Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/12/2001 * 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 June 12, 2001 3:00 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. TRANSPORTATION ELECTION PACKAGE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director; and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Victor Assad, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI) The process for updating the City of Glendale Transportation Plan has been underway since mid-November of 2000, including an extensive public involvement process in coordination with the Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI). Presentations by staff and the project consultant were given at six City Council District meetings held in April of 2001 to receive public input on a Preliminary Transportation Election Package. The Transportation Package is one element of a Long-Range Transportation Plan and recommends (1) new transportation projects and services, (2) new sources of funding, and (3) voter assurances. Based on the input received from citizens, Transportation Department staff, guest speakers from other transportation agencies, and the project consultant, the CACTI has prepared a recommended Transportation Election Package for potential consideration by voters. A recommended Transportation Package, as approved by the CACTI at its May 24, 2001 meeting, identifies projects, costs, and funding sources needed to accomplish the recommended transportation improvements. It includes a new half-cent sales tax and new transportation projects and services for all modes of transportation, including transit, streets, bicycle, pedestrian, and aviation. Estimates of expenditures by mode include 65% for transit, 31% for streets, and 4% for other modes of transportation. Maps showing the projects in each of these categories were provided to the Council in the materials given to them for this meeting. 1 In the first five years, the Transportation Package includes expanded bus and Dial-A- Ride services to include weekend and evening services. Also, in this period, street intersections will be improved, lane drops will be reduced, Grand and 59th Avenues will be improved, and several projects in years 6 to 10 of the current capital improvement program will be advanced. Ten bicycle and two pedestrian projects will be completed during the first five years. The following ongoing programs will be expanded during the first few years: (1) neighborhood traffic mitigation, (2) safety projects, (3) transit education and marketing, (4) traffic safety education, (5) work at home facilitation, and (6) bicycle coordination. Longer term projects include new bus routes, two miles of light rail transit, and a high capacity east/west roadway connector between central Glendale and the western portions of the Glendale Planning Area. It was the recommendation of the CACTI that the light rail transit system be located within the Glendale Avenue corridor, which is several blocks wide, but will not be located directly on Glendale Avenue. The Transportation Package also contains voter assurances as recommended by the CACTI, which include a separate Transportation Sales Tax Fund that can only be used to pay for transportation projects and services. In addition, the Transportation Package includes a Citizen Oversight Commission, whose principal responsibility would be to ensure that transportation projects and programs approved by the voters are implemented in a fair, cost effective, and timely manner. Other responsibilities of the Citizen Oversight Commission include recommending a Long Range Transportation Program to the City Council, reviewing audits and annual reports, and monitoring contingency funds. The Citizen Oversight Commission would also be authorized to recommend to the City Council any changes in the Transportation Package based on new information or changing conditions. With Council direction, the Call for the Election will take place on June 26, 2001. At the City Council Workshop held on March 20, 2001, staff presented an overview of the process for updating the Glendale Transportation Plan. In cooperation with the City Council, Transportation Department staff and the project consultant conducted three evening meetings within each City Council District during the months of January, February, and April of 2001. The members appointed by the City Council to the Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI) have met a total of ten times, beginning December 14, 2000 and ending on May 24, 2001. During the past four months, Transportation Department staff made one or more presentations at several City Commission and Committee meetings to obtain their input regarding the Transportation Plan Update process and a Preliminary Transportation Package. Comments were received from the Transportation Advisory Commission, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, the Aviation Advisory Commission, the Commission on Persons with Disabilities, and the Equestrian Advisory Committee. 2 Transportation Department staff contacted citizens through a public involvement process initiated in mid-November of 2000. The 61 members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI) have met ten times over the past six months. In addition, public input has been gathered from a variety of sources such as the 13 City Commission meetings, 18 City Council district meetings, two business luncheons, one community open house, and comments provided through the City's Transportation Plan Internet page and electronic mail number. Transportation Department staff coordinated the Transportation Plan Update with adjacent municipalities such as the cities of Phoenix and Peoria, including participation by guest speakers from these cities and from local and regional transportation agencies, who provided expert information on a variety of transportation issues of interest to the CACTI members. The purpose was to educate citizens and public officials on transportation needs, programs, issues, and costs, which the citizens and Transportation Department staff used in their evaluation of future transportation needs within the City of Glendale. As a result of the public involvement efforts, Transportation Department staff has gathered valuable public input through a variety of methods that were evaluated and presented to the CACTI members throughout the Transportation Plan Update process. The information from the public has provided guidance to the CACTI during their discussions of transportation options, project priorities, and funding issues. Based on the extensive amount of public input received, the CACTI members were able to develop a recommended Transportation Package that identifies project priorities and funding sources, which package was forwarded to the City Council for their review and approval. If approved by the Council, this Transportation Package could be presented to the voters for their consideration in November of this year. The Transportation Package recommends a new half-cent sales tax to pay for an increase in existing transportation services, as well as new transportation projects and programs for all modes of transportation. The proposed half-cent sales tax would be an ongoing source of funds to finance future transportation improvements. The sales tax is ongoing because of the need to fund ongoing transportation services such as bus service, Dial-A-Ride, and other transportation programs which need to be available to the public on a continuing basis. A proposed ballot measure to levy a sales tax for transportation improvements will also provide notice that the City intends to bond these revenues for specific projects such as expediting near-term street projects, constructing a light rail facility, and completing a high capacity east/west roadway connector. Glendale transportation sales tax funds will be used to secure matching funds from regional, state, and federal sources to help construct a variety of transportation projects. 3 The CACTI recommendation was to continue the ongoing City commitment to transit. Additional staff requirements to implement the transportation improvements recommended in the Transportation Package include financial management, legal services, personnel support, and other City services. The CACTI recommendation was to limit sales tax contributions for these services to 3.5% of the total cost of the Transportation Package. The item was presented for review and discussion by City Council. Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired if the minibus system would simply increase the bus system that is presently in place. Mr. Ernster stated that it would. Councilmember Goulet thanked Mr. Assad and the CACTI members for their time and commitment to these issues. He then asked about the demand for increased busing. He noted that funding for the number of buses was a factor. He asked what percentage of use would bring some relief. Mr. Assad stated that the biggest complaint was headways, waiting too long for the next bus. He explained that surveys have shown that, if the headways were doubled, up to four times the ridership could be expected. Councilmember Goulet asked what the public could count on with regard to reliability. Mr. Assad responded that half-hour service was the answer for all the routes. He said better coverage could be achieved by putting a half-hour bus service within a half-mile of any resident of Glendale. Councilmember Goulet asked if that half-hour wait time would be increased immediately to all designated routes or if it would be phased in. Mr. Assad stated that it would have to be phased in. He said the bus order which was placed in June of 2000 ensures delivery in June of 2002. He explained that orders must be placed two years in advance. He said what could be expected to happen immediately was the extension of bus service, nighttime and weekends, with the present fleet. Increased service levels would then be phased in after a year. Councilmember Martinez stated that he had heard criticism about the ridership not being significant. He felt the expanded routes would certainly help to increase the ridership. Mayor Scruggs asked how new routes would be selected. Mr. Book stated that the Valley does not have a regional bus concept, it has regional bus utilization. One of the things that will determine where the City of Glendale can extend service is where the City of Phoenix and the Valley metro system have the ability to extend it to the City. This will determine where new routes will be extended. Mayor Scruggs stated that the minibus circulators are working very well in the City of Tempe. She said it wQuld be beneficial in the northern part of the City. She asked if it was staying along 75t" Avenue, if it was intended to show the only place where the route would go, or if it was intended as an example. Mr. Johnson stated that it was meant to be conceptual. He noted that there is room for additional analysis in this area and the exact route will be determined. Mayor Scruggs noted that there would be east/west connections, which would actually be an incentive for people to ride. Councilmember Dark stated that the blue lines on the map were conceptual. She asked if it would be indicated, in the election package, that, based upon further analysis, those blue lines were simply conceptual. She said she had heard a great deal 4 about this being a contract and whatever maps are provided are a contract with the voter. Mr. Johnson noted that the width of the line applied to neighborhood circulators and light rail. Councilmember Clark stated that she was not discussing light rail, but rather referring to the minibus circulators. Mr. Johnson stated that the location of 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue was fairly clear, especially onGlendaleAvenue. He noted that there could be some additional circulation off of 59th Avenue. Referring to the Arrowhead area, he said this could be labeled in some fashion to indicate that it was a broader conceptual area. Councilmember Clark noted that the alignment was defined for 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue. She asked why it was not defined on the northern portion of the map. Mr. Johnson stated that this was correct. Councilmember Clark said she was concerned about the investment and whether it would increase ridership. She stated that there are three things that determine ridership: (1) convenience, (2) timeliness, and (3) location. She noted that, if these three things are met, any bus route will be successful and increase ridership. Councilmember Clark stated that there is great demand for bus service, especially in the southern and western part of Glendale. She said she has had conversations with constituents who want expanded service for Dial-a-Ride, and with people who ride the bus who want expanded service. When the City of Phoenix expands its service, it creates a level of expectation for Glendale residents, which Glendale will have to meet. Councilmember Lieberman inquired about the express route on the freeway, i.e. where the stations and stops would be. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be two express buses - one going in each direction. Councilmember Lieberman asked where the stops and stations would be located and how people would get on, as the freeway is elevated. Mr. Johnson said 1:hat the concept was to have two park-and-ride lots along Loop 101 - one in North Glendale and one in West Glendale. One express bus would start in West Glendale and go north. This bus would stop in North Glendale and at Bell Road and Interstate 17 and then proceed to the central corridor and downtown Phoenix. This would be in accordance with the City of Phoenix' bus rapid transit concept. Mr. Johnson stated that the other route would start at the park-and-ride site to be located in an undetermined area in the northern part of the City and travel to the park- and-ride lot in West Glendale, then travel to the 79th Avenue and Interstate 10 park- and-ride. This route would then continue to downtown Phoenix. Ultimately, the Deck Park Tunnel on Interstate 10 could be brought online and the bus could go through to Tempe. Councilmember Lieberman noted that these buses cannot be activated until Phoenix has matching systems. Mr. Johnson stated that the City's plans are consistent with those of Phoenix. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the '/2 cent sales tax was permanent. Mr. Assad stated that the recommendation of the CACTI was not to have a sunset clause on the tax. Mayor Scruggs asked if Mr. Johnson had stated something about paying for the bus to go to 79t Avenue. Mr. Johnson stated that the concept is that the City of Phoenix is currently paying for express bus service to 79th Avenue and Interstate 10. He said the City of Glendale would pay for the same bus to continue into Glendale. The City would have to pay for the service, not only in Glendale, but also for the service going down to 5 79th Avenue. There is a park-and-ride lot on 79th Avenue. Similarly, Phoenix would be implementing bus rapid transit on Interstate 17 up to Bell Road. There is a park-and- ride facility at Bell Road. The City would pay for that bus to continue from Bell Road into Glendale. Mayor Scruggs asked what relevance 79th Avenue hagl on the map. Mr. Johnson stated that the Phoenix bus comes into Interstate 10 and 79t Avenue. The City would have to pay to extend that service into Glendale, for two stops. Mayor Scruggs stated that, of the City's $1 billion, the City is paying for bus rapid transit from Bell Road to Beardsley Road along Interstate 17, then making the connection to Loop 101. Also, the City would pay or a route from Interstate 10 in Phoenix to West Glendale and then through Peoria to North Glendale. She said this covers a lot of miles, approximately 25. Mr. Johnson stated that Mayor Scruggs was correct in approximating the miles at 25. Mayor Scruggs inquired as to the cost per mile of a route. Mr. Book stated that, since the express bus has only two runs in the morning and two runs in the evening, it is not nearly as expensive as a normal bus route. Mayor Scruggs asked if, in the event this service is implemented and after 18 months or two years of service, the City finds that its ridership is in the 20 to 30 passenger range, would the City continue with the service because it had a contract, or would it be able to cancel the service. Mr. Assad stated that the City of Glendale would have an annual contract with the City of Phoenix and if the service was not working out, there would be no obligation on the part of the City to continue with the service. Mayor Scruggs stated that she was referring to the contract referred to by Councilmember Clark as the "contract with the people". She asked if the CACTI had discussed what would happen if something did not work out. She asked if the fund would be redirected. Mr. Assad stated that the CACTI had recommended an oversight committee to deal with this. Councilmember Lieberman said the express bus service will need park-and-ride lots. He noted that the park-and-ride lots will have to be cautiously designed because, if the contract is not renewed, the City will wind up with many empty lots. He asked if the CACTI had considered this option. Mr. Book stated that federal funding is available for park-and-ride lots. Usually the federal funding covers 80%, while 20% comes from local share. One of the benefits to the City of Phoenix to participate in extending the bus routes is that they will have citizens riding these buses. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City Phoenix would pay for the park-and-ride sites on certain routes. Mr. Book stated that park-and-ride sites are usually located more than five miles from each other. Councilmember Frate asked how fares are calculated and costs are shared. Mr. Book stated that the fare box recovery is usually a percentage of the operating revenue. There is a cost sharing system with Valley Metro and the Phoenix Bus System, which is based on boardings. Typically it does not pay for operating revenues. Councilmember Frate asked if there would be a fare increase if the City was paying for service up to the border on certain routes. Mr. Book stated that, express bus fares are considerably higher than fixed route fares. Mayor Scruggs stated that the minibus was an interesting idea and it could gain interest, but she felt the map did not convey what service a minibus would provide. She said, before this goes forward, the "minibus" concept needs to be defined. The minibus is a neighborhood circulator and the map should define this. 6 Councilmember Frate stated that Dial-a-Ride service would double by the year 2020, which would include weekend and evening hours. Mr. Book stated that it is necessary for Dial-a-Ride to support a fixed route system. When bus hours are extended, Dial-a- Ride companion service is also needed. He said all buses are now handicap- accessible. The City's Dial-a-Ride service should be able to keep up with increased fixed route service. Councilmember Frate asked how Dial-a-Ride would work if a citizen needed to travel to a doctor's appointment. Mr. Book stated that the citizen would be transported to the border of Glendale, the driver would then telephone Phoenix, and Phoenix would pick the citizen up and drive the citizen to his or her destination. He noted that that is one of the advantages of using the fixed route system, because the system would probably take them to where they want to go. Mayor Scruggs stated that, according to what she has heard at the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) meetings, Dial-a-Ride has no boundaries. Mayor Scruggs stated that the meeting was now going to focus on discussion with regard to light rail transit. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Ernster about the outlying areas being serviced by light rail. He asked if the light rail system would enter areas and/or neighborhoods that the City is attempting to protect. Mr. Ernster stated that the light rail systems in the cities of Denver and Dallas did extend into neighborhoods. Councilmember Goulet inquired as to the path that would be recommended. He stated that major arterials will be critical to the success of the light rail system. He noted that access to alternate transportation from major arterials is essential. He asked what would happen to the 2ther major arterials that were not being utilized by light rail. Mr. Book stated that 19t Avenue in the City of Phoenix presents a very interesting perspective because, if Interstate 17 closes for accident or construction work, 19 Avenue is a primary reliever for that route. He noted that 19th Avenue is City of Phoenix' No. 1 bus route in terms of ridership. The City's Transportation Department has indicated that they will not give up any lanes of travel. They have determined that the light rail system will go on 19th Avenue and additional right-of-way must be acquired to make it happen. Mr. Book asked if Glendale would need the same number of lanes or if the City could commit a lane to transit. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the rail system in the City of Portland extended eight miles outside of the city limits, which is equivalent in Glendale to the distance from downtown Glendale to Luke Air Force Base. Councilmember Clark noted that the cities of Dallas and Denver had immediately purchased old railroad lines. They went into neighborhoods, picked a major arterial, and located staticns where the people could walk into neighborhoods. In another community, vehicular traffic did not run on the same road where the light rail was located. In many cases, where vehicular traffic was mixed with light rail, the roads accommodated one-way traffic only. 7 Councilmember Martinez stated that, once the residents of the cities of Dallas and Denver tried using light rail, they wanted more. He stated that a lot of opposition to the light rail system being located on Glendale Avenue was received from the business community in the Glendale corridor. He said the light rail corridor should be extended between Bethany Home Road and Northern Avenue. Councilmember Martinez stated that the Citizen Oversight Commission was key because the Commission would be authorized to recommend changes to the City Council. Councilmember Clark said she supported the transportation package. She stated that the CACTI had recommended a very narrow corridor and staff was requesting that corridor be increased. She said the Council does not have enough information to make a decision. The City of Phoenix went to the voters with a specific plan and the voters approved it. She noted that Glendale voters are not being given enough information. She suggested that the City offer the concept of light rail, advising voters that the City is not sure where it should be located, and ask the voters to approve the concept. When the City has completed a major investment study and determined where the light rail alignment should be located, the City could then return to the voters for a vote. Councilmember Clark stated that the City should advise its citizens where the light rail system will be located. She questioned how the City could expect the voters to approve it if the City's experts and the CACTI cannot be specific regarding the route. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City of Glendale had assurances from the City of Phoenix that it would extend the light rail from Bethany Home Road and 19th Avenue to MetroCenter, where the City could tap in. Mr. Johnson stated that a connection to ChrisTown Mall is scheduled by 2006. By 2010, a MetroCenter connection will be completed. Mayor Scruggs asked if the CACTI had recommended one or two sets of tracks. Mr. Assad stated that the CACTI left this option open. Mayor Scruggs asked what width would be needed for a one-track system and for a two-track system. Mr. Johnson stated that 13 feet was needed for a single track and 27 feet for two tracks. This would cover right-of-way only and not stations. Mayor Scruggs asked the width of State Street. Mr. Reedy stated that State Street is 32 to 36 feet wide curb-to-curb, with a normal 60-foot right-of-way for a residential street. Some of the older residential streets are a 50-foot right-of-way. Mayor Scruggs asked if one or two cars would be able to drive simultaneously on the street if a two- track light rail system was installed. Mr. Reedy stated that the current width of the street would not support both a two-train alignment and automobile traffic. Mayor Scruggs inquired about a one-train alignment. Mr. Reedy explained that a one-train alignment would leave approximately seven feet on either side of the train. He said automobile traffic could be accommodated if the street was widened to allow for at least 10 feet on either side of the track. Mayor Scruggs stated that on-street parking would have to be eliminated to put in a two-track system. She asked how many citizens would be upset by the fact that a corridor for the light rail was not designated. She questioned how the City could have light rail and still be able to have people drive on the streets and have guests park in front of their homes. She asked if there was a way to present to the public the fact that this is an arterial system. Mr. Reedy pointed out that certain residential streets are extraordinarily wide, ranging from 60 to 70 feet. He stated, however, the alignment needs to be continuous and utilizing the wider streets could result in having to remove a significant number of houses in areas where the street is not as wide. 8 Councilmember L.ieberman stated that, south of Glendale Avenue up to Maryland Avenue, there are no streets that go from Grand Avenue to 43rd Avenue. The streets all stop at 51St Avenue. Mayor Scruggs stated the City would most likely want a two-train system. She asked what the street width would be if the system were placed on Glendale Avenue and how vehicular traffic would be affected. Mr. Reedy stated that, with the reconstruction done by the City it] the 1980's, Glendale Avenue is approximately 69 feet wide, curb-to-curb, between 43 to 55 Avenues. He said other factors, including on-street parking anc pedestrian crossing amenities, reduces the street width to 59 to 60 feet between 55 and 59h Avenues. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would be possible to have two trains and still keep two lanes of traffic moving in each direction. Mr. Reedy stated that, with 69 feet and two trains passing at 27 feet, there would be plenty of room for one lane of traffic in each direction. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had heard comments from the CACTI about there being concern with regard to Glendale Avenue, as it is a "road of regional significance", which connects the entire length of the Valley. She said there has also been much discussion as to whether car dealers have too much influence over the City of Glendale and whether they might leave. She noted that the car dealers will contribute a minimum of $10 million of the $1 billion needed to make the system work, stating, therefore, the City should not discount the car dealers and their needs. She said the car dealerships do very well on Glendale Avenue and seldom does the Council disregard economic development. She stated, while Glendale Avenue may be the best choice in the future, it would be unwise to assume the car dealerships would move to make room for the train. She noted that if the dealerships did move, they would most likely leave the City of Glendale, creating an even bigger problem for the city in terms of lost revenue. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that one of the advantages to the City of Glendale having light rail is the fact that Glendale could connect with Phoenix. He said the City needs to decide where the best place for those connections would be. Councilmember Martinez stated that there are many uncertainties that need to be defined before the transportation package is presented to the public. Councilmember Lieberman stated that three automobile dealerships and two businesses located on Glendale Avenue had advised him that they would not tolerate light rail on Glendale Avenue. He said he agreed with Councilmember Martinez with regard to expanding the rail corridor to Bethany Home Road and Northern Avenue. He stated that Northern Avenue would have to be widened and the Manistee Town Center would be on the rail line as a stop and as a park-and-ride lot once it was developed. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Councilmember Clark with regard to designating what is proposed to be voted on. He stated that he would be supportive of an arterial concept for a location. He noted that the City needs to let the neighborhoods know that arterials are being proposed because not knowing creates a certain amount of fear factor with the public. Mayor Scruggs said she took a different view from Councilmember Clark. She stated that addressing a City-wide vote dilutes the power and the importance that those most affected would have to make a final decision. She said she supported a very strong Citizen Oversight Committee, which would work with neighborhoods, to accomplish what would benefit the area the most. In general, she stated that she supported the expanded corridor because the light rail will not work on most of the City's 9 neighborhood streets. Councilmember Frate said he agreed that, if the issue was too vague on the ballot, the voters would not have confidence to vote on what they could not see in writing. If the voters were given a description of where the corridor was, they would feel more confident to vote on the concept. He stated that the concept and language on the ballot has to define the corridor. Councilmember Clark stated that the City of Phoenix had defined the corridor and it went to a city-wide vote. While on her trips to Denver and Dallas, she had questioned whether these cities had offered alignments in the first packages they had presented to their citizens. In both cases, they had not and the first packages were defeated. When both cities came back to the voters with specific alignments indicated in their packages, they gained voter approval even though the voters did not know what to expect from light rail. Dr. Vanacour stated that Mayor Scruggs' description of an arterial-based system does explain where the light rail will be located. Mayor Scruggs stated that two issues remain: (1) whether Glendale Avenue will be included in the arterial base or if Glendale Avenue will be excluded in the wording; and (2) whether the City wishes to have a city-wide vote when an alignment is selected. Councilmember Martinez stated he was in favor of excluding Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Councilmember Goulet also agreed. He said it should be opened to a city-wide vote. Councilmember Clark said that she was undecided in regards to the exclusion of Glendale Avenue. She stated that it would depend on a future major investment study for Northern Avenue, Glendale Avenue, and Bethany Home Road. She stated that, based on the information provided by Mr. Reedy, Glendale Avenue would not work. She said she supports a city-wide vote. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that a wider corridor would be necessary and Glendale Avenue should be excluded from the light rail proposal. He said a corridor several blocks wide would run into residential neighborhoods. He noted that the oversight committee should figure out where it would be located. He said he did not like the idea of a city-wide vote. Councilmember Frate stated that Glendale Avenue should be excluded. He said he would support an oversight committee's decision. Mayor Scruggs stated that she supported excluding Glendale Avenue. Mr. Assad stated that the CACTI's recommendation was to exclude Glendale Avenue, east of 59th Avenue. He noted that the geography of Glendale Avenue is completely different west of 59t Avenue. Mr. Assad stated that the CACTI's point in including Glendale Avenue, west of 59th Avenue, was because of future development for Glendale Avenue to the Loop 101. They did not want 'to exclude the future use of Glendale Avenue, west of 59th Avenue. 10 Mayor Scruggs stated that she agreed with Mr. Assad. She said the City would be looking at additional funding for the system and could make a decision if there was any alternative to 59t , Glendale, and Grand Avenues. Mayor Scruggs stated that the wording would mention a corridor from Northern Avenue and Bethany Home Road, with the system being arterial-based and Glendale Avenue being excluded. Mayor Scruggs asked about financial incentives to hasten construction of the light rail system. Noting that $170 million was going to light rail, she questioned where it was coming from, how it works, and when it would be paid. Mr. Johnson stated that of the $170 million, half is paid with federal funds. There are about $20 million in operating expenses, totaling $150 million in construction costs. There would be $75 million in sales tax. Mayor Scruggs stated that the City was not raising a billion dollars in sales tax. Mr. Johnson said the City was raising $600 million in sales tax. He said, basically. their calculations ingluded two miles on Glendale Avenue and half of the three-mile section between 19t Avenue and 43rd Avenue. Since this is half of the half, it is only one-quarter of the total cost. Half will be paid from federal monies and the balance of the local funds would be 50% from Glendale and 50% from Phoenix. This is the contingency the City has built into the plan with the City of Phoenix. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that 17% of the money is for fixed rail. He inquired if that was from a separate fund from the beginning and set aside. Mr. Johnson stated that a program had been developed, but no specific funding had been set aside from the program. He said the voters will receive a list of the projects and, as the program is developed, categories, refinements and details would be worked out. Mayor Scruggs asked if, in the event the City enters into an agreement with the City of Phoenix to pay hallf of the half to extend light rail from ChrisTown Mall to 43rd Avenue, it was anticipated that it would be enough for Phoenix to commit to reserve three of those seven unallocated miles into Glendale. Mr. Johnson stated that there was no written agreement on that matter, but he noted that this is the way it works. Mr. Book stated that they do not have to commit a mile and a half. The City of Phoenix has received federal funding on the basis that this is a regional system. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City of Glendale would get a commitment from the City of Phoenix that it will connect the light rail because the City is committing the money. Mr. Book stated that this was correct. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if there was some assurance that the City of Phoenix will have its 50% funded by the federal government. Mr. Johnson stated that there is no assurance that Phoenix will get 50% federal funds. They could legally get 80% of the federal money. Sometimes it is more difficult on the initial segments but, as the corridor is extended, they look more kindly on a successful system. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they were certain that they would receive this money. Mr. Johnson stated that this was their intent. They have received federal funding for the facility. Councilmember Martinez stated that the City's light rail system is contingent on what Phoenix does. He asked if this would be clear on the ballot. Mr. Johnson stated that specific language on ballot was being determined. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that the two good things in this recommendation are the traffic improvements and an east/west connection system for the City. 11 Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Johnson to define the concept of the east/west connection. Mr. Johnson stated that the concept is open to discussion. He said it was priced at a "super street" type concept with major interchanges at Grand Avenue and Loops 101 and 3C)3. He said it would allow for grade separations with limited access, and allow for right-of-way acquisitions. Councilmember Clark asked if the City of Peoria would share some of the cost. Dr. Vanacour stated that it is planned for a total regional system, but Peoria is not counted as a part of the system. Moor Scruggs asked about the $500,000 set aside for the beautification of Grand and 59t Avenues. Dr. Vanacour stated that, after deducting the $150,000 consultant fee for the study, $350,000 remained. Mayor Scruggs asked about the $5 million committed to street improvements for light rail in downtown Glendale. Mr. Ernster stated that it would get reallocated. Mayor Scruggs asked about pedestrian circulation facilities. Mr. Ernster stated that great opportunities exist and this piggybacks on the greenbelt money. He noted that the City is looking for ways to enhance pedestrian circulation. Mayor Scruggs asked about another Alternative Expenditure Limitation (AEL) vote. Mr. Ernster stated that this would not occur in the near future. Mayor Scruggs asked how the City was intending to accomplish the developer participation with regard to the east/west connector. Mr. Johnson stated that the City will use leverage to get right-of-way, which will be determined as we go along. Mayor Scruggs asked about a contingency fund. She noted that she and Councilmember Martinez had issued two requests for additional projects they would like to feed into this $1 billion program, which would be very small. She said she had met with Dr. Vanacour and ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) representatives with regard to the mysterious landscaping that they were told was placed in the median of the Loop 101. 'This landscaping was placed so close to the installation of the cable median barriers that it never had time to grow big enough for anyone to see it. It then had to be removed because the cable median barriers were installed. She stated that ADOT contends the City is not authorized to receive any money because the landscaping had already been done, although it was never seen. Dr. Vanacour stated that the landscaping was $100,000 per mile, totaling $400,000 to $500,000. Mayor Scruggs stated that fiber optics were not installed when Glendale's portion of the Loop 101 was built. This is a serious economic development issuje. The explanation was, because Glendale's portion of the freeway was one of the first to start, fiber optic capability was not provided at that time. The City of Glendale is unable to accomplish some of the things that other cities in the region can accomplish because it had the privilege of going first. Mr. Book stated that the fiber optic conduit from Northern Avenue to Interstate 17 is considered an ideal candidate for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program) funding. He said they would request it for the 2007 fiscal year. The City may advance it and do a payback. The conduit the City put in was priced at $150,000 per mile. Mr. Book said he had heard ADOT use numbers up to $250,000 per mile. Mayor Scruggs stated that the northern end was the section that could not obtain the fiber optics. Mr. Book stated that ADOT was supporting cities to put it in as a joint project. 12 Mayor Scruggs stated that $2 million should be placed as a contingency item. Mr. Book agreed, stating, however, they should submit it for CMAQ funding. Councilmember Clark stated that the City should have the ability to look into funding other transportation programs. Mr. Ernster stated the Oversight Committee appointed by the City Council will evaluate the projects and the program to recommend changes to the Council in the future. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a consensus to have the two projects added to the transportation election package. Council voiced their agreement. Mayor Scruggs asked what would happen to the light rail money if there was no federal funding or the City of Phoenix was not successful in renewing its sales tax. Mr. Johnson stated that, although there is no reason to believe this would happen, it still has to be considered as a contingency. He said if, for some reason, light rail never materializes, the City has a Citizen Oversight Committee that will consider the issue as to what should be done with the sales tax revenues that have been collected to fund light rail. The committee would make recommendations to City Council. He stated there are basically two options. The first would be to maintain the one-half cent sales tax and advance projects, such as providing additional bus service earlier. The second option is to reduce the sales tax from 1/20 to .4/100. it would be up to the Citizen Oversight Committee to take those options under advisement and make recommendations to City Council. Mayor Scruggs stated that the citizens are aware that the light rail funding issue is not completely settled. She said a statement by the City that a Citizen Oversight Commission will study the issue and submit a recommendation to the City Council would be helpful. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that many people want more bus pull-outs. He said bus service on 51 Avenue is essential. Mayor Scruggs stated that Mr. Assad would present the information to the CACTI and the CACTI will meet on June 21St. She said the City will call for an election at the June 26th Council meeting. She noted that it is not necessary to have the publicity materials ready at that time. Councilmember Frate stated that the total package offers an advantage of early projects and jobs for citizens. Mayor Scruggs stated that she hoped the CACTI would stay together so that the political action committee will go to the CACTI for advisement. She said how the Citizen Oversight Committee is composed will be an interesting and complex issue. It would seem that this would be a good issue for them to study. Dr. Vanacour stated that they would follow up with the Council. 13 2. GLENDALE GATEWAY/MANISTEE TOWN CENTER (COYOTES) DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; and Mr. Ray Shuey, Controller/Assistant Finance Director. Staff provided an update on the Coyotes - Glendale Gateway/Manistee Town Center development projects. Specific items of discussion included 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 redevelop Manistee Town Center. It was publicly stated that, without the action taken by Council, the Coyotes would have relocated to a community located in another state. 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 Companies 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 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 agreed to redevelop the Manistee Town Center site, which will result in a major improvement to the city center area 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 of Glendale has dedicated a portion of its web site to these projects and has also established a special telephone hotline for those without Internet access. The City has entered into a memorandum of agreement with Ellman Companies to develop Glendale Gateway and redevelop 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. 14 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, as well as significantly increase property values and assessed valuation. This item was presented for information, discussion, and staff direction. Mr. Lynch provided a financial update on the Manistee Town Center development. He said acquisition of the development was concluded on May 18, 2001. After acquiring the land, the City declared its intent to reimburse itself through a financing mechanism. The City selected Bank of America and asked that Bank of America provide a financing proposal. Bank of America responded with a proposed commitment letter for the financing and an amount up to the total needed, $14.5 million. The actual land cost was just over $11 million. All of the escrow closing commitments have taken place. The City has proceeded to work on the financing documentation. Mr. Lynch said, as they proceed to get the documentation completed, they wanted to present this to the Council for its review and comments to ensure that the financing can be put into place. Mr. Colson stated that they have been focusing on getting the site ready for redevelopment. He said they had met with the existing tenants at the site and they will be vacating their premises no later than the middle of July 2001 . There are four or five tenants remaining on site and the others have vacated their premises. He said Economic Development Department staff has been working with Maya High School and they have not as yet identified the date when Maya High School will leave the premises. Staff identified a few sites that Maya will be moving to. He said all environmental studies have been completed and demolition studies are underway. The existing facility will be demolished and completion is planned by late summer/early fall of 2001 . Mr. Colson stated that they are working very closely with the Ellman Company and are completing a joint feasibility study, which identifies the best use of the site. They want something that will improve the quality of life of the City and the neighborhood as a whole. The goal is to figure out the best possible use that will continue to improve the area. Mr. Colson said, after the study is completed, he and his staff would continue to work with the Ellman Company to get a better feel for long-term development and revenue potential. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City was paying for the demolition. Mr. Colson stated that it was prudent for the City to pay for the demolition and then be reimbursed at the time of conveyance. Councilmember Goulet said there were concerns with regard to future tenants. He said he had discussions with people with regard to their concern that the new facility complement the downtown area. Councilmember Martinez asked when the property would be conveyed. Mr. Colson stated that a timeline had as yet not been established. He said it would be established as part of the feasibility study and site plan. When a suitable site plan is presented, the conveyance will take place. Mr. Lynch stated that they had been focusing on obtaining tax and other financial information for the Glendale Gateway arena site. He said a proforma analysis had been requested. He said they were analyzing approaches and opportunities to make 15 the process more efficient. They are continuing to research and analyze some of the future issues. Mr. Colson stated that, as part of the memorandum of agreement and continuing work on the development agreement, they had identified specific site plan elements that need to be included in the final master plan. This is important to project revenue potential of the site and the quality standards of overall development. He said they had a positive discussion with the Ellman Group. An invitation was issued to four leading firms from around the country with experience in these developments and each has made presentations. Some were eliminated, but their good ideas were kept in, and the results are a collaboration of these four firms. The firms have agreed to return to the City in a public fashion and present the concepts that have been developed. Mr. Colson stated that the City was able to benchmark its efforts versus similar developments in both arenas and mixed-use retail development. Mr. Beasley stated that there had been discussions about a timeframe for the development to be complete. He said the City would like to invite them to come and discuss the progress they have made to date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. 16