Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/15/2002 * 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 January 15, 2002 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, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. WESTERN AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. G P-00-04 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jon Froke, Planning and Zoning Director; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Ms. Kate Langford, Long Range Senior Planner. This was the third City Council Workshop on the Western Area General Plan Amendment. Discussions were be centered on the new land use categories and remaining areas of emphasis. At the City Council's Workshop held on January 8, 2002, the Western Area Amendment discussion included the following issues: • Review of the proposed alterations for 150 + acres located at the northwest corner cif Camelback Road and 91St Avenue. Alterations to the proposed Western Area Amendment became necessary when Tolleson Union High School District and Pendergast School District announced plans to construct a high school and elementary school within the referenced quarter section of land. • The inclusion of language in the Development Guidelines section of the amendrr ent that would provide a listing of suggested amenities to be included in development projects abutting Glendale Avenue. Special emphasis is to be given to the "Gateway" areas of Glendale Avenue located on the east and west sides of the Agua Fria Freeway (Loop 101). 1 At the City Council's Workshop held on December 11, 2001, the Western Area Amendment discussion was initiated. The discussion included the amendment's history, the four new land use categories, and the amount and distribution of commercial opportunities within the study area. The proposed Western Area amendment's major features are the continuation of the employment reserve, a regional activity center, strengthening the area's image as the western "Gateway to Glendale", and the introduction of four new land use designations. The four new land use designations contained in the proposed amendment are Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC), Community Shopping Center (CSC), Corporate Commerce Center (CCC), and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU). Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) - This is a planned commercial development that meets the daily demand for retail shopping and business services from residents in the surrounding neighborhood(s). A typical center includes an anchor tenant, such as a grocery store, and several smaller retail stores. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit with shared access and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and signage. All uses are compatible with each other and the adjoining neighborhood(s). Large community scale retail and heavy retail uses are not appropriate. These centers typically range in size from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet of gross floor area. Community Shopping Center (CSC) - This is a planned commercial development that meets the demand for comparison shopping and specialty shopping within the community. A typical center includes one or more anchor tenants, such as junior department stores, major discount stores, "big box retailers", and entertainment uses, as well as a wide variety of smaller specialty stores and restaurants. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit with shared access and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and signage. Preferred locations are near freeways and major arterial streets away from residential neighborhoods. These centers typically range in size from 150,000 to 500,000 square feet of gross floor area. Corporate Commerce Center (CCC) - This is a major mixed-use employment center that provides an attractive environment for corporate, business, and professiona offices. Complementary land uses include, but are not limited to, community level retail, specialty retail, hotels, restaurants, major medical, entertainment, and other destination uses serving the broader region. Carefully integrated housing development may be permitted in limited quantities. The desired mix of land use is 55% office; 30% retail, hotels, restaurants, major medical, and other destination uses; and no more than 15% housing. A variety of housing products are to be provided. Desired land use acreages are calculated from the total number of acres contained within any single area designated as Corporate Commerce Center. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the gross floor area of the employment generating land use(s) has 2 been developed in the area. The Corporate Commerce Center is master planned; and developed in orderly phases under common design guidelines. Major amenities include common open space, water features, and public art. Structured parking and mixed-use buildings a'e encouraged. The intent is to create a high-quality development environment with a unique character not found in other parts of the City or the West Valley. Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU) - This is a regional level sports, entertainment and employment center. The following uses are allowed in any combination or quantity: multi-purpose arena, corporate/business/professional office, restaurants, retail power center, entertainment, hotels, commercial, cultural and housing. Housing development is not allowed to exceed 15% of the total acreage of the area designated SEMU. A variety of housing products are to be provided. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the gross floor area of the employment generating land use(s) have been developed in the area. The mixed-use center is master planned and developed in orderly phases with common driveways, shared parking, unifying architecture, landscaping, plazas, courtyards, open spaces, streetscape, public art, and lighting. The mixed-use center will be developed in phases consistent with high quality, common design standards. The intensity and height of mixed-use development is sensitive to proximity of low-density residential development. Employment-generating land uses are the emphasis of the Western Area amendment. Little change is proposed west of the Agua Fria Freeway (Loop 101). This area is predominately designated as Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI). Changes between 115th Avenue and the Loop 101 include the addition of the Western Area Water Reclamation Facility; adjusting the location of the commercial opportunity at Glen Harbor Boulevard and Glendale Avenue; adjustment of the New River corridor in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); correction of the alignments of 99th Avenue and the Loop 101; and the adjustment of the commercial opportunities at the intersection of 99th and Glendale Avenues. East of the Loop 101 to 83rd Avenue can be characterized as a mixture of employment, retail, entertainment, and residential development. The corridor from tie east side of the Loop 101 to 91st Avenue is the area of greatest change. Three of the new land use designations occur within this area: Community Shopping Center, Corporate Commerce Center, and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use. The corridor between 83rd and 91st Avenues is predominately residential, with some neighborhood commercial located at the intersection of arterials. The residential density overall is slightly lower than that of the existing General Plan. The new Neighborhood Shopping Center designation occurs within this area. 3 Two main issues have surfaced during the processing of this amendment: (1) residential densities, in particular the lack of higher densities for multiple-family housing; and (2) the amount of acreage being designated for business park and corporate commerce center. Concerns have been expressed, mainly by potential developers, that the residential densities are too low and that there is no opportunity for the development of multiple family housing. It is correct that there are no "stand-alone" high-density sites within the study area. However, the Corporate Commerce Center and the Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use designations include an opportunity for residential development. The Corporate Commerce Center and Sports/Entertainment Mixed-Use designations contain two criteria regarding residential development. The first criteria is that a minimum of 30% of the employment or retail use be established prior to any residential development. The second criteria is that a maximum of only 15% of the total acreage within a single area designated either Corporate Commerce Center or Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use is permitted to be residential. The potential absorption rates for both the Business Park and Corporate Commerce Center areas have been questioned. The concern has been that there is too much acreage identified by these uses. The long-term development of the Western Area as an employment center for the entire City is the overall goal of these two designations. The Council may receive testimony during the public hearing regarding the following locations: (1) the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues; (2) the northeast corner of 91St and Glendale Avenues; and (3) the area bounded by Camelback Road, 95th Avenue, Missouri Avenue, and 91st Avenue. The 30 acres located at the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues is owned by two different parties. The 1.2 acres directly on the corner is owned by a family that wishes to develop a convenience store with petroleum sales and a car wash. The remaining 27.8 acres is owned by a developer wishing to develop a community shopping center. The Planning Commission recommended that Neighborhood Shopping Center wrapped by Limited Office be the land use designations for that location. A site of approximately 15 acres located at the northeast corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues has a Commission recommendation to be designated as single-family residential densities of 5-8 dwelling units per acre. The existing 1989 General Plan shows this location as Shopping Center (SC), which would translate to Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) included in the proposed amendment. Approximately 150 + acres, bounded by Camelback Road, 95th Avenue, Missouri Avenue, and 91st Avenue, are proposed to be a combination of Limited Office and single-family residential densities of 1-2.5, 2.5-3.5 and 5-8 dwelling units per acre. Since the Planning Commission recommendation in August of 2001, both the Tolleson Union High School District and the Pendergast School District have indicated that a 4 new high school and elementary school are to be constructed within the 150+ acre area. The potential of a high school being constructed in this location significantly alters the way in which staff views the future development potential of this area. The summary of the proposed amendments was provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the first public hearing held on January 11, 2001. The first public hearing on this proposed amendment was held at Independence High School on the evening of January 11, 2001. The second public hearing was held on January 25, 2001 in the City Counci Chambers. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 8, 2001, to allow time for the Commission to conduct workshops to discuss the proposed amendment and review background material. On March 8, 2001, the Planning Commission was asked to extend the second public hearing to April 19, 2001 . A draft listing of issues to be discussed during upcoming workshops on the Western Area General Plan Update was provided to the Planning Commission members at the April 5, 2001 meeting. A tentative schedule for completing the Commission's consideration of Case No. GP-00-04 was also presented to the Commission at that time. On April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the second public hearing to June 21, 2001. A total of three workshops were conducted with the Planning Commission during the month of May 2001. At the most recent workshop, held on May 31, 2001, the Commission indicated that there was a desire to continue this case once more so that two more workshops could be conducted. On June 21, 2001 , the Planning Commission continued the second public hearing to July 19, 2001. Two additional workshops were conducted on June 19, 2001 and July 12, 2001. Discussions of proposed amendments to the text and land use map occurred at each of these workshops. Testimony was taken at the continuation of the second public hearing on July 19, 2001. A total of ten individuals or representatives spoke. The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular Commission meeting of August 16, 2001. A special workshop was conducted on July 26, 2001. This final workshop was intended to address issues raised by speakers at the July 19th public hearing and to review correspondence and suggested maps changes. On August 16, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Application No. GF'-00-04 by a vote of 6-1. The first City Council Workshop on this item was conducted on December 11 , 2001. The public hearing on this amendment application before the City Council has been scheduled for February 26, 2002. 5 A Citizen Participation Plan was prepared and implemented to encourage community involvement in this General Plan update. This included mailings to individual property owners and other interested parties, two public open house meetings, a half-day workshop with commercial brokers and developers, meetings with major property owners, ongoing meetings with a marketing group sponsored by the City's Economic Development Department, information on the City's web site, periodic news releases, and a final public meeting in December of 2000. A detailed Citizen Participation report is on file at the Planning Department. Notices for the January 11, 2001 and January 25, 2001 public hearings were published in the Glendale Star. Posters were placed at 30 locations within the study area and letters were sent to 2,451 property owners and interested parties. A public meeting was conducted at Desert Mirage Elementary School on the evening of May 30, 2001. Approximately, 80 to 90 people were in attendance. The purpose of this public meeting was to discuss alterations to the draft land use map resulting from the proposed arena and other recent developments, and the issue of multiple-family housing. On August 8, 2001, the Planning Department held a public meeting at Desert Mirage Elementary Schocl. Approximately, 55 people attended. The goal of this meeting was to provide an opportunity to view and discuss the August 6, 2001 draft that resulted from numerous workshop discussions with the Planning Commission. On August 24, 2001 the 60-day review, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes, was initiated. A copy of the Western Area Amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was sent to a total of 16 local jurisdictions, state agencies, utility companies, and school districts for review and comment. The 60-day review period ended on October 23, 2001. There are no additional budget or cost impacts resulting from this amendment process. The recommendation was to review the Western Area Plan Amendment and move forward to a public hearing on February 26, 2002. Ms. Langford summarized the issues which were discussed at previous Council Workshops. Mayor Scruggs noted that the Council has a special interest in seeing that specific amenities are developed in the area around Glendale Avenue, between 99th Avenue and the Loop 101 . She stated, however, that the Council would not require, mandate, or order those amenities to be developed. Councilmember Goulet asked if staff was recommending that the Shamrock development be relocated. Ms. Langford stated that the amendment does not specifically recommend an alteration for that particular development. She explained 6 that the reasoning behind the original designation of 8-12 dwelling units per acre was to provide the property owner with an opportunity for income potential. She stated that moving to a 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre designation would require a drastic change in land use for the property owner. Councilmember Goulet asked how large the mobile home park was in terms of acreage. Ms. Langford estimated the mobile home park to be 20 acres. Councilmember IV artinez asked if those 20 acres were the total owned by that property owner. Ms. Langford said the property owner owns approximately 60 acres. Councilmember Martinez noted that the property owner has vested zoning rights and would possibly agree to multi-family dwellings. Ms. Langford agreed with Councilmember Martinez. She explained that the current designation for the mobile home park is R4-MH and a change in the General Plan designation would not alter the existing zoning. She said, at this point, there is nothing that would require the property owner to use the property for something other than the mobile home park. She stated that the last documentation received from the property owner indicated that they would like a higher density than the proposed 3.5 to 5, ideally staying at 8 to 12. Councilmember Clark asked how the land had been designated on the General Plan for the last eleven years. Ms. Langford reviewed the designations for various properties west of 83"d Avenue. She noted that the densities were significantly higher than what was currently being proposed. Councilmember Clark pointed out that the higher density designations did not incite the property owners to develop their property. Ms. Langford agreed with Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Clark asked if the General Plan indicates what the Council would like to see happen in specific areas of the City. Ms. Langford explained that the General Plan indicates the City's preference, but does not indicate specific zoning categories. Councilmember Goulet pointed out the fact that the property owners would not have been likely to develop the property ten years ago when there were no supporting amenities in the area. He said that could change due to all of the development that has occurred in the last year. Ms. Langford agreed that new developments have drastically changed the character and potential of the area. Councilmember Frate said he agreed with the current designation. He noted that a lower density designation could result in the property owner vacating the property. He agreed that development occurring in the area could help entice the property owner to do something else with the property. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the hard-zoning on the rest of the area was. Ms. Langford stated that most of the remaining property west of the manufactured home park remains A-1 . Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would be more inclined to agree with a 3.5 to 5 dwelling units designation. He expressed his opinion that a lower density would not fit in with the surrounding area. 7 Councilmember Clark said there is a general feeling that high-density residential can be used as a buffer against commercial properties; however, there are several areas in the City where nice housing developments are juxtapositioned next to commercial. She asked the Council not to consider higher density as being necessary to buffer between residential and commercial properties. She noted that 147 acres will be designated for high density housing. She stated that this was one of her rationales for lowering density in other areas. Mayor Scruggs said, based on the information given, the Planning Commission's recommendation for the land use on that property was consistent with the R1-6 already developed immediately to the south. Mr. Froke clarified that the General Plan designation on the existing neighborhood is identified as 2.5 to 3.5. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Planning Commission's recommendation of 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, or Councilmember Clark's recommendation of 2.5 to 3.5, was more appropriate. Mr. Froke pointed out that the Le Buena Veda neighborhood was plotted about 16 years ago and a lot of design components have changed since the adoption of the 1999 Design Guidelines. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the cost of lots and homes has also changed. He stated that homes in a 3.5 to 5 dwelling units designated area would cost approximately $135,000 to $150,000. He questioned whether the market would bear larger, more expensive homes. Mayor Scruggs asked if a deep landscape buffer would be required. Mr. Froke said the West Glendale Avenue Design Plan requires substantial setbacks and buffering. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that a 3.5 to 5 designation would not result in low-priced homes. She stated that development is expensive and the desirability is there. Councilmember Goulet commented that the General Plan has to be flexible enough to meet changing future needs. He pointed out the fact that residents do not want their homes to be considered buffers. He said it is important for the City to offer a variety of housing options. He noted that development occurring west of the area may create the need for a higher density housing option. Councilmember Clark cautioned the Council against focusing only on the western area. She noted that the City offers a very diverse array of housing products. Mr. Froke agreed with Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the City of Glendale lacks high-end housing. She stated that this was the reason she supported reduced density. Mayor Scruggs asked what the depth of the property was. Mr. Froke stated that it is one-quarter mile, with the southern boundary being Ocotillo Road. Mayor Scruggs asked what the required depth for buffers at newer developments was. Mr. Froke said Marbrisa Ranch has a similar property depth, with a buffer depth that ranges between 35 feet and 100 feet. Mayor Scruggs questioned whether the developer of a quality 8 project would be able to net enough houses to pay for the land once amenities, such as parks, open space and buffers, are factored in. Mr. Froke agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that the applicant needs to take those factors into consideration. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that a 2.5 to 5 units per acre designation would be ideal, as it would allow the developer to develop different sized lots. Mr. Froke stated that the City can ensure a quality development through the zoning process, regardless of the designation. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's support for the Planning Commission's recommendation of a 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre designation. Councilmember Clark asked for a 0 to 1 designation along the Bethany Home Outfall Channel and the Grand Canal. She explained that she believed it presents an opportunity to develop horse properties. She also asked that the area around Camelback Park Estates be given a 1 to 2.5 density designation. Councilmember Goulet asked if the existing owners wanted their properties designated for horse use. He also asked where the horse properties would stop. Mr. Froke said they did not have much communication with the property owner, Mr. John F. Long. He explained that the linear open space from 83rd Avenue west to the Airport serves an engineering function and could be turned into a recreational corridor. He said there is not much east of 83rd Avenue and, therefore, the trailhead would start at 83rd Avenue and go west. Councilmember Martinez asked about zoning for the area. Mr. Froke explained that the area between 83r` and 91st Avenues, south of the Grand Canal, is predominantly R1- 8PRD. He noted that a new subdivision is currently under construction at the immediate northwest corner of 83rd and Missouri Avenues. He said that area is identified as lower density residential and zoned SR-17. Ms. Langford stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation was for 2.5 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, which is the same as the 1989 General Plan now in effect. Mayor Scruggs asked if Mr. Long had made any comments as to the designation. Ms. Langford said his representatives made a couple of inquiries, but no active comments were received. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the property's current zoning. Ms. Langford stated that all of the 2.5 to 3.5 designated area is currently zoned as R1-8 PRD. Mr. Froke stated that they could evaluate extending the 1 to 2.5 designation to offer some transition zoning. Mayor Scruggs asked why they could not designate the property as it is zoned. Mr. Froke explained that development patterns were different at the time it was originally zoned. Mayor Scruggs suggested that they leave the zoning as is. 9 Councilmember Clark said Mr. Long had proposed several uses for the property. She stated her belief that Mr. Long would be willing to plan and develop the property according to the City's vision. Vice Mayor Eggleston and Councilmember Goulet voiced their support of the Planning Commission's recommendation for a 2.5 to 3.5 designation. Mayor Scruggs and the remainder of the Council agreed. With regard to Number 4, Councilmember Clark expressed concern about the amount of housing being allocated within less than a two-square-mile area. She explained that 15% of the 975 acres allows for 146.25 acres of housing. She stated that she could not envision a developer putting housing in that area. She said her constituents do not have a problem with the concept of loft apartments or locating higher density housing along the freeway. She stated, however, that her constituents do have a problem using high-density housing as a buffer between single-family residential and commercial developments. She noted that the high-density housing in the Arrowhead Ranch Master Plan, a seven square mile planning area, equates to 3% of the total land mass. She acknowledged the need for high-density housing. She stated, however, that the rationale that high-density housing is needed to support the employment centers planned for the area does not hold true since 15% would not be adequate to accomplish that goal. She said the West Valley will be a regional destination, both because of the arena and the extraordinary character of its commercial, residential, and retail developmeni:s. She stated that housing needs to be considered from a regional standpoint as wel . She noted that the cities of Phoenix and Peoria are developing high-density, multi-family as fast as they can. She stated that the City is not providing high-end executive housing opportunities, a policy goal identified within the document. Mayor Scruggs suggested that it would be more appropriate to compare the area to the Arrowhead Mall area rather than the planned single-family residential development. Mr. Froke said they had done an analysis on the amount of multi-family residential in Arrowhead Ranch, but had not evaluated the North Valley Specific Area Plan. He offered to analyze the apartment developments north of the Arrowhead Mall area and bring that information back to the Council. He stated that they reduced the amount of housing allowed in the areas identified as CCC and SEMU from 20% to 15% last summer. These areas are identified as pink in the land use plan. Councilmember Lieberman stated that 28% of all dwelling units in the City are multi- family. Mr. Froke agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. Councilmember Lieberman noted that 22% of all dwelling units in the Yucca District are multi-family. He expressed his opinion that they are not pushing multi-family developments in any particular district. He asked the Council to support directing staff to require that housing be placed along the freeway or on the second floor of stores. 10 Councilmember Goulet stressed the need to look at future growth rates for a particular area when making the plan for that area. He cautioned against basing decisions on what other cities plan to do. Councilmember Clark said 15% of the pink area in the land use plan equals 146.25 acres. She noted that, at a density of 13 to 17 dwelling units per acre, the City can look forward to between 1,901 and 2,486 dwelling units. Mayor Scruggs stated that this was the reason she would like to see a comparison to the North Valley Specific Area. She said they should also separate the large lot developments that originated in Maricopa County. She pointed out that the rent for the proposed multi-family dwellings would be approximately $1 ,150 to $1,500 per month, considerably more than many people pay in mortgage payments. Mr. Froke reported that they had reached an agreement with the owner and his representative on the configuration of the pink area in the land use plan that wraps the commercial areas that are identified as red on the land use plan. He said the current designation does not work for the property owner. For this reason, he recommended that the red area on the land use plan area extend down to the south property line and be identified as NSC and the eastern portion of the property abutting the 89d' Avenue alignment be identified as Limited Office (LO). Mayor Scruggs and the Council voiced no objection to the change. Mr. Froke stated that they will provide a memorandum to the Mayor and Council. Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark had indicated she wanted an opportunity to continue the discussion on Item 4 and to discuss Items 6 and 7. Councilmember Clark said she was extremely disappointed that most of her recommendations related to an attempt to preserve quality of life had been denied by the Council. She acknowledged that everyone gave the recommendations serious consideration. She stated, however, that she was extremely frustrated. She said, at this point, she wog Id agree with staff's recommendations regarding housing densities. Councilmember Lieberman noted that much of the land is still located within Maricopa County. He alsc pointed out that nothing they had agreed to would preclude a developer from coming in at a future date and request a zoning change. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. Mayor Scruggs stated that Council had discussed the items extensively and she felt that Councilmember Clark's criticism was excessively harsh. 11 2. CITY COURT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Cecil B. Patterson, Jr., Acting City Judge; and Mr. Jim Scorza, Acting Court Administrator. The Acting Court Administrator provided a status report to the Council regarding accomplishments !achieved to date. 1. The Court has taken action to reduce jail costs and court-appointed attorney costs by implementing several changes in the jail court process. Annual savings are currently estimated to be $250,000. 2. Since N Dvember of 2001, walk-in arraignments have been expanded to five days per week from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., with the goal of expanding same to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The expansion will eliminate delays in case processing, as well as reduce the need to turn defendants away who entered the court to resolve Their case. 3. The Court is working with the Police Department and will implement a procedure in February of 2002 that consolidates officers' cases and the number of times that he/she must appear in court, minimizing overtime costs to the Police Department. 4. Beginning in February of 2002, civil traffic matters will be heard by a judge five days a week. This will expedite the process of civil traffic citations. 5. The Court is working with the Police Department to improve citation accountability. A citation submittal sheet will be used by the Police Department. This submittal will be dated and include the citation number, the defendant's last name, officer number, and the date that the citation was issued. This procedure will ensure accountability as submittal sheets can be verified with citation reports from the Court's database. 6. In November of 2001, the Court began imposing an Indigent Administrative Fee, not to exceed $25, to defendants who are appointed counsel, as well as ordering defendants to pay court appointed attorney reimbursement costs at a level agreed upon between the judge and the defendant. The fees shall be deposited into the City General Fund to defray the costs of court appointed counsel. Since this fee is authorized by Statute, a local ordinance authorizing the fee is not necessary. The Acting Court Administrator recommended that the City Court Security Surcharge Ordinance be amended to add a default fee and collection fee, as well as re-naming the surcharge court improvements fee, allowing the current fund to be used for technology enhancements and other needed improvements as well as security. 12 1. A defendant who fails to pay a financial obligation owed to the City Court would Le liable for any fees and charges assessed by a collection agency which is used by City Court in attempting to collect delinquent outstanding obligations. The collection fees and charges assessed by the collection agency would be added to the individual's balance due. 2. It is projected that a default fee of $50 per violation (the amount recommended by the Budget Department) will result in additional annual revenue of $210,000, assuming a collection rate in Glendale is comparable to that of other Valley cities. Effective use of a collection agency is an essential part of the City's ability to achieve a collection rate comparable to other Valley cities. 3. A default fee would be assessed for each default judgment entered on a civil traffic violation if the defendant failed to appear or failed to pay a civil sanction. A City Judge may waive all or any part of the fee if the payment of the fee would cause a hardship to the individual. 4. The court security account currently provides for funding to pay contract security guards, minor security renovations, security equipment, and any other security-related expenditures. By expanding the fee, the Court will have the ability to pay for expenses related to technology or other needed improvements, as well as security. The Acting Court Administrator recommended changes to the current Court organizational structure. 1 . The proposed organizational structure facilitates the re-distribution of processes, allowing management to assign specific business processes as primary responsibilities to Court personnel, who can then be trained to develop the skill set necessary to perform those responsibilities in a more productive manner. 2. The proposed organization divides supervision and management into four functional areas. A change in the distribution of workload is needed to facilitate a greater efficiency and accountability. The distribution requires funding of an additional Court Supervisor and a Court Information Clerk. 3. The Court currently utilizes seven temporary employees, three of whom perform collection activities and four of whom perform various data entry functions. The Court proposes converting the three temporary positions performing collection activities into two full-time staff positions. The remaining four temporary staff members are currently funded through a grant. In Fiscal Year 2002/03 there will remain only enough grant money to fund two of the four positions. Therefore, the Court was requesting that two of these grant- funded positions be added to the budget in Fiscal Year 2002/03. 13 4. The Court is using security funds to pay police officers overtime to provide added security during Court operations. Adding one police officer to the Court's budget, paid for with security funds, will result in an annual saving of $32,330. 5. The Court currently provides interpreting services through an agency in a variety cif languages for a fee of $45 to $60 an hour. The largest portion of the budget is expended on Spanish interpreters. The Court proposes converting some of the funds into two full-time Spanish interpreters. The remainirg funds would be used to fund all other languages and back up Spanish interpretation for weekends, holidays, and additional needed support for the two full-time interpreters. The Acting Court Administrator met with Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, on November 19, 2001 to discuss the new organizational structure. The Acting Court Administrator met with Mr. Charlie McClendon, Management and Budget Director, cn November 26, 2001 to discuss the funding needed to implement the new organizational structure. The Acting Court Administrator met with Ms. LaVerne Parker-Diggs, Human Resources Director, on Decernber 6, 2001 to discuss position classifications needed to implement the new organizational structure. There are no additional costs associated with the adoption of the ordinance revisions. The conversion of temporary collection staff to regular City employees will have no budget impact to tie Fiscal Year 2001/2002 budget, but will result in a $20,787 impact to the Fiscal Year 2002/03 budget. The conversion of two of the four grant-funded positions to regular City employees will result in no budget impact for the current budget year, but will result in a $74,720 impact to the Fiscal Year 2002/03 budget. The addition of a Court Supervisor and one Court Information Clerk will result in a budget impact of $21,188 to the current budget year and $84,750 to the Fiscal Year 2002/03 budget. There is no budget cost for the conversion of the police officer or the interpreters. In fact, the addition of a police officer position will result in annual overtime savings of $32,330 The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. 14 Mr. Scorza thanked Mr. Beasley and the other department heads for their assistance and cooperation. He said he was firmly convinced that, with the proposed structure and a number of key court personnel, the City will have one of the finest municipal courts in the State within 18 to 24 months. He briefly reviewed accomplishments they had achieved to date. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how jail court differs from other courts. Mr. Scorza explained that jail court is the courtroom used to handle all in-custody defendants. He noted that a lot of the processing takes place via a video link between the jail and the courtroom. Councilmember Martinez asked if individuals have to make a court appearance within a specified period of time. Mr. Scorza explained that when pleas were no longer taken in jail court upon an individual's initial arrest, they were often transported to Maricopa County. He said, even though individuals were seen within 24 hours as required by law, they could be at Maricopa County for five to seven days before being brought back to Glendale. Councilmember Martinez asked for information concerning unserved warrants. Mr. Scorza said part of the dramatic revenue decline over the past two years was due, in part, to unserved warrants and backlogs in collections and defaults. He said re- instituting the use of a collection agency would allow the City to be more aggressive in those areas. Councilmember Martinez asked if any of the unserved warrants involved fines. Mr. Scorza explained that there are two types of warrants: (1) pre-adjudicated warrants, where people fail to appear for their court appearance prior to the point in time when they have been adjudged, and no financial obligation is owing; and (2) those who have been found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine, and have failed to do so. Councilmember Martinez asked if letters of amnesty sent out by other cities work. Mr. Scorza spoke about his experience with amnesty in the City of Phoenix. He stated that, while it initially brought in a substantial amount of revenue, the court's revenue decreased by the same amount the following twelve months. He expressed his opinion that it is not in the city or court's best interest to offer amnesty. Councilmember Martinez stated he was very impressed with all of the positive changes that had taken place. Councilmember Goulet asked if there was a statute of limitations on civil warrants. Judge Patterson said warrants generally do not have a statute of limitations. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Scorza about the 18 to 24 month transition period and forecasted revenue. Mr. Scorza said they had already begun to see a turnaround in revenue. He recognized that some of the decrease in revenue may have been attributable to a reduction in citations issued by the Police Department. He said, as they begin to work through the backlogs and enforce non-payments, the City will see a substantial increase in revenue. He stated that he anticipated spending the next 18 to 24 months reviewing a number of detailed processes within the Municipal Court. He said, in addition to an accountability system, he hoped to put metrics in place that measure activity levels, workload levels, turn around times, and so forth. He said, upon 15 completion of the review, functions will be grouped and assigned to people with primary responsibility. Mr. Scorza noted that it is also a matter of changing the culture of the court. He stated that he was very pleased with the quality of employees at the court; however, key people need to be placed in leadership positions to provide proper guidance. Councilmember Martinez said speeding continues to be a big problem in the City. He stated that police officers are reluctant to issue citations because judges often throw them out. Mr. Scorza said they had instituted regular staff meetings, both with support staff and judges. He said police officers expressed frustration about that issue at one of the staff meetings and, after a review of the issue, their concern was found to be legitimate. He explained that they reviewed the law with the judges pro-tem and gained consensus that they were unnecessarily placing a burden on police officers to establish the circumstances surrounding the street on which the defendant was observed speeding. He said the judges have re-assessed their opinion and are now unanimous in the belief that to establish a prima facie case, police officers only need to establish that the actual speed was in excess of posted limits. Judge Patterson said the Police Department has been informed of the new policy. In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Mr. Patterson stated that the police will be less reluctant to write tickets now because the chances of them going through the system are greater. Councilmember Frate asked if there would be recommendations for additional personnel and, if so, if they had developed a plan to pay for the additional people. Mr. Scorza said current staff levels will be sufficient to accomplish the goals outlined in the proposed reorganization plan. He said, however, to the extent case loads exceed current volumes, additional resources may be necessary. He stated that an information technology specialist was the only deficiency he had identified in the current reorganization plan and he hoped to fund the position, without need for additional general funds, by redrafting the security surcharge. Mr. Scorza reviewed proposals pertaining to the City Court Security Surcharge Ordinance Section 13-9. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $12 fee assessed on each ticket to pay for security improvements was still in effect. Mr. Scorza stated that it was. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the Supreme Court would receive any part of the default fee. Mr. Scorza stated that 100% of the fee would go to the City. Councilmember Clark asked if one defendant is usually cited for multiple offenses. Mr. Scorza said, on average, there are 1.8 charges per citation. He explained that a person who defaults on more than one charge would be assessed a default fee for each charge. Councilmember Clark asked if defaulting on more than one citation actually increases the City's cost by the full default fee amount. Mr. Scorza stated that the costs would not double; however, additional processing would be associated with each 16 charge. He explained that it is easier and less costly to administer a lower, per-charge fee than to charge a higher fee on a per-case basis. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the default fee should be set at $25 per charge. Mr. Scorza noted that the revenue calculations in the memo are based on $50 per charge; therefore projected revenue would have to be lowered if the fee was reduced to $25 per charge. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that individuals who pay their fines on time would not be assessed the default fee. Mr. Scorza agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He noted that a judge has the authority to waive a default fee should a hardship exist. Councilmember Clark asked if the 33% collection rate was one of the rationales for setting the default fee at $50. Mr. Scorza stated that it was not. He explained that the fee is based on projected costs, and not on anticipated revenue. Councilmember Martinez stated that he supported a $50 per charge default fee. He asked if it was mandated that all courts be on Aztec by a certain date. Mr. Scorza explained that Aztec does not meet the needs of larger courts. He noted that the State is working on enhancing the system. Councilmember Goulet asked how a judge determines if a fee should be waived or reduce due to a hardship. Mr. Patterson explained that a judge looks at the financial statement submitted if the case is a court-appointed matter. If it is not, the Court has the authority to inquire about the person's finances. Councilmember Goulet asked if a fee would be delayed until such information could be obtained. Mr. Patterson explained that the judge could question the person under oath, putting the person at risk for perjury. He noted that the court would also have information on file if a person has previously been before the court. Mayor Scruggs said she supported the imposition of a $45 or $50 per charge default fee because it allows the City to recover the costs of individuals who do not act responsibly. Councilmember Clark restated her support for a $25 per charge fee. In response to Mayor Scruggs' request, Mr. Scorza explained that there are a number of steps that have to be undertaken for each charge, even though they are contained within the same case. Mr. McClendon said the cost study was done on a per charge basis and, therefore, a reduced fee would not fully recover the costs involved. Mayor Scruggs asked if the ordinance could be written to include an automatic escalator, based on actual cost increases. Mr. Flaaen explained that the ordinance could be written to state a fee and give an escalator tied to a known and customarily used inflationary factor. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would be more comfortable with a $45 per charge fee tied to an escalator. 17 Councilmember Clark asked what creates the extra cost involved in processing two citations versus a single citation. Mr. Scorza said charges are tracked separately. Mayor Scruggs asked how the actual cost to the City was determined. Ms. Pilar Aguilar, Budget and Rate Manager, explained that the default fee was determined by taking the average time spent on default charges, as reported by court staff, and multiplying it by the average salary of the persons processing the defaults. Mr. Scorza explained that each charge requires a separate judgment and each charge is capable of having a default judgment imposed. Mayor Scruggs asked why it is cheaper to process default judgments in the City of Phoenix than it is in the cities of Chandler or Tempe. Mr. Scorza attributed the lower cost to economies of scale. Mayor Scruggs asked why the City of Glendale's cost per charge is higher. Mr. Scorza said, in part, the City of Glendale Municipal Court's existing automation does not provide the same levels of economy that the City of Phoenix' automated system affords. Councilmember C ark asked on what basis does the City of Scottsdale charge $25. Mr. Scorza stated that he had not investigated Scottsdale's rationale. He noted that Glendale will achieve a level of efficiency over the next 18 to 24 months that does not currently exist. He said, while he did not know at this time if those efficiencies could be extended to the processing of defaults, the fees have to be reasonably related to actual costs. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Scorza stated that the ordinance does not specify the amount of the fee. He explained that the fee is determined by resolution. He suggested that the City of Glendale establish a protocol to review user fees and the underlying costs associated with them. He explained that this would allow the City to adjust the amount without adding language to the ordinance. Mayor Scruggs asked if defendants are told at the time of judgment that a default fee will be assessed if the fines are not paid. Mr. Scorza said information about the default fee is put in bold print on the bail envelope. Councilmember Goulet asked if a defendant has a 10-day window prior to a default being entered. Mr. Scorza said grace periods vary by court. He said it was his hope that a delay would not be built in as the business system is developed. He explained that people are quick to take advantage of grace periods. He stated that amnesties and grace periods wort: to undermine the court's authority. Councilmember Goulet asked if a person who indicates a hardship would be given time to pay their judgment prior to a default being entered. Mr. Scorza said courts are willing to work with defendants who notify them of a hardship. 18 Mayor Scruggs' suggested that the default fee be $45 per charge and tied to an automatic cost of living escalator, subject to periodic review. She also suggested that the first escalator not take effect for 18 months. The Council, with the exception of Councilmember Clark who was not present at the time, agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mr. Scorza reminded the Council that the fee is not based on the cost of living and, therefore, an escalator tied to the cost of living could put it out of synch with actual processing costs. Mayor Scruggs stated that 50% of the cost is based on salaries, which will increase each year. She withdrew her suggestion to have the escalator based on the cost of living. Mr. Flaaen explained that the escalator would be tied to the Consumer Price Index, and not cost of living. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would support a $45 fee with an annual review of the cost of processing a default through the court. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. Councilmember Clark asked why the City would want to go back to using a collection agency when it vo'untarily chose to stop. Mr. Scorza explained that the City discovered defendants often came in for other reasons, while the City paid approximately 30% of the amount collected to the collection agency. He said the proposed recommendation would pass collection costs on to the defendant. Mayor Scruggs asked if the court made the decision to stop using a collection agency. Mr. Flaaen said the City Court had proposed that they stop using the agency because it felt the agency was collecting too much of a percentage and that defendants were coming in for other reasons. Mayor Scruggs and the Council voiced their support for an ordinance that passes the costs of collections onto a defendant who fails to pay his/her financial obligations owed to the Court. Mr. Scorza reviewed the recommendations for the court reorganization. He said, overall, he believed there would be a net benefit to the City. He asked for immediate funding of the reorganization. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Scorza said the actual impact on this fiscal year would be just under $20,000. Mr. McClendon explained the $180,000 is covered in next year's budget; however, the Council would need to do a $20,000 contingency transfer to cover this year. He said the Council would also need to adopt an ordinance increasing its authorized strength by nine positions. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in favor of going forward with the recommendations. 19 Councilmember Clark asked how the new organization would accommodate juveniles. Mr. Scorza said there is enough flexibility to perform that function. He noted that it currently requires 20 hours per week of staff time and four hours per week of courtroom time. He pointed out the fact that Maricopa County is better equipped to handle juvenile cases and moving juveniles to Maricopa County would allow him to reprogram four hours of courtroom time to deal with non-jury trials. Mr. Scorza encouraged the Council to study the issue of additional court space. He stated that the City Manager will come forward with alternatives at a later date. Mr. Patterson recognized Mayor Scruggs and the Council for their tremendous support. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 20