and service impacts associated with providing City services to the Pendergast West subdivision. The following table identifies the immediate costs to the City to bring the Pendergast West subdivision up to City standards if it was to be annexed. IMMEDIATE COSTS OF PENDERGAST WEST ANNEXATION Improvement Cost Funding Source Street Improvements $12,000.00 Street Maintenance Fund Refuse/Recycling Containers $7,500.00 Sanitation Fund Fire Hydrants $42,000 General Fund Total Immediate Cost: $61,500.00 The following is a summary of the key City services areas and the anticipated impact of annexation of the Pendergast West subdivision on these services. Code Compliance: An audit of the subdivision was performed, with inspections of each of the 69 properties in the subdivision. The inspections were made from the public right-of-way and included both developed and undeveloped properties. Of the 69 properties in the subdivision, 41 had violations. The total number of violations was 84. The majority of the violations include items such as abandoned motor vehicles, overgrown weeds, items stored in public view, and parking on an unimproved surface. All City code violations that were identified are also a violation of County codes. Based on the audit findings, the Code Compliance Division has determined that the proposed annexation would not have any significant service impact on the Code Compliance Division. Any action by the Code Compliance Division to resolve City code violations would be a complaint-driven process. 4 Fire/Emergency Services: Currently, the closest fire station to the Pendergast West subdivision is Phoenix Fire Station No. 40, located at 3838 North 83rd Avenue. Phoenix Fire Station No. 40 is a distance of 2.5 miles, with an approximate travel time of 4 minutes and 20 seconds for the first arriving emergency unit. The Fire Department's standard of coverage is based on 3 minutes of travel time. The new Glendale Fire Station No. 158, located at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road is projected to be completed and in service during 2002. Station No. 158 will be 1.5 miles from the Pendergast West subdivision and within a three-minute response coverage. Fire Department statistics indicate there were only 2 medical incidents within the square mile in which Pendergast West is located. The anticipated impact on existing Fire Department service is negligible. The one-time and ongoing costs for Fire Station No. 158 were already approved to meet the needs of expanding development in west Glendale. Police Services: The Pendergast West subdivision is currently located in the County and, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO). MCSO was queried to determine the reporting activity for the past 3 years. The reporting activity for MCSO included every type of police related calls for service that MCSO responded to, including traffic, criminal, and assists to other agencies such as Fire. In determining the amount of calls for service (CFS) for the Pendergast development, only those CFS from MCSO that appeared to be specific to the neighborhood were utilized. This did not include traffic-related activity, traffic accident, and administrative activity that would have been specific to MCSO. The information provided by MCSO indicates a high of 113 CFS in 1999 and a low of 70 CFS in 2000, with an average of 93 CFS for the past 3 years. Based on these figures, there would be no discernable impact upon the existing services and programs provided by the Police Department. In addition, the Police Department is in the process of developing and staffing the West Side Public Safety Building at 83rd and Maryland Avenues. The addition of this station would increase the ability of the department to respond to CFS within the Pendergast West subdivision in an effective and timely manner. Waste/Recycling Collection: It is estimated the one-time cost for providing refuse and recycling containers to the Pendergast West subdivision is $7,500. The cost of servicing the containers is incorporated into the monthly sanitation fee. Water: The subdivision has an inadequate number of fire hydrants, it is estimated that 14 fire hydrants are needed to meet minimum residential hydrant spacing requirements, at an estimated cost of $42,000. The Vestar development will be supplying an 8-inch water line that will also serve the Pendergast West subdivision. 5 Representatives of the Pendergast West subdivision have expressed their desire to maintain a rural lifestyle if annexed into the City. Contributing to the current rural lifestyle is the absence of a sewer system, street lighting, an underground drainage system, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and improved streets. If the subdivision was to desire such improvements in the future, they could be provided through the establishment of an improvement district(s). The following paragraphs summarize the service areas and improvements that do not currently exist, but that the residents related to maintaining the subdivision's rural lifestyle. Drainage: Current drainage infrastructure is inadequate and does not meet City standards. Improvements to meet minimum standards would require the construction and installation of culverts (under driveways), drainage swales (along the roads), and drywells. The cost associated with these improvements would be approximately $173,525. A more comprehensive solution would require the installation of a conventional underground storm drain system within the development. A conventional underground storm drain system would cost $600,000 and would also require the installation of approximately 3/4 miles of storm drain to tie into the storm drain at the Loop 101 and Camelback Road. The total cost of a conventional underground storm drain system is estimated at $1,300,000. Similar drainage issues also exist in other neighborhoods in the City of Glendale. Sewer: Pendergast West is not currently sewered, and would be a candidate area for the sewer extension program, if it was annexed into Glendale. It is estimated that it would cost $550,000 to provide sewer mains and services within Pendergast Estates. The nearest interceptor sewer to service this area is in Camelback Road and it would cost an additional $173,000 to connect the new sewer in Pendergast West to the existing sewer in Camelback Road. The total estimated cost for sewer is $723,000. Street Lighting: Pendergast West currently has no street lighting on any of its interior or adjacent streets. If the residents were to request, and be granted, street lighting for all streets, the one-time cost would be approximately $150,000 and annual operating costs would be approximately $6,700. However, the residents have indicated that they do not want street lighting within the Pendergast West subdivision. Streets: The existing streets are narrow paved streets with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk and do not meet City standards. At a minimum, the streets should receive an immediate slurry seal coat at an estimated cost of $12,000. A slurry seal coat is expected to last 4 to 5 years, at which time the streets in the subdivisions would be reassessed. To install new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement would cost approximately $2,000,000. At present, the residents have indicated they are interested in maintaining their rural lifestyle and are not interested in curb, gutter, or sidewalk improvements. 6 If the City Council directed staff to begin the process to annex the Pendergast West subdivision, it is anticipated the annexation process could be completed within 4 to 6 months. The process timeline is difficult to anticipate, as the process requires the coordination of efforts between the City, Maricopa County and the Pendergast West subdivision in meeting the annexation requirements as outlined by State law. The City Council directed staff to perform a comprehensive service impact analysis and report to be presented to the City Council in March of 2001. Residents of Pendergast West, representing those in favor of the annexation, met with Councilmember Clark and staff on August 24, 2000. A public meeting was held on November 20, 2000 at Desert Mirage School. The immediate budget/cost impacts associated with the annexation of the Pendergast West Amended subdivision are $61,500. If approved, staff would be seeking funds from Maricopa County for the cost of infrastructure maintenance and improvements to the Pendergast West subdivision. In the past, at the time of annexation, Maricopa County has paid for infrastructure costs associated with the annexation. At this time we do not know how many people are in each household however, based on the estimated number of 197 residents (63 residences x 3.12 average number residents per single family residence = 197) the City would receive $61,661 annually (197 residents x $313 per capita state shared revenue) in State-shared revenues. Based on estimates of the Maricopa County Assessors Office for the 2001 tax year, the annual City taxes would be $15,700. This recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City was annexing another 120 acres in the area. Mr. Anderson said the Vestar annexation had been completed. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that they should annex the area between Camelback and Bethany Home Roads and the Loop 101 to 91st Avenue. He noted that the City was also negotiating the purchase of property located north of Camelback Road at 991n Avenue. Councilmember Goulet asked if the City would assume any liability for providing emergency services to areas that do not have street lights and if it would be appropriate to have street lights installed early on in the process. Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, said they felt, based on information they had received from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, that the impact would be negligible, both in terms of the number of calls for service and their nature. Mr. Brooke Edwards, Fire Chief, said the Fire Department had not really considered the issue. He explained that street lighting is not usually important when responding to a fire. He noted that they only had two calls for service over the past year. He said he had worked in other areas that did not have street 7 lighting and, while it can be a challenge, a bigger challenge is in getting people to put their addresses on their homes. Councilmember Martinez asked if there was a cost to the City for the annexation process itself. Mr. Anderson stated that the City does not have any fees for requesting annexation at this time. Mr. Ernster noted that there is a cost in terms of the amount of staff time spent going through an annexation process; however, those costs have not been estimated. Councilmember Martinez asked about the costs associated with drainage. Mr. Anderson explained that development in the area would provide a lot of the necessary infrastructure for providing long-term storm water pipes and retention. Councilmember Martinez asked if curbs, gutters, and so forth would be done through an improvement district if residents decided they wanted those items at some point in the future. Mr. Anderson said the improvement district would be the only route to take to have that type of infrastructure installed. Vice Mayor Eggleston said a resident in the area had indicated that City fire protection was his main reason for wanting annexation. Mr. Ernster said that was the primary concern of most of the residents. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if it would be accurate to say that homes do not generate enough tax revenue to support a community. Mr. Ernster replied that this was correct according to the Budget Office. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if it was possible to charge an impact fee to areas being annexed into the City. Mr. Ernster said they were unable to find a precedent for charging impact fees to existing neighborhoods; however, he was not sure if it precluded the City from doing so. Mr. Anderson said an impact fee for the sewer would be charged if the residents elected to go through the sewer extension program. Mr. Flaaen stated that the City could require an annexation agreement that would take care of any adverse impacts, such as infrastructure costs, requiring that they be paid for by the residents prior to annexation. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if other impacts fees for the parks and library could be included in the annexation agreement. Mr. Flaaen stated that any new residents brought into the City, whether through new development or the annexation process, have an impact on existing services; therefore, it is possible to address impact fees in the annexation agreement. Councilmember Clark asked who would be responsible for installing new fire hydrants. Mr. Anderson said it is the City's water system and, therefore, the City would be responsible for fire hydrants. He noted that current fire hydrant spacing meets Rural/Metro jurisdiction criteria. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that the City would receive an unspecified amount of money from the County if the area was annexed into the City. Mr. Anderson stated that the Maricopa County Transportation Director indicated that they were willing to partner with the City of Glendale and pay more than twice the amount needed to take care of the surfacing of the streets. 8 Councilmember Clark asked if the increase in State-shared revenue would be on an annual or one-time basis. Mr. Ernster stated it would be on an annual basis. He noted that their numbers came from the Budget Office and are based on what they receive per capita. He confirmed for Councilmember Clark that they also anticipate that the City would earn approximately $15,700 in property taxes on an annual basis. With regard to Councilmember Goulet's concerns, Councilmember Clark stated that there are geographical areas within the City that prefer to continue with their current way of life and have no desire to be brought up-to-date. She agreed that the neighborhood could change its mind in the future. She stated that they would then be responsible for creating an improvement district. She asked if the area would qualify under the City's current sewer extension program. Mr. Ernster said they could apply for the sewer extension program and would qualify if they met the four required criteria. He said if they did not qualify, they could then form an improvement district for those improvements. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the costs of annexing the community into the City are offset by future gains. She said issues identified by staff, with the exception of street lights and street improvements, will be mitigated as the area around them develops. She stated that the community has fewer drainage issues than many other neighborhoods currently within Glendale because their homes are built with irrigation in mind. She said the Council should be looking at other more global policy issues. She noted that all of the property from 91st Avenue to the Loop 101, Camelback Road to Northern Avenue, will be developed in the near future. She asked if the Council wanted to develop a policy that encourages County islands. Councilmember Clark said annexing the community would send a message that the City was willing to protect the Coyotes' investment as well as Luke Air Force Base. Councilmember Frate questioned whether 69 homes could pay several million dollars for future improvements. He encouraged the residents to look down the road and determine how much they were willing to take upon themselves. He said future residents of the area will not understand that they are required to pay for improvements. In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Mr. Anderson explained that standards for fire hydrant spacing in rural areas is different than in urban areas. He said, if the area is annexed into the City, they would then be under urban spacing standards. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City has an obligation to provide good drainage. Mr. Anderson stated that houses in the urban irrigation system are not in a flood area; however, front and back yards are at risk for flooding. He said they looked at the potential for property damage and could not find any. He stated that there are issues related to street flooding, but those issues could be addressed quickly and at a relatively minor expense. Mayor Scruggs asked what would require an underground storm drain system. Mr. Anderson said an underground storm drainage system would 9 be necessary should residents eventually provide for curb and gutter and no longer have barrow ditches or open irrigation. Mayor Scruggs asked what the amount of the 1999 Bond Authorization for the sewer system was. Mr. Anderson stated that it was $10 million. Mayor Scruggs said, aside from this case, the Council should examine and set a policy on the issue of imposing impact fees on existing communities that want to be annexed into the City. She suggested that staff provide information to the Council for their consideration in making a policy decision. Mayor Scruggs asked what the next step would be if the Council decided to move forward with the annexation. Mr. Anderson explained that the Council would write letters to the Department of Revenue and the County Assessor for determination of the exact assessment valuation and owners of record. He said the neighborhood would then file a petition with a legal description and, once that petition has gone through the public hearing, they would go back out to the neighborhood for signatures. Mayor Scruggs discussed her concerns regarding the annexation. She said her main concern has always been the City's ability to provide an equitable level of emergency services to the neighborhood. She stated that her concern was addressed by the fact that the new public safety facility would be operating by the time the annexation procedure was completed. She said her other concern was that there be a clear understanding and a set of expectations between the residents and the City of Glendale regarding issues covered in the service impact analysis. She said she would be comfortable supporting the annexation after seeing two things: (1) a written statement from the County as to what it would assume and what it would pay the City; and (2) an annexation agreement that sets out what happens if and when the neighborhood wants additional improvements. She stressed the fact that there is no provision in the City's capital improvement plan for any major upgrades. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that an annexation agreement was necessary. He expressed his opinion that annexing the community into the City would result in a positive cash flow to the City, until such time as major improvements are necessary. He asked about the cost of delivering services and how the City would balance those costs. He pointed out the fact that the City has made major improvements to other areas in the City without charging impact fees to nearby residents. Councilmember Martinez disagreed that annexation would result in a positive cash flow to the City. He explained that new developments in the City are subject to impact fees. He agreed that an annexation agreement that clearly lays out all expectations is necessary. He said he would support going forward with the annexation. 10 Councilmember Martinez asked Mayor Scruggs if she was suggesting that the up-front costs associated with the annexation be offset by the County, with a portion divided among the residents coming into the City. Mayor Scruggs said she was thinking of using the regular impact fee schedule assessed to each new home that comes into the City. Councilmember Clark agreed that the County should provide a written statement as to what level of commitment it was willing to make. She suggested that the annexation agreement be more of an annexation advisory statement. She explained that it would be similar to the public report that developers give new home buyers, which identifies everything that may or may not effect their new home purchase. Councilmember Goulet agreed that, while current residents may not be interested in certain improvements, new home owners in the area might have certain expectations in terms of infrastructure. He agreed with the need to structure some type of annexation infrastructure agreement. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that an annexation agreement would force the residents to really consider if this was the path they wanted to take. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that the City should enter into some type of annexation agreement. He stated that he had previously cautioned residents to be sure they understood what annexation would mean to them. Mayor Scruggs said the next step would be to draft an annexation agreement, or another type of instrument, to ultimately call the document, outlining the conditions of the neighborhood as they currently exist, future needs and wants that may arise, and how the cost of accomplishing those needs and wants would be borne. She stated that the document would then be brought back to the Council for review and direction and, once finalized, it would be attached to the annexation petition. She said, concurrently, staff would secure from Maricopa County a statement of what it will do in terms of street repairs and/or the transfer of funds for street repairs. Councilmember Clark said, at first, the idea of impact fees appealed to her, but she now believes it would be economically discriminatory to impose them on the residents. She explained that it would give the message that Glendale will only accept neighborhoods that are willing and able to pay a price. Councilmember Goulet said other City residents would complain about their tax money being used to pay for annexation improvements. He suggested that additional discussions occur prior to making any decision. Mayor Scruggs noted that everyone pays impact fees, regardless on the size or value of their home. She said the fees are flat fees related to the cost of services being provided and, therefore, she did not see the issue as being discriminatory. 11 Councilmember Martinez agreed that the issue should be discussed further. He expressed his opinion that the residents should be assessed some type of fee. Councilmember Clark noted that the City waives a lot of fees to encourage affordable housing. She said impact fees have not traditionally recovered the costs they are associated with and, as a result, older neighborhoods have traditionally borne the cost of newer neighborhoods through tax dollars. She acknowledged the need to recoup costs; however, she questioned if this would be the correct mechanism for doing so. Mayor Scruggs agreed that, although impact fees do not cover the entire cost of services provided, they are the maximum that the City is permitted to charge for each service. She pointed out the fact that County residents have never before had to pay property taxes. She suggested that staff do an analysis of the impact fees for Council's review. Councilmember Lieberman stated his belief that City residents pay for services in all areas of the City. He noted that the Arrowhead area cost taxpayers approximately $42 million. He asked if Habitat for Humanity pays impact fees. He noted that different impact fees are charged on infill site projects. He said, while the City owes a service to the residents of Glendale, each individual does not pay his or her own way for those services. Councilmember Martinez said the subject area may not pay the same impact fees as new developments in the City, but the issue needs to be researched and discussed further. Mayor Scruggs agreed that the larger impact fees could be a burden. She stated that the proposal was to look at a breakdown of all fees and determine which, if any, would be relevant. Councilmember Clark said, while she did not like the idea of impact fees, she was willing to further explore the issue. She stated that she would not like the annexation request to be held up while that exploration is done. She asked that the City move forward with the annexation. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to come back with a listing of impact fees for further discussion prior to coming back with the annexation agreement/annexation advisory statement. She said, if Council feels the issue is too complex, it could choose to move forward with the annexation at that time. Dr. Vanacour agreed to provide the listing of impact fees to the Council for its review. Councilmember Clark stressed her opinion that the issue of impact fees is a separate policy issue. She said she did not want it clouded or colored by viewing it in the context of any particular annexation or neighborhood. Vice Mayor Eggleston and Councilmembers Goulet, Martinez, and Frate agreed that the impact fee should be considered as part of the Pendergast annexation. Councilmember Lieberman said he would be willing to include it in the Pendergast annexation; however, if it would slow the process down, he believed that it should be discussed separately. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to create a staff report regarding impact fees, looking at the legal issues associated with assessing the residents of an annexed neighborhood. She said the issue would then be studied as a Workshop item, at which time the Council would decide if the issue should be set aside to allow the Pendergast annexation to move forward. Mr. Ernster clarified that staff would (1) secure a letter from the County indicating what level of support it was willing to provide for the streets; (2) create an annexation agreement laying out the terms of the annexation; and (3) prior to that agreement, provide the Council with a listing and analysis of impact fees. 3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Long Range Planner. State Law requires the update of the General Plan every 10 years. Glendale's last major update of the General Plan was January 24, 1989. The Growing Smarter Acts of 1998 and 2000 require additional elements and ratification of the General Plan by the voters. The State imposed deadline to complete the General Plan Update is December 31, 2001. Glendale, as well as several other cities, will not be able to comply with the deadline and is targeting November 5, 2002 for the General Plan Update election. There is no penalty or sanction for missing the deadline. It is critical that the City of Glendale demonstrates progress in updating the General Plan. The Glendale Planning Department prepared and distributed a Request for Proposal to update the General Plan and sent it to over 50 contractors. A Selection Committee. consisting of Deputy City Managers, Department Heads, and a Senior Planner, reviewed five proposals and interviewed the top two ranked contractors. The top ranked contractor, Community Services Corporation, was recommended to the City Manager for approval. A contract was prepared and agreed upon with the selected contractor, Community Sciences Corporation, subject to approval by the City Council. The Selection Committee and Long Range Planning Manager believe that the selected contractor has the experience, knowledge, understanding of Glendale, and ability to comply with the aggressive timeframe to prepare an outstanding General Plan Update for the citizens of Glendale. 13 The General Plan Update will occur between May 8, 2001 and November 5, 2002 (election day), with a City Council public hearing to be held in May of 2002. The City Council has authorized the update of the Transportation Plan. The Circulation Element will be incorporated into the General Plan Update. The City Council has authorized the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This plan will be incorporated into the General Plan. The City Council has authorized the development of the Center City Master Plan, which will be incorporated into the General Plan Update. The City Council approved the funding for the General Plan Update as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget. A public notice, giving notification of the Request for Proposal, was published in the Glendale Star on March 8, 2001 . This matter will appear on the May 8, 2001 City Council agenda for formal consideration. The Fiscal Year 2002 Budget allocates $245,520 for the General Plan and $70,000 for General Plan Publication and Advertisement. The cost for the contractor is $250,000. The recommendation was to review the staff report and provide direction. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the professional services agreement is for a term of 18 months or until the required services are completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. He asked if the agreement specifies a particular deadline. Mr. Short noted that Page 12 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) sets forth the timeframe. He confirmed that the Scope of Services and RFP would be attached to the agreement as an addendum. Mr. Flaaen said he had reviewed the agreement and Councilmember Lieberman was correct in saying that the draft does not contain specific reference to a deadline. Mr. Flaaen said it would be addressed by stating that the proposal in response to the RFP was attached as an exhibit and incorporated by reference. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Short how they envisioned using the Geographic Information System (GIS). Mr. Short said it would be used to create an easy-to-read base map for the General Plan itself and to look at land suitability issues. Councilmember Clark asked if census and/or demographic information would be incorporated Mr. Short said they could look at that, but they were not intending to do an extensive amount of GIS because of the associated costs. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to come back with a contract at the next Council meeting. 4. REQUEST BY DEL RAY FARMS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Larry Broyles, Assistant City Engineer. 14 As a result of the Bond election passage in November of 1999, the Glendale City Council adopted a formal process for neighborhoods to request the installation of main line sewers to serve areas within the City of Glendale that are currently using septic systems. The City of Glendale will construct main line sewers and the service taps to the dedicated right-of-way at no cost to the property owner, subject to meeting the proper application requirements. The property owner will still be responsible for paying the sewer impact fee, obtaining permits, and installing the service line from the house to the new system and abandoning their septic system. Mr. John T. Moore, a homeowner in the Del Ray Farms subdivision, submitted a request to participate in the Sewer Main Extension Program for the area bounded by 59th and 61st Avenues and Sunnyside Drive and Cholla Street. Mr. and Mrs. Moore petitioned 13 homes on either side of Cortez Street that would potentially be served by the sewer main extension in this area. They received 7 votes in favor of the program that would be willing to enter into an agreement with the City to connect to the sewer and pay the sewer impact fee in advance of the design of the sewer. All of the 13 homeowners signed a petition stating that they would not object to the construction of a sewer in Cortez Street. Engineering staff verified that the signatures on the petitions matched the ownership shown on the Tax Assessor's records. Staff also verified that 6 out of 7 property owners who committed to connect to the sewer have already paid their sewer impact fee. Since the Council approved the Hidden Manor Subdivision for inclusion in the Sewer Main Extension Program, Del Ray Farms is the only other neighborhood that has been able to gather the necessary signatures to meet or exceed the minimum 40% requirement. Therefore, Del Ray Farms is not in competition with any other neighborhood for inclusion in the program. When more than one application for inclusion in the Sewer Main Extension Program is received, priority is given to the applicant who meets the most criteria of the program. Even though Del Ray Farms is the only applicant for the program at this time, staff did complete an evaluation to determine how they meet the criteria of the program. Since Del Ray Farms is not in competition with any other applicant, the following summary is provided for information only. When more than one application is submitted, the highest priority is given to those properties that show a high potential for a public safety issue, such as groundwater or surface contamination. Del Ray Farms has not provided any documentation for this criterion. The second criteria for the program gives a higher priority to properties located within close proximity to the City's domestic water wells. The closest City wells are Salt River Project (SRP) Well No. 30 located on the east side of 59th Avenue, south of the Arizona Canal, and SRP Well No. 14 located west of 51st Avenue, south of the Arizona Canal. Both wells are over 3,900 feet from the closest property. The third criterion gives a high priority to areas with a high percentage of 15 people agreeing to connect to the sewer now rather than in the future. Del Ray Farms has had 54% of the homeowners agree to pay the sewer impact fee and connect to the sewer within one year from when it is completed. The fourth criterion is based on the cost per property to provide the sewer service to the proposed area. A cost/benefit analysis was done to determine this cost. Based on the conceptual design of the sewer main, the approximate construction would be $102,000 to serve 13 properties, which evaluates to $7,846.15 per property. Because of a recent street improvement project that was awarded by the Council on April 24, 2001, the City has an opportunity to utilize favorable unit prices for the construction of this project. The unit prices on the scallop street project at 61st Avenue and Cholla Street could be extended by change order. This would result in a savings of approximately 15% because the project would be rather small to bid by itself and, therefore, would not generate the interest in bidders. The design of this project would be done in-house to get the project under construction while the street contractor is installing the utilities required on the scallop street project. The final program was presented at the May 30, 2000 Council Meeting. The Council adopted a resolution approving the Sewer Main Extension Program. This program was presented at the April 4, 2000 Council Workshop. Evaluation criteria was added to the program and a contract requirement with the City was also made a part of the program. It was requested that the final program be brought to a future Council meeting for adoption. This program was discussed at the City of Glendale Utilities Committee meeting held on February 22, 2000. It was received favorably by the Committee. The Commitee recommended that it be presented to a full Council Workshop. This program has been approved and is the guiding policy for sewer extensions in these areas throughout the City. Since the approval of the program, notification has gone out in newspaper articles and the program has been discussed at various neighborhood meetings. City staff sent out a mailing in August of 2000 to individual property owners who were identified as being on septic systems. The Engineering Department staff provided program information and petitions and met with neighborhood groups to help various neighborhoods participate in the Sewer Main Extension Program. Various areas and subdivisions, including Secluded Acres, Arrowhead Valley, and Arrowhead Estates have circulated petitions since the program was introduced. Del Ray Farms is the second neighborhood to successfully gather the necessary support to meet the program requirements. The sewer impact fees have already been paid by 46% of the participants and all that is left is to collect the required agreements for this project to proceed. The design is proposed to be done in-house because of the size and timing. The construction costs of $102,000 are available in the Sewer Main Extension Bond Fund. 16 The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Mr. Broyles confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the neighborhood meets the 40% threshold needed to successfully bring forward a request for inclusion in the Sewer Extension Program. Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced the Council's consensus to move forward on this item. 5. SALE OF AN ABANDONED WELL SITE AT 55TH AVENUE AND GROVERS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Larry Broyles, Assistant City Engineer. Well No. 31, located on the southwest corner of 55th Avenue and Grovers Drive, has been abandoned. The well site contains approximately 9,250 square feet and is a residential lot zoned R1-6. Since the well has been abandoned and there is no City need for the property, staff has started the process to sell the site. In order to sell the property, the City is required by statute to advertise the property for sale to the highest bidder. A minimum bid will be set by the appraised value. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids. An appraisal of the site has been completed. The estimated value of the site is $34,000.00. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site has been completed. There is no indication of any contamination. The well was formally closed in 1996 in accordance with the Arizona Department of Water Resources regulations. There have been no discussions with outside parties regarding this issue. The Parks and Recreation Department will recognize a cost savings of $660 annually, when it is no longer necessary to maintain the well site. The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman questioned whether the appraised value was realistic. He pointed out that it would result in a cost of $160,000 per acre for land in that area. Councilmember Clark asked where they advertise. Mr. Broyles said advertising was typically done in a legal form in the Glendale Star, but they also advertise in various trade publications. Councilmember Clark suggested that they advertise in the Arizona Republic. Councilmember Frate noted that the lot is depressed and oversized for the area. Mr. Broyles agreed that it is larger than other lots in the area and the elevation would have to be addressed by the property owner should the property be developed. Councilmember Lieberman admitted that the appraised value could be realistic when viewed in terms of the number of lots placed on the property. 17 Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to sell the lot. The meeting recessed for a short break. 6. GLENDALE GATEWAY/MANISTEE TOWN CENTER (COYOTES) DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Ms. Paula Ilardo, Marketing Director. Staff was present to provide an update on the Coyotes - Glendale Gateway/Manistee Town Center development projects. Specific items to be discussed include an update on the development agreements, which are currently being negotiated, a review of pertinent planning and zoning issues, a briefing regarding the financial structure, and an overview of the marketing plan. In April of 2001 , the Council unanimously approved a memorandum of agreement with the Coyotes and The Ellman Companies to develop the Glendale Gateway Arena/Mixed-Use Project and re-develop Manistee Town Center. It was publicly stated that, had action not been taken by the Council, the Coyotes would have relocated to a community located in another state, most probably Portland, Oregon. The Council directed staff to negotiate development agreements for two development projects that met the mutual objectives of the Coyotes/Ellman Companies and the City of Glendale. Staff has been working with the Coyotes/Ellman Company to structure the agreement in such a manner as to ensure a positive, long-term working relationship between all parties. As a result of the action taken by the Council, the City of Glendale will be the home to the National Hockey League (NHL) Coyotes and a mixed-use development, consisting of at least 1.6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office, and residential development. In addition, the Ellman Companies have agreed to develop the Manistee Town Center site, which will improve the surrounding neighborhood and provide a new amenity to the City. Staff is working with the Mayor and Council, as well as various other community groups, to discuss the project and answer questions. The City has entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Ellman Companies to develop Glendale Gateway and re-develop the Manistee Town Center. The City's financial commitment is to provide funding of up to $180 million, over a thirty-year period, in exchange for a specific amount of development (at least 1 .6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office, and residential development), according to the terms and conditions which will be outlined in the development agreement. 18 The planned development will result in increased sales tax to support general services, pay the debt service on the $180 million, and provide additional police and fire service throughout the city. This project will also accelerate development in the Glendale Gateway Area resulting in increased amenities, job opportunities and tax base; and significantly increase property values and assessed valuation. This item was presented for information, discussion and receipt of direction. Councilmember Clark asked if they anticipated having development agreements signed by late-May or early-June of 2001. Mr. Flaaen said the development agreement between the City and the Ellman Group probably would not be executed until mid to late June; however, the agreement to purchase the Manistee Town Center would most likely be approved by Council in mid to late-May of 2001. Councilmember Goulet said a lot of people had contacted him, wanting to have a meeting at which they could talk about what they would like to see happen. He noted that Mr. Wright and Mr. Woods had indicated they were interested in hearing what citizens wanted. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the retail space around the stadium compares with other shopping centers. Mr. Colson noted that Arrowhead Town Center proper totals approximately 1.3 million square feet. He said a development schedule, including a certain amount of retail development, is required before the City can proceed with its investment in the arena. He said the Ellman Group is actually looking at a total development of between two and three million square feet. He stated that the site will be a signature project and a Valley-wide destination draw. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he had received very positive feedback from citizens. Councilmember Martinez asked if anyone had expressed an interest in coming to the Manistee Town Center site. Mr. Colson stated that it would be premature to talk about that. He noted that they were currently doing a feasibility study. Councilmember Clark said she agreed with Councilmember Goulet's comments. She said, while the residents who would be directly impacted by the project are generally supportive of the project, their support softens when they hear about multi-family development. Councilmember Lieberman asked for confirmation that development timeframes had not yet been worked out. Mr. Colson said their goal was to wrap up the development agreement by early-to-mid June. He said they would establish the agreed upon milestones and timeframes over the next few weeks. Councilmember Clark asked that the Council be given adequate time to review the development agreements. Mr. Flaaen stated that their intent was to keep the Council apprised as to the status of the negotiations as they progress. Mayor Scruggs said the Council had been originally presented with concepts as to how the deals would be put together. She asked what they would now be seeing. Mr. Flaaen said the Council would now be reviewing the details of those concepts. Mayor Scruggs said, contrary to the belief of many people that the Council did not hear of the project until April 11, 2001, staff actually came to the Council in Executive Session for weeks to report on the progress of the project. 19 Mr. Beasley said the City is fortunate in that it has had the opportunity to learn from many successful proposals, as well as from those that were not successful. He said they felt comfortable and positive about the way the project was progressing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 20