Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/18/2001 * 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 December 18, 2001 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. REVIEW AND PRESENTATION OF FALL 2001 NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT REQUESTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Erik Strunk, Community Partnerships Director; and Mr. Bo Martinez, Neighborhood Partnership Program Administrator. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Jerry Bernsten, Chair of the Citizens' Advisory Commission Neighborhoods As part of the City Council's commitment to revitalizing older neighborhoods, the Mayor and Council established the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods (the "Commission") to make recommendations on neighborhood enhancement and revitalization projects. The purpose of today's Workshop was to review the recommendations of the Commission for the Fall 2001 funding cycle. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 - 02, approximately $700,000 in General Fund money has been set aside for such projects. Of this amount, approximately $350,000 has been made available to neighborhoods for the Fall 2001 funding cycle. Because of project savings from previously approved projects, and remaining funds from the Spring 2001 grants cycle, approximately $429,011.35 in funds are available for the Fall 2001 neighborhood grant requests. The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a month-long review process of five neighborhood grant requests, and recommended four of them to the Mayor and Council for approval. Each of the following grant recommendations include a contingency amount: 1 1. Sweetwater Estates Neighborhood (wall and landscaping) - $195,387.50 to fund the construction of an 8-foot wall and landscaping along 59th Avenue, from just south of the canal to Sweetwater Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $3,041 in sweat equity, $1,658 in non-project sweat equity, $2,180 in donated items, and $890 in a cash match to this project. 2. Glencroft Residents' Association - $59,317 to fund landscaping and irrigation improvements along the east side of 67th Avenue, running the length of the Glencroft facility. The grant request also includes installing neighborhood identification signage on the corners of Alice Avenue and Butler Drive on 67th Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $4,790 in sweat equity and $1,125 in donated items to this project. 3. Covenant Neighborhood Association — $48,527.43 to install sidewalk, curb and gutter along the south side of Alice Avenue, just west of 59th Avenue. The project also includes landscaping and irrigation along 59th Avenue, just south and north of Alice Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $1,658.88 in sweat equity and $600 in donated items to this project. 4. Friends and Neighbors of Montara Park — $93,181.49 to fund the installation of new playground equipment and ramada within Montara Park. The neighborhood pledged $1,382.40 in sweat equity to this project. One grant submitted by the Bethany Square Neighborhood Association was disqualified during the review, after it was determined to be an apartment complex. Over the past six years, 149 grant applications have been received from 70 different Glendale neighborhoods. Of these, the Commission has favorably recommended 109 grant applications to the Mayor and Council. The Fall 2001 grant recommendations represent the culmination of the fourteenth neighborhood grants process overseen by the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods. The Mayor and Council have approved all previous grant recommendations of the Commission. The Fall 2001 project funding cycle began with two grant orientation sessions in July and August of 2001. All registered neighborhoods were notified by mail and invited to attend the orientation sessions. Numerous articles have appeared in the local newspapers and monthly Partnership Office mailings regarding the orientation sessions and the availability of neighborhood revitalization funds. Information regarding the funding process was also publicized on the City of Glendale Internet home page. 2 If approved by the Mayor and Council, the total for the Fall 2001 neighborhood grants cycle (including all necessary contingencies) will amount to $396,413.11. Funds are available in Account Number 01-8968-8330 (Neighborhood Projects). This item was presented for review and discussion of the Fall 2001 grant recommendations of the Commission on Neighborhoods. Mr. Martinez reviewed the grant approval process. He reported that they held an orientation session in July and August of 2001 for neighborhood representatives who were interested in applying for grants. He stated that they also held a special neighborhood training session on September 26, 2001, giving applicants an opportunity to ask questions regarding the crijeria and their projects. He said a Commission public hearing was held on October 23tu, at which hearing applicants presented their projects and requested Commission approval. The Commissioners submitted scores and voted on the grant applications on November 5, 2001. He stated that the final discussion and vote was done on November 7, 2001. Mr. Bernsten reported that $429,000 was available in grant funds for the Fall 2001 cycle and $396,413 was requested for the four neighborhoods. He stated that the neighborhoods pledged $72,325 in sweat equity and cash. 1 . Sweetwater Estates Neighborhood Mr. Bernsten explained that the wall replacerhent would solve a long-standing problem that occurred when the elevation of 59 Avenue was raised at the canal. He said there have been several attempts to solve the problem, but they have been short-term fixes, at best. He stated that the landscaping from the canal to Sweetwater is quite sparse and does not compare to landscaping in the new Marshall Ranch subdivision. He noted that 59 Avenue is highly traveled and the improvements would be very visible. He explained that the neighborhood had partnered with the Ironwood High School C-Club and the C-Club agreed to adopt and maintain that section of the roadway. He stated that the neighborhood's ballot indicated strong support, with more than 99% of respondents in favor of the project. 2. Glencroft Residents' Association Mr. Bernsten reviewed the request. He noted that the applicant is a non-profit senior living community. He said the requested signage would be on the corners of the development and would be visible to drivers approaching from both the north and south. He stated that the landscaping improvements would make the property more aesthetically pleasing and would resolve a security issue related to the existing vegetation. He noted that the neighborhood had agreed to pay recurring water and maintenance costs associated with the improvements. He stated that this project had received a high level of support, with 455 of the 460 residents surveyed in favor of the project. He said they were also planning to partner with a local church youth group to do the sweat equity. 3 3. Covenant Neighborhood Association Mr. Bernsten explained that the 610 feet of sidewalk would be on the south side of Alice Avenue, west of 59thAvenue. He stated that the neighborhood has a heavy amount of pedestrian traffic on Alice and a sidewalk is warranted for safety reasons. He said the residents also feel that the sidewalk would provide a buffer to a vacant lot it borders and help prevent people from parking cars in that area. He said the landscaping on 59 Avenue is south of Alice Avenue. He noted that the area is currently very unsightly. He stated that there was 100% support from the 50 residents in the neighborhood and a neighborhood volunteer group has committed to perform periodic maintenance on the landscaped area. 4. Friends and Neighbors of Montara Park Mr. Bernsten stated that, although the Park Master Plan calls for new amenities in the park, they would not be put in place for several years. He explained that the request would provide a play area for the children in the neighborhood and a ramada for shelter. He said the request had received excellent neighborhood support, with 115 of the 121 respondents in favor of the project. He noted that the applicant already has its first sweat-equity event planned for February 1, 2002, even though the request has not yet been approved. Mr. Bernsten reported that the next grant training session was scheduled for January 17, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. and requests for the Spring grant cycle were due by March 29, 2002. Councilmember Martinez asked how Glencroft's promise to pay the recurring costs would be enforced. Mr. Martinez explained that their agreement to maintain both the public and private portions of the landscaping improvements along 67th Avenue would be stipulated to in their contract. Councilmember Goulet thanked Mr. Bernsten and the Commission for all they have done. He expressed his opinion that all of the projects are very worthy of recommendation for approval, particularly the Glencroft application. He said he had walked the property and talked with the residents and felt that they were truly committed to their portion of the agreement. He explained that the residents want their property to reflect and match the landscaping of other developments in the area. Councilmember Clark staid she also supported all of the projects. She thanked staff and the Commission for all of their work. She noted that this grant cycle had received applications from a number of older neighborhoods. She said the Glencroft neighborhood is 29 years old, the Sweetwater Estates neighborhood is 34 years old, the Covenant neighborhood is 31 years old, and Montara is 38 years old. She said she finds it truly gratifying to bring Montara Park up to the standards found in other parks. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was pleased with the program's success and was in favor of the four projects. Councilmember Frate voiced his support of the projects. He said he was extremely proud of the Sweetwater and Montara Park requests. He thanked Jennifer Metro for submitting the Montara Park request. He noted that the Sweetwater Estates neighborhood's original request had not been approved and he was glad to see them try again. He pointed that out the residents could have chosen to move to a newer neighborhood, but chose to stay and fix the problems. 4 Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he, too, supported the four projects. He commended the Covenant Neighborhood Association for trying to improve a difficult area. He also thanked staff and the Commission for their work. Mayor Scruggs stated that there was unanimous support for the four projects. She thanked Mr. Bernsten and the Commission. She stated that they were a very hard working group of people. She also recognized staff for promptly addressing all of the Council's questions and concerns. She asked that maintenance cost information be provided to the Council on all future requests. She said she was glad to see that staff obtained a signed Private Property Approval Form from one of the residents in Sweetwater Estates. Mr. Martinez showed slides pertaining to each of the projects. 2. BETHANY HOME/GRAND CANAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT AND LINEAR PARK CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director; Mr. Richard Cardin, Jr., Parks and Recreation Superintendent for the Central District; and Mr. Daniel Sherwood, Senior Civil Engineer - Design/Survey. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. Scott Vogel, Project Manager with the Maricopa County Flood Control District (MCFCD); and Mr. Jeff Minch, Project Manager, and Mr. Wade Gendreau, Associate, both with the firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson, Mendenball and Harris (DMJM & HARRIS) Daniel, Mann, Johnson, Mendenball, and Harris (DMJM & HARRIS), Maricopa County Flood Control District (MCFCD), and staff presented the draft master plan for the Bethany Home/Grand Canal Flood Control Project and Linear Park, (BH/GCFCP). In February 2001 the City Council entered into an intergovernmental agreement, (IGA) between the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix and the MCFCD, for design and construction of storm drain facilities adjacent to the Grand Canal. This drainage facility will provide a major outfall for the City of Phoenix and for a large portion of the City of Glendale, removing approximately 745 homes from the flood plain. The BH/GCFCP is primarily a flood control facility and is required to meet hydrologic and conveyance requirements; however the project forms a linear open space for public use along and within the facility. The concept for the Grand Canal Linear Park has been incorporated into the landscape and aesthetic improvements of the flood control project design. The first segment of design extends from Loop 101 drainage channel east, crossing under 91St and 83`d Avenues to a point east of 83rd Avenue. The second phase of construction will be in the Phoenix portion of the project, from 75th Avenue to 67th Avenue, with the final phase from 83`d to 75th Avenue and Camelback Road. 5 Staff and the consultants were present to discuss the Draft Master Plan for the Grand Canal Linear Park, which extends from 75th Avenue and Camelback Road to New River. The plan features an open grass lined channel with varying side slopes to achieve a natural meandering appearance. Amenities include pedestrian multi-use trails with bridges over the low flow channel along with neighborhood and community link nodes that feature picnic ramadas, playgrounds, and other recreational amenities. The City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, and the MCFCD for design and right-of-way acquisition of the Bethany Home Outfall Channel. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Grand Canal Linear Parks Master Plan at its regularly scheduled meeting held on October 8, 2001 and unanimously recommended forwarding approval of the plan to the City Council. Neighborhood meetings were held on August 26, 1999, October 20, 1999, April 16, 2000, and July 19, 2000, at Desert Mirage Elementary to solicit neighborhood input on design and location of the facility. Public meetings were conducted on May 23, and May 31St of this year at Desert Mirage Elementary to receive input on the Grand Canal Linear Park. The Grand Canal Linear Park Master Plan concept was discussed at a public meeting on September 13, 2001 at Desert Mirage Elementary School. The Project Aesthetic Advisory Committee was formed to facilitate public involvement and oversight during the design phase. The committee included neighborhood leaders, property owners, and citizens who live adjacent to the canal. The committee conducted meetings on May 16, July 19, September 7, and November 5, 2001 to review and comment on landscape and aesthetic plans. The estimated cost for design, construction, and right-of-way acquisition from Loop 101 to 83rd Avenue is $10.8 million. Maricopa County will pay 50% and the cities of Glendale and Phoenix will pay 25% each, which is estimated at 2.7 million dollars per city. The cost of the additional recreation amenities for the Linear Park is $1.6 million. Funding for this project is included in the Flood Control as follows; $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, $250,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-2002, and $3,250,000 in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Funding for the Linear Park recreational amenities include $382,000 in park bonds carryover, $400,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 DIF and $1,050,000 in Fiscal Year 2002/2003 open spaces and trails. This item was presented for review and to provide staff with direction regarding the proposed Grand Canal Linear Park Master Plan. 6 Mr. Smith stated that the project was first identified in the 1975 Parks Master Plan and identified again in the 1985 Parks Master Plan. He said the Bethany Home Outfall Channel presented an opportunity to redo the plan and provide an excellent amenity in terms of a park facility. He stated that a Project Aesthetics Advisory Committee was formed to review the plans. He explained that its membership was made up of adjacent property owners, neighborhood coalition leaders, representatives from the cities of Phoenix and Glendale, and representatives of Maricopa County. Mr. Minch stated that the project reflects a true partnership between the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and the cities of Glendale and Phoenix. He explained that the major function of the facility is to intercept and convey drainage and floodwaters from Glendale and Phoenix to the New River. He said the project has three major components: (1) the Bethany Home Outfall Channel, consisting of grassline channels, underground box culverts, and detention basins; (2) the Bethany Home Road storm drain; and (3) the Camelback Road storm drain. He showed various photographs of past flooding. He stated that the project will mitigate flood water ponding behind the Grand Canal and eliminate the need for flood insurance for properties located within the FEMA 100 year flood plain. He said it will also prevent flood waters from overtopping the Grand Canal and flooding properties to the south, as well as provide an outfall for drainage to the New River from downtown Glendale. Mr. Minch stated that they had conducted six public meetings during the Pre-Design Study, three in Phoenix and three in Glendale. He said they also held three public meetings to define park amenities for the Grand Canal Linear Park elements of the project. He stated that a Project Aesthetics Advisory Committee was established to provide direct community input into the development of the corridor master plan. Mr. Minch explained that construction of the outfall channel would be phased, with the section from 101 L to 83rd Avenue scheduled to begin in mid-2002. He said they would then move to the City of Phoenix during 2004 and 2005, returning to Glendale in 2005, and completing the section from 83rd to 75th Avenue by 2006. He reported that they had completed 60% engineering design, Linear Park Design, and draft Corridor Master Plan. He said estimated construction costs for the first phase is approximately $12.4 million. He said shared costs, including drainage, basic landscape, and aesthetic improvements total about $10.8 million, with 50% paid by the Maricopa County Flood Control District and 25% paid by each of the cities. He stated that Glendale's share equates to approximately $2.7 million. He said the additional park amenities are estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million. He said the Maricopa County Flood Control District has possession of the majority of the right-of-way required for the project, but it is still in process. Mr. Gendreau said they had prepared a number of concepts for project amenities as part of the Pre-Design Study and citizen input process. He said, within those concepts, they had developed a series of visions they wanted to see incorporated, including multi- use opportunities and a natural appearance. He displayed slides depicting the concepts developed as part of the Pre-Design Study, showing what the proposed 7 facility could look like. Mr. Gendreau confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the culverts would be placed underground. He said, prior to final design, a visual analysis was done along the entire corridor and a Corridor Master Plan with design guidelines was developed. He discussed the major elements of the Linear Park. He stated that the Master Plan proposes a major entry at the intersection. He explained that an above-grade crossing at the intersection was determined to be necessary because of the number of utilities in the roadways and the length of an underpass that would be required. He said the Master Plan also recommends a major entry node at the intersection of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road. He explained that , once the facility is built, the retention area could be filled in and become more usable as a park. He said they were also recommending that neighborhood link nodes be provided at key areas to provide a visual and physical clue for entrance into the park. He said they were recommending a community link node at the 83rd Avenue location. He explained that the community link nodes would be associated with the vehicular bridges. He reviewed various slides depicting the different concepts for the major entry and neighborhood and community nodes. Councilmember Martinez asked how the equestrian trail would cross 75th Avenue. Mr. Gendreau said finding continuity of the trail posed the biggest challenge. He stated that the Master Plan recommends a surface crossing at 75th Avenue and Camelback Road for both pedestrians and equestrians. Councilmember Martinez asked what the total cost of the project would be. Mr. Smith said the total cost for the flood control channel and aesthetic improvements totaled $12.4 million, 50% of which would be paid for by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. He said the Master Plan, including neighborhood nodes, the multipurpose pads, and other recreational amenities, total $1.6 million. He stated that the Maricopa County Flood Control District shows funding in its ten-year plan and the City of Glendale's Park Bonds and Open Space and Trails Bonds are scheduled to coincide with the start of the project. Mr. Smith confirmed for Councilmember Goulet that the large turf areas would be primarily for passive uses. Councilmember Goulet asked how this project would be affected if the City's proposal for the property north of Bethany Home Road, West of 83rd Avenue, was successful. Mr. Smith said their plan was complementary to development. He noted that any development could connect into the open space. Councilmember Clark thanked Mr. Gendreau, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Minch for their efforts. She said there has been a radical shift in Maricopa County Flood Control District's policy in that they have decided to employ strategies that make a major project more resident and neighborhood friendly. She also thanked City staff for their hard work. She expressed her opinion that the equestrian and pedestrian trails would provide an opportunity for nice residential developments on the large parcels of land south of the canal. She expressed her appreciation for the equestrian trails. She noted that many residents in the area own horses. 8 Councilmember Frate thanked everyone involved in the project. He asked what alternative source of water would be used. Mr. Smith said they intended to use water from the canal. He noted that it is the cheapest water the City can buy. Councilmember Frate asked staff to explain the cost difference between the water being used at this project and the water used for the Thunderbird Paseo Park. Mr. Smith explained that the property rights at Thunderbird Paseo Park do not allow the City to use canal water, whereas the Grand Canal was designed to serve the surrounding area. Councilmember Frate asked if the cost for watering the soccer fields at Thunderbird Paseo Park would come out of the Parks and Recreation Fund. Mr. Smith said the City Council would make that decision. Mayor Scruggs asked if the project would take advantage of the new Western Area Waste Water Treatment Facility. Mr. Smith said it would, in terms of the credits the City would put into the ground. He stated that they would not pipe the western area. Mayor Scruggs asked if they could expect a more attractive and more dependably green greenbelt. Mr. Smith explained that water would be pumped from Salt River Project (SRP) and used to water the area from 83rd Avenue to 101 L. Mayor Scruggs asked who would be responsible for mowing the grass. Mr. Smith said his department would be responsible. He noted that it was included in the operating and maintenance costs identified for the project. Mr. Reedy explained that by recharging the water, they have the ability to trade it with SRP for water. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Reedy why they could not use the same watering process at Thunderbird Paseo Park. Mr. Reedy said they may be able to use some of the credit for Thunderbird Paseo Park in the future; however, there is still a debate about the area of influence. He explained that they cannot use SRP water at Thunderbird Paseo Park because it is located north of the canal and considered off- project. He noted that on-project water cannot be used off-project. He said, however, by putting the ground water credits into the ground at the Western Area Water Reclamation Facility, they could then use them off-project. He stated that they believed they would eventually be able to use those credits to maintain Thunderbird Paseo Park. Councilmember Clark stated that the cost of carrying pipeline to 83rd Avenue would be astronomical, and, therefore, trading the recharge credits for SRP water makes a lot of sense. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Clark. She stated that she hoped the system of credit stays in place. She noted that Thunderbird Paseo Park was originally supposed to be watered from effluent from a plant that was ultimately never built. She stressed the need to be prepared to handle changes in water policies. Councilmember Martinez thanked the Maricopa County Flood District and staff for the Skunk Creek Park. He said it will be a beautiful linear park when it is finished. 9 3. CITY COURT AMENDMENTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Cecil B. Patterson, Jr., Acting City Judge; Mr. Jim Scorza, Acting Court Administrator; and Ms. Brenda Way, Acting Deputy Court Administrator. The Acting Presiding City Judge recommended a change in the process for the selection and retention of city court judges and the method of establishing the compensation for city judges. The establishment of a Judicial Selection Advisory Board was recommended to review candidates for appointment or re-appointment to the positions of presiding city judge and city judge. The Board would be responsible for (1) seeking and encouraging qualified candidates to apply for vacant positions of judge of the City Court, (2) conducting investigations of candidates' and incumbents' background and qualifications, and (3) making recommendations on appointment or re-appointment to the City Council, who will continue to make the final decision on appointment or re-appointment. The presiding judge of the city court shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Board, except when the Board is considering the appointment or re-appointment of the presiding city judge. The Board shall consist of seven voting members, subject to the approval of the City Council, consisting of the following: 1. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County or his or her designee. 2. An appellate court judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. 3. A member of the Maricopa County Bar Association who shall reside in the City of Glendale and who shall be appointed by the City Council from among three nominees recommended by the association's board of directors. 4. A member of the State Bar of Arizona who shall reside in the City of Glendale and who shall be appointed by the City Council from among three nominees recommended by the State Bar's Board of Governors. 5. Three public members who shall be selected by the City Council who are residents of the City of Glendale and are not employees of the City of Glendale. 10 It was further recommended that the method of establishing the salary for city judges be updated. The salary of the presiding city judge would continue to be set by the City Council. However, the salary of all city judges would be set at a pre-determined percentage of the presiding city judge's salary. This will establish the uniformity of pay among the judges as required by Arizona law. In addition, it was recommended that the salary of the presiding city judge and city judges be permitted to increase during their term of office by the same percentage of increases granted to other city employees who are not dependent on the employees' performance (e.g., cost of living adjustments). Further, the salary of all city judges should be increased during their term of office to reflect any adjustments necessary to set the city judges' salary at the pre-determined percentage of the presiding judge's salary. The members shall serve without salary or compensation. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction Mr. Cecil B. Patterson, Jr., Acting City Judge explained Sections 13.2, 13.4, 13.6-13.8 of the current Glendale City Code, as well as the Article 3 proposal which needs to be updated. He said the Selection Advisory Commission is intended to provide a more comprehensive process for selection and retention of City Court Judges. He stated that they were proposing the seven-member Commission be composed of lawyers and lay people and that the Commission solicit and screen applications, do all interviewing, review all paperwork, and make recommendations to the City Council. He said they were suggesting an initial two-year term for City Judges and the Presiding Judge, with the second and subsequent retention terms being four years. He explained that the shorter initial term would allow an objective review of the performance of any new judge to occur before any decisions are made with regard to their retention. He noted that the City of Mesa has adopted a similar approach and has found it to be an effective mechanism for maintaining high quality judicial performance. With regard to retention, Mr. Patterson explained that the Board would initiate a process wherein a number of questionnaires would be sent to a variety of persons who have had contact with the judge during their term. He stated that the input received would be evaluated and provided to the judge for his or her review. He said the judge would then be offered a hearing and given an opportunity to respond to any negative comments made. He said the Council would have an opportunity to review the material when the judge comes before them for re-appointment. He explained that Board member terms would be staggered to preserve continuity, with each member serving for three years. Councilmember Lieberman stated he was not in favor of four-year terms for judges. He noted that a number of communities in the County have experienced problems with Presiding Judges. He said he appreciated the fact that the Board would be comprised of a mix of legal and lay persons. He asked how quickly they should begin the process of hiring a Presiding Judge. Mr. Patterson stated that they are prepared to begin the process of seeking out qualified individuals to serve on the Board as soon as the ordinance becomes effective. He said he hoped the Council would see fit to pass the ordinance as soon as possible. He explained that it was felt a four-year term would allow judges ample time to get fully into their role. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would probably support a two year/two year/four year term retention schedule. 11 Councilmember Clark referred to Section 13.6B Compensation of Judges. She noted that a City Judge's salary would be 90% of the salary of the Presiding Judge. She asked if State law requires the 90 percentage point basis. Mr. Patterson stated that the law does not require a specific percentage. He explained that they tried to identify a percentage that would be attractive to qualified candidates. Councilmember Clark asked what the State law requires in terms of ensuring uniformity of salary for judges. Mr. Patterson responded that State law requires uniformity, but it does not specify the method. He said salaries are determined in three ways. He explained that some jurisdictions base increases on cost of living factors or demographics, while others set salaries as a percentage of Superior Court Judges. Councilmember Clark asked if the State's requirement for uniformity refers to all judges within the State, County or a particular jurisdiction. Mr. Patterson stated that uniformity is required within the City. Mayor Scruggs asked if it was fair that judges with less experience were paid the same as those with more experience. Mr. Patterson explained that all judges are presumed to have the same skills and any individual interested in becoming a judge is expected to accommodate him or herself to that salary level. He stated that the Council's obligation is to set a minimum criteria in terms of experience, but then to set the salary at a level that attracts a large pool from which to draw. He explained that his suggestion was in no way intended to mean that the salary levels should be exorbitant. Councilmember Clark stated that the City's Human Resources Department could still review and make salary recommendations to the Presiding Judge. Mr. Patterson agreed. Councilmember Clark likened the issue to bidding wars that occur among sports teams. She stated that different communities would increase salary levels to attract more qualified candidates. Mr. Patterson said, while the possibility exists, he had not seen that kind of competition occur. He noted that two cities he is familiar with have two completely different approaches to setting salaries. Councilmember Clark said she was not ready to support that portion of the ordinance. Mr. Patterson said, according to Mr. Flaaen, City Judges have historically received approximately 85% of the Presiding Judge's salary. He asked Councilmember Clark to take that information into consideration. Mr. Flaaen explained that salaries for the past three or four re- appointments were set between 83% and 86% of the Presiding Judge's salary. He clarified that the Council is not required to specify a percentage; however, the City is required to ensure that no Assistant City Judge makes a different salary than any other Assistant City Judge. Councilmember Clark asked how previous cost of living increases are factored in when new judges are hired. Mr. Patterson stated that the new judge would be paid the same amount as the existing judges. Acknowledging the need for uniformity among judges, Councilmember Clark stated that it does not provide any incentive to achieve excellence in the field. Mr. Flaaen reiterated that all judges are presumed to have the same level of excellence and experience and will perform at the same level. Councilmember Lieberman mentioned a suit which was recently filed against the City by a retired judge. Mr. Flaaen said the suit was currently in litigation and could not be discussed outside of executive session. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that the 10% difference between the Presiding and City Judge salaries is inadequate, considering the Presiding Judge's responsibilities. He suggested that it be increased to 15%. Mr. Patterson agreed that 15% would be an acceptable difference. 12 Councilmember Frate pointed out that the two year/two year/four year retention terms would allow them to weed out those judges who do not have adequate experience or who fail to meet the City's expectations. Mr. Patterson agreed. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that people should receive the same quality of expertise, regardless of the judge they appear before. Mr. Patterson agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston. He noted that individuals selected for judges are usually selected from a pool of Pro-Tern Judges. Councilmember Clark acknowledged that State law requires uniformity. She stated, however, that she had a problem with setting an arbitrary percentage between salaries. She asked why they were recommending that the City not rely on its Human Resources Department to recommend salary levels. Mr. Patterson explained that they were not against the Human Resources Department recommending salaries; however, the ordinance would provide clear direction in terms of establishing the salaries. Councilmember Clark stated that the ordinance has eliminated the Human Resource Department's ability to have input on the salary structure, substituting it with a percentage. Mr. Flaaen explained that the Human Resources Department would have a role in setting the salary of the Presiding Judge. Councilmember Clark restated her concern that all reference to the Human Resources Department's role was deleted and the ordinance refers specifically and only to a percentage. She asked where there is any reference to the Human Resources Department setting the Presiding Judge's salary. Mr. Flaaen stated that specific reference to the role of the Human Resources Department is not made. Mayor Scruggs summarized by stating that all City Judges within a jurisdiction have to be paid the same because the law requires uniformity. She said the percentage difference reflects the value of the administrative work done by the Presiding Judge and it is up to the Council to determine how much that administrative work is worth. She stated that a 15% difference would not lower the City Judge's salary, but place greater value on the Presiding Judge's added responsibilities. Councilmember Clark asked what percentage of the Presiding Judge's work week was devoted exclusively to administrative duties. Mr. Scorza stated that the percentage would vary, depending on the individual assigned to the position, as well as the person assigned as the Court Administrator. He said it would also vary based on the point in time during the Presiding Judge's term. He explained that a newer Presiding Judge would take longer to complete the different administrative duties. He said, once the person is experienced in the position, the Presiding Judge would probably spend 60% of his or her time on the bench, with the remaining time spent on administrative responsibilities. He said the percentage of time spent on administrative duties could further drop if the Court Administrator was fully utilized. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the difference between the salary of a Presiding Judge and a City Judge was too narrow. She suggested that it be increased to 20%. Mr. Scorza pointed out that the Presiding Judge's administrative duties are performed in place of some percentage of his or her judicial workload. He stated that 85% would be appropriate. He said he would be reluctant to go much below that amount. He recommended that Council take into consideration the City's history of having an 83% to 86% difference. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Mr. Scorza. She stated that 80% could reduce the pool of qualified individuals from which to choose. 13 Councilmember Goulet said a judge's role is to interpret existing law, write opinions, and run their court in an efficient and effective manner. He likened judges to elected officials. He noted that elected officials also receive the same salary regardless of experience. He said judges are appointed because they are believed to be the best qualified person. He stated judges are not concerned with the reward, so much as the opinions they render. He said the Council's task is to attract a pool of qualified individuals who consistently render fair decisions. He expressed his opinion that two year/two year/four year retention terms were appropriate. Councilmember Martinez said he also believed a 10% difference would be too narrow and that 15% would be appropriate. Judge Patterson confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that City Judges would receive a cost of living increase if other City employees received one. Mayor Scruggs asked how they project cost of living increases when a judge comes up for re-appointment. Mr. Patterson said an adjustment to the Presiding Judge's salary could be made when the term starts, which would consequently raise the salary for City Judges. He stated that there is no schedule for cost of living increases. He explained that it is triggered when the City determines that all employees should receive a cost of living adjustment. Mayor Scruggs asked how merit adjustments are handled. Mr. Scorza stated that judges do not receive merit increases; however, an adjustment could be made if, at the beginning of a term, the Council determines the salary to be insufficient. Councilmember Clark asked why it was necessary to remove "approval of the City Manager" from Section 13.8B. Mr. Patterson said he believed it was a separation of powers issue. He explained that there was a question as to whether a member of the Executive Branch should exercise influence and control over a member of the Judiciary. In response to another question posed by Councilmember Clark, Mr. Patterson explained that Judges Pro Tern are screened, managed, and appointed within the judiciary. He said they were suggesting that the Judicial Advisory Board be included in the screening process. Councilmember Lieberman stated that including the Judicial Advisory Board in the screening process would eliminate possible favoritism on the part of the Presiding City Judge. Councilmember Clark asked if the same issue of favoritism applied to the ability of City Judges to appoint hearing officers without approval from the City Manager. Mr. Patterson said, while he was unable to quote specific law, he believed that separation of powers was required. Mr. Flaaen agreed. He explained that when the Presiding Judge selects a Judge Pro Tern or Administrative Hearing Officer, the Presiding Judge is selecting an individual to act in his or her stead in performing judicial duties. He said, therefore, separation of powers is required. He noted that action could be taken against the Presiding Judge if he or she fails to properly oversee the court. Councilmember Clark asked why they did not propose involving the Judicial Advisory Board in the hiring process for hearing officers. Mr. Flaaen stated that was not suggested because a hearing officer operates at a different level than a Judge Pro Tem. He said, rather than burdening the selection committee with that responsibility, they decided to place their faith in the Presiding Judge's ability to make those suggestions. Mr. Patterson explained that the Presiding Judge generally forms a committee made up of judges, administrators, and lawyers and the committee then makes recommendations to the City Judge. He said the City Judge would then use those recommendations to determine who will serve. 14 Councilmember Lieberman stated that , as a hearing officer, he was appointed by the Superior Court and could be called by any Justice of the Peace to hear non-criminal cases. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that the City Manager should not have approval authority over Administrative Hearing Officers. Councilmember Martinez asked if all city courts have Administrative Hearing Officers. Mr. Scorza stated courts are not legally required to have Administrative Hearing Officers. He said the City of Phoenix has Hearing Officers authorized to hear all civil traffic matters, but they are different than the Administrative Hearing Officers set forth in the City of Glendale ordinance. He noted that the City of Phoenix' motivation for coming up with the Hearing Officer classification was that they could pay the Hearing Officers less than a Judge. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the Human Resources Director make a presentation to the Council on the various City Courts around the Valley in terms of the relationship they assign to the salaries of City Judges and Presiding Judges. The Council agreed. Mayor Scruggs suggested that it be brought to the Council at its January 8, 2002 Workshop session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. 15