Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/29/2002 * 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 29, 2002 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ABSENT: Joyce V. Clark ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DUAL BUDGET PROCESS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Management Director. This year the City of Glendale will be utilizing a new business plan approach throughout the budget process. This method will allow for the opportunity to closely examine how the City does business and identify areas where the City may be able to refocus its resources. It also provides an opportunity to better educate the citizens of Glendale about exactly where their sales tax dollars go. A measure to repeal Glendale's sales tax on food will possibly appear on the May 21, 2002 General Election ballot. If this measure passes, the City of Glendale stands to lose a significant amount of revenue each year. In fact, the City of Glendale will lose $4.7 million in General Fund revenue in Fiscal Year 2002-03. In addition, the newly created Transportation Fund, which was authorized by the voters in November of 2001, will lose approximately $1.7 million. Due to this potential $4.7 million loss in operating funds, City management directed staff to prepare two budgets this year - one assuming that the sales tax on food remains and the other assuming its repeal. In both scenarios, the City Manager directed Department Heads to re-examine current base budgets and reallocate line items where expenditure needs have changed. In anticipation of the potential $4.7 million shortfall, the City Manager directed Department Heads to identify programs and/or services that could be eliminated if the need arises and asked them to consider in their recommendations: 1 • Service areas/programs having a higher cost per person served than others; • Service areas/programs showing declining participation rates; and • Service areas/programs where there may be duplicate services available in the private sector or through another governmental unit. This list of possible budget reductions was provided to the Mayor and City Council for discussion at today's workshop. At the City Council Goal-Setting Session held on November 30, 2001, the Mayor and City Council directed staff to move forward in conducting a dual budget process for Fiscal Year 2002-03 and provide information at a future workshop regarding possible budget reductions should the sales tax on food repeal succeed. Based on carryover records over the past five years, staff identified $1.2 million in ongoing base budget funds that have been returned to the General Fund to cover essential Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget needs. The agenda for this City Council Workshop was posted and all legal requirements for notification were met. The recommendation was to review this item and provide further direction in development of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. In response to Councilmember Martinez' request, Mr. McClendon reviewed the budget process. He explained that the City's $1.2 million reduction is a result of the economy's poor performance and has been factored into Budget A. Mr. McClendon stated that all economic assumptions for Budget B are the same as for Budget A, with the exception of the repeal of the sales tax. He explained that sales tax rates are broken into three sections, with each section going into different funds; 1.2 % to the General Fund, .1% to the Public Safety fund, and .5% to the newly created Transportation Fund. He said the repeal of the food tax would cost the General Fund $4.330 million and the Public Safety Fund $340,000. He said, if the tax is repealed, the City would not be able to support the personnel already paid out of the Public Safety Fund and, therefore, funds would have to be transferred from the General Fund. Mayor Scruggs noted that she had asked Mr. Flaaen to review the 1994 proposition language to determine if it would preclude the removal of the .1% sales tax. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. McClendon to explain how they know where tax receipts come from. Mr. McClendon said businesses are required to collect and submit sales taxes each month and the Finance Department keeps detailed reports on how much came from each business. Mayor Scruggs asked how discount stores and warehouse stores would separate out food items. Mr. Lynch explained that wholesale food is tracked by a different membership status and the food items would be sorted by the Standard Industry Code. Mayor Scruggs asked how the stores would differentiate between customers who purchase food items for home consumption and those who purchase them for resale. Mr. Lynch stated that the stores would not know to that level of detail and, therefore, those purchasing for resale would be exempt from the tax as well. 2 Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that not all grocery items would be exempt. Mr. McClendon agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He stated that this was the reason that Finance Department went through receipts in all categories when calculating how much the City would lose. Councilmember Lieberman noted that cash registers are capable of separating taxable and non-taxable items. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that non-food items were backed out of the anticipated loss. She explained that the Council does not want to overstate what the financial impact would be. Mr. McClendon stated that non-food items were backed out and the loss reflects food items only. Councilmember Goulet asked what was included in the Other and All Other Retail categories. Mr. McClendon explained that All Other Retail would be small retail stores that do not fall into one of the other categories, for example, shoe stores, flower shops, and card shops. He said other stores may fall into the Other category if they are not necessarily retail establishments, but sell goods to which the sales tax applies. Mr. McClendon reviewed and answered the following common questions: Why can't the City just tighten their belts a little bit? Mr. McClendon said, although this is a very legitimate question, he believes the City of Glendale runs a lean and efficient organization and budgets as tight as it reasonably can. He noted that the City of Glendale collects less revenue on a per capita basis than other cities, yet it provides services on par with those provided by the other cities. He said the City also has a lower assessed valuation, which means the City's property taxes, at the same rate as other cities, would generate less revenue. If you had fewer staff, you could save money. Mr. McClendon stated that the services provided by the City require adequate staffing. Councilmember Martinez asked if the staff figures included temporary employees. Mr. McClendon said the figures reflect authorized regular status personnel only, including part-time authorized employees. If Glendale can afford things like the Coyotes Arena and other big developments, they should be able to withstand a revenue decrease. Mr. McClendon stressed the fact that no General Fund monies will be used for the arena project. He explained that funding for that project will come from sales taxes generated and by parking and arena revenues from the retail project attached to the arena. He stated that the City would still face the same budget cuts if the arena project went away. Councilmember Frate pointed out the arena project will raise the assessed value, thereby benefiting the City. Mr. McClendon agreed with Councilmember Frate. Why can't employees just forego salary increases this year? Mr. McClendon responded by saying that eliminating the salary package would only generate savings on a one-time basis. He said salaries have to be sufficient to allow the City to recruit and retain employees. He said across-the-board cuts can result in all services being strangled to the point where no one is able to do a good job of providing services. He said personnel is a key component to offering services. 3 Glendale has a $403 million budget. How can a $4.7 million decrease make that much of an impact? Mr. McClendon explained that the cuts have to come out of a very small portion of the $403 million budget. He said the Capital Improvement Budget, totaling $127.4 million, cannot be cut for two reasons: (1) the monies are one-time funds; and (2) it is not legal for the City to take General Obligation Funds that the voters approved for specific category areas for use in other areas. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that the $403 million budget also includes grants. He noted that the City had just accepted a $4 million grant to lengthen the airport runway. He said those funds cannot be cut either. Mr. McClendon agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston. Mr. McClendon stated that the $403 million budget, after subtracting the Capital Improvement component, totals $275 million. He continued by stating that the Debt Service Budget of $33 million represents the City's mortgage payment on its facilities, property, and so forth. He stated that the City is legally and contractually obligated to repay the debts included in this budget and, therefore, cuts cannot be made to this budget either. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. McClendon to expand on the Municipal Property Corporation. Mr. McClendon explained that it is the funding mechanism that the City used to borrow money to build the City Hall and municipal complex. Councilmember Frate stated that the City has a very high bond rating because it pays off its debts. Mr. McClendon explained that the City's bond rating determines the interest rate it receives. Mr. Lynch pointed out the fact that the City's bond rating has allowed the City to get amenities online at a lower cost. On Councilmember Clark's behalf, Mayor Scruggs asked if the City of Glendale has or was planning to implement the same strategy that the City of Mesa employed by refinancing its bonds, which saved the City of Mesa $4 million in interest rate payments annually. Mr. Lynch clarified that the $4 million savings was over the life of the bonds, not annually. He said the City continues to examine opportunities to refinance outstanding debt and they were currently considering refunding a lease transaction, resulting in a savings of between $800,000 and $1.4 million. He stated that the City also uses other financing tools, such as rapid repayment, to help keep costs down. Councilmember Martinez asked if there is a threshold that needs to be reached before it is beneficial to refinance debt. Mr. Lynch said, usually, cities look for a 2% to 3% savings; however, the City of Glendale uses a 3.5% to 4 % target. He explained that the savings have to justify the costs involved in refinancing the debts. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the fact that Moody's and Dunn & Bradstreet increased the City of Glendale's bond level rating. Mr. Lynch agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He stated that Moody's rates the City of Glendale as AA2 and the City's Highway User Street Bonds have one of the highest ratings given at the time it was received. Mayor Scruggs asked, if it was determined that refinancing the bonds would be beneficial, how would doing so effect the sales tax issue. Mr. Lynch said a small portion of the savings could be used to offset the reduction; however, the timing of those savings would be guided by the economics of the market. Mr. McClendon pointed out that the Municipal Property Corporation debt is the only item in the Debt 4 Service Budget being paid with General Fund money. Mr. McClendon stated that, after subtracting Debt Service funds, the budget totals $242.4 million. He said the Contingency Budget reflects the City's savings account and is a one-time source of funds. He said not having Contingency funds would jeopardize the City's long-term financial stability and its bond ratings would start to drop. He noted that the Water/Sewer contingency and Other Fund contingency are restricted and could not be used anyway. He said, subtracting the Contingency funds from the budget, leaves a total of $224 million. Mr. McClendon stated that the Operating Budget has four components; the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Grant funds, and Other funds. He said each component of the Operating Budget includes the day-to-day cost of delivering City services. He stated that there are three Enterprise Funds, all of which are self-supported by rate payers and user fees. Mr. McClendon explained that the Grant Funds in the Housing area come from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and almost exclusively support the City's public housing program. He stated that HUD monies can only be used for the public housing program and the City would not receive the money if it eliminated the program. He said there are specific guidelines and restrictions attached to all federal and state grants, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Regional Public Transaction Authority (RPTA) funds, and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. With regard to the remaining funds, Mr. McClendon said the City has a moral, if not legal, obligation to use the money for the specific purposes the City has stated it will be used for. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. McClendon explained that each department pays to have their equipment worked on or to buy fuel from the City garage. He said the fees paid by the departments go into the General Services Fund and the shop then uses the funds to purchase the fuel or pay the mechanics, and so forth. He said monies paid into this fund would have to be paid to outside garages if this service was eliminated. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Print Shop Fund was similar. Mr. McClendon stated that it was. He noted that the City analyzes each of the funds annually to determine if it would be more cost efficient to outsource the services. Mayor Scruggs stated that the term "fund" implies there is money there for the taking. Mr. McClendon stressed the fact that the funds are supported by revenue generated from the services provided. Councilmember Lieberman said he did not believe the Airport fund or Civic Center fund were 100% self-supporting. Mr. McClendon said those were the only two funds that were not self-supporting. He explained that these funds currently receive small General Fund subsidies. Mr. McClendon said, after subtracting the Operating Budget, they are left with the General Fund and Street Fund totaling $120,520,000. He explained that General Fund and Street Fund were rolled together because the Highway User Revenue Fund money the City receives to support street operations is inadequate and the difference is always made up by the General Fund. He said, therefore, any reduction to Street Fund expenses would reduce the amount of General Fund money required. Mr. McClendon explained that the General Fund provides for the day-to-day City operations and is the only source of funds which can be used for any legal public purpose. He said the City is not able to cut a number of items paid for by the General 5 Fund, including one-time items in this year's budget that will not be in next year's budget. He stated that the City made a commitment in November of 2001 to look at non-emergency services in Police and Fire for reduction, but that it would not eliminate emergency services. He said the Public Safety Department budget totals $45.3 million, most of which is designated for providing emergency services. He said the technology required to run the various departments and financial systems are managed by the Information Technology Department and it would not be practical to attempt to run the City without that service. He stated that City Courts are an integral part of the total judicial system and, therefore, they cannot be eliminated. Mr. McClendon explained that the cost of recruiting, training and retaining employees needed to provide City services make the Human Resources funds essential. He acknowledged that reductions are possible. He noted that they had asked each department to consider where reductions could be made. He said the Building Safety budget cannot be cut because the City is legally required to enforce its building codes. He stated that the City is also unable to eliminate the Accounting Services, Code Enforcement, or Payroll Divisions. He said the services the City has to have to support the services it retains total $93 million, leaving $20 million from which the City has to make its cuts. Mayor Scruggs asked who determined that the required operations must continue at a level where they cost $93 million. She said people have expressed concern that the City is overestimating what is needed to perform required operations. Mr. McClendon explained that they looked at each department's current level of service and what would be required to continue operations at that level. He said all departments, even those on the required list, had to come up with some degree of reductions. It was, however, determined that the budgets for departments that support core functions could not be eliminated entirely. Councilmember Goulet said, in an effort to save money, departments may decide to reduce the number and types of reports it publishes. He expressed his concern that this could raise suspicion within the community that the City is not being forthcoming with information. Mr. McClendon said the $4.7 million represents 23% of the $20 million from which the City is able to make cuts. He explained that departments were instructed to look for things that had a higher per-person cost, that had lower participation rates, or for which duplicate services were available. He said the departments were also asked to consider what, if any, entire programs or services could be eliminated. The meeting recessed for a short break. Mr. McClendon stated that each group within the City, excluding Emergency, Police and Fire Services, was given a target number in terms of reductions. He explained that this seemed to be the best way to get input and to demonstrate that the cuts would be spread proportionately across the City. He said, using the target number, the departments ultimately identified $5.6 million in potential reductions. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. McClendon explained that each group's target was a percentage of the $4.7 million equal to their percentage of the existing budget. Mr. McClendon stated that he would highlight a number of the proposed cuts. He said time, however, would not permit him to review them all. He proposed that the Council hold two additional workshops after they have carefully studied the proposed reductions to allow departments to come back to address specific Council questions. 6 Administrative Services Mr. McClendon reported that the reductions for the Administrative Services group totaled $641,945. He explained that the group is made up of the Management and Budget Department, the Marketing Department, Administration, the Finance Department , and the Information Technology Department. Information Technology Department Mr. McClendon stated that the Information Technology Department proposed to eliminate one Systems Analyst position, He explained that not filling the position would adversely effect citizens' ability to make online payments and the enhancement of PeopleSoft functionality. Councilmember Goulet asked if the costs associated with slower service and increased workloads on other staff members was factored into the savings obtained by the elimination of the position. Mr. McClendon said there is a diminished ability to provide services with regard to every reduction. He explained that the Administrative Services group provides services to other departments within the City who, in turn, provide services to the community. He agreed that the elimination of one position increases the workload of others in that department, resulting in slower service to the various departments that the group serves and, ultimately, to the citizens. Marketing Department Mr. McClendon stated that the Marketing Department identified the World Port Special Event for elimination because it creates the largest cost savings with the smallest overall impact on the year-round festival program. He said the elimination of that event would save $42,500. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he did not favor the suggestion to eliminate 33% of the City's special events police support over time. He pointed out that it would only save $13,500. He said, during these times of heightened national security, he would prefer to see the City help Luke Air Force Base by providing overtime officers. Ms. Paula Ilardo, Marketing Director, explained that they were proposing to eliminate the Thunderbird reception for a savings of $7,500 and to decrease police support for a savings of $6,000. She noted that Luke Air Force Base would have the option of calling upon Maricopa County for additional police support. Councilmember Goulet asked if it had been verified that Maricopa County or another entity would be able to provide the additional support. Ms. Ilardo said there are a number of questions concerning Maricopa County's ability to provide security support that need to be answered. Mr. McClendon stated that the Marketing Department also proposed eliminating the Enchanted Evenings portion of Glendale Glitters. He explained that this item was chosen because it would create the largest cost savings with the smallest overall impact on the Glendale Glitters program. He noted that surveys indicate that approximately 70% of the people attending Enchanted Evenings are not Glendale residents. 7 Councilmember Lieberman disagreed that Enchanted Evenings should be cut. He said the evenings are very pleasant and help draw people to the City. He suggested they reduce the number of evenings rather than eliminate it totally. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. Councilmember Martinez stated that, if a reduction to the Grant Match Pool was necessary, he would want it to be smaller. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Martinez. He stated that the money it brings back is at the rate of 15 to 1. Mayor Scruggs commented on Page 23. She pointed out that various groups produce maps specific to the businesses within their group. She suggested that they find another way to fund this item. She agreed with Councilmember Lieberman that the city cannot count on reducing police support at Luke Days. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about the proposal to not send renewal applications or second and third reminders to licensees. She said the Cil:y does not like to set licensees up to pay penalties. Mayor Scruggs also asked how the elimination of the Telecommute Work Program would reduce costs. Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, explained that the City currently incurs the cost of printing and mailing renewal application forms directly to each business. He noted that such service is not required under the Code. He said the proposal would not take away a business's ability to file the returns because the forms could be accessed through the Web. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that Glendale is the only city that sends out a renevval form. He expressed his opinion that the second notice letter is redundant. Mr. Lynch said one of their key reasons for sending the notifications is to reach businesses that change locations or have elected to switch to another business, and so forth. With regard to the Telecommute Work Program, Mr. Lynch explained that they have various auditors who work from both home and audit locations. He explained that the proposal would save money by eliminating remote location costs such as office supplies and equipment. Mayor Scruggs asked to see a breakdown of the savings. Mayor Scruggs also asked for a further explanation of how the proposed reductions on Page 27 would not set businesses up for penalties. Mayor Scruggs referred to the professional development, trade publications, office supplies, and postage reductions. She asked how much of the savings was attributable to professional development. She asked if the reductions would mean that staff would not be current on new technology. Mr. Lynch explained that the Telecommunications area is highly volatile and dynamic and that the employees often participate in various seminars to keep up with the changes. He said the department would continue to do research; however, the employees would no longer be able to attend the seminars. Mayor Scruggs said it would be dangerous not to have employees in the Telecommunications Department 8 current on technology. She asked Mr. McClendon to prepare a breakdown of the $3,462 savings. Mayor Scruggs said it would be counterproductive to reduce the Grant Match Pool. She said, rather than reducing the State of the City program, she would support eliminating it completely. Councilmembers Lieberman and Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Councilmember Goulet said he would hate to see anything done that would undermine the City's past efforts to make the downtown area a destination point. He stated that a reduction in professional development would provide a quick fix; however, they need to look at the long-term impacts of a continued reduction. Appointed Officials Group Mr. McClendon explained that this group includes the Mayor and Council, as well as officials appointed by the Mayor and Council. He said they were able to identify $145,560 in pr000sed reductions, including $3,300 in reduced operating costs in the Mayor's Office, $3,300 in reduced Council District budgets, and $$25,688 through the elimination of the Diversified Cooperative Education Program at the City Court. Councilmember Martinez recommended that reductions to the district budgets be increased, setting an examole for other departments. He suggested that each Councilmember give up the S15,000 they receive in discretionary funds, for a total of $90,000. Councilmember Goulet disagreed with Councilmember Martinez. He stated that some of the projects supported by those discretionary funds are critical. Councilmember Martinez agreed that the discretionary funds have afforded the various districts a number of good projects. He pointed out, however, that the Neighborhood Partnership Program is an alternative funding source for neighborhoods. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Martinez. He stated, however, that they must then be allowed to use the $18,000 for whatever purposes they deem necessary. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he could not support Councilmember Martinez' suggestion. He said he had spent a number of years trying to get Capital Improvement Funds (CIP) into the budget. Councilmember Martinez reiterated that the Council needs to set an example for other departments. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about limiting legal advertising to what is legally required. She stated that the information is critical and the City has worked hard to get information out to the public. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that they should focus on doing away with programs rather than making piecemeal reductions or eliminating full-time positions that negatively impact departments. He noted that Item 46 could be eliminated, as the service could be performed by an alternative source. 9 Mayor Scruggs stated she asked Mr. Jim Scorza, Acting Court Administrator, to prepare a memo regarding the City Court's handling of juvenile matters. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the program should be retained or if it could be eliminated without detrimental effect on the Court processes. Mr. Scorza said he would recommend elimination of the program regardless of the budget situation. He explained that it is unrealistic to assume a City Court can handle juvenile matters. He said a City Court is powerless to do anything about juveniles who do not comply with the Court's order, whereas the County has both the authority and resources to resolve matters. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Scorza to further detail this item in a memo. Councilmember Frate said people believe juveniles receive better counseling and one- on-one attention in the City Court. Mr. Scorza said there is no data to measure the program's effectiveness. He said the City Prosecutor's Office indicated they are spending up to one hour with each individual, but the success rate has not been monitored. He said, while the City is effective in dealing with those juveniles who are compliant, it is not effective at all with those who are not. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that the proposed elimination of Board and Commission training would be a disservice to the citizens. She suggested that the Council Office reassess the cost of the Board and Commission training to determine if it could be reduced. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He noted that the City of Glendale is one of the few cities to provide training to Commission and Board members. City Manager's Group Mr. McClendon explained that this group includes the City Manager's Office and those departments that report directly to the City Manager. He said the total proposed reduction for this group was $381,946. Mr. McClendon stated that the first reduction would eliminate the Management Intern Program, saving $31,000. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was against eliminating the program. He noted that his daughter went through the program before becoming Assistant City Manager for the City of Carlsbad. He said he considered the program to be a vital part of the City Manager's Office. Mayor Scruggs asked why they were proposing to eliminate the Management Intern Program for one year when they were recommending the permanent elimination of two Planner positions. Mr. McClendon said he also had a problem with eliminating the program for only one year. He stated his belief that they need to eliminate things on an ongoing basis. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would support permanently eliminating the program until funding is available to bring it back. Mr. McClendon stated that the next reduction eliminates the General Fund Transfer to the Community Action Program, saving $128,000. He explained that it would require the elimination of at least one, and probably two, full-time positions or spinning the function off to another agency. 10 Mayor Scruggs stated that the program is already short staffed. She noted, however, that current economic conditions are such that the demand for their services is increasing. She said she was troubled by this reduction most of all. Councilmember Frate agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He noted that Maricopa County is making cuts as well. He pointed out the fact that the repeal of the food tax would impact the people who rely on this program the most. He stressed that the program offers a hand up, riot a hand out. Councilmember Martinez stated that he supported retaining the position because the need is increasing. Councilmember Frate noted that the program benefits the working poor and those on social security, as well as unemployed people. Mayor Scruggs said, while she has always been very supportive of the Visual Improvement Program, she would look to reduce this program before eliminating programs that directly impact the lives of people and deny citizens vital programs and services. Councilmember Martinez said he would not like to see a complete elimination of the Visual Improvement Program. Councilmember Goulet pointed out that eliminating the Visual Improvement Program would impact areas of the City where the need is greatest. He agreed with Mayor Scruggs that people are the main focus. He said he hoped that the community understands the true impacts of the cuts made to any program. Councilmember Lieberman suggested that they eliminate the program for one year and then re-assess their position. Community Development Group Mr. McClendon stated that the Building Safety Department, the Transportation Department, the Planning Department, the Engineering Department, and the Deputy City Manager's Office are included in this group. Planning Department Mr. McClendon reported that the reductions would eliminate one Planner and one Associate Planner position. He explained that the positions review and approve group home requests and process land use applications and other requests. He said this represents a 20% reduction in the Planning Department's staff and the duties performed by the people in those positions would be absorbed by other staff. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Jon Froke, Planning and Zoning Director, confirmed that the two positions are currently filled. Councilmember Lieberman said he was personally against eliminating any positions from the Planning Department. He stated that he receives more phone calls about the inability to get plans reviewed in a timely fashion and about sanitation pickup than about any other issues. He said he would also be against eliminating the Plan Examiner and Development 11 Services Representative positions. Councilmernber Martinez said he supported retaining the positions as well. He explained that the Planning Department was short-staffed for a long time and the Department's workload warrants a full staff. He pointed out the fact that the development associated with the hockey arena will make the situation worse. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he would not support eliminating the Plan Examiner position. Transportation Department Mr. McClendon stated that they were also eliminating the Intersection Safety Study consultants, for a total savings of $50,000. He explained that the consultants provide a majority of the intersection safety studies throughout the City. He said the $85,000 reduction to streetlight maintenance funds represents a 25% reduction. Councilmember Martinez asked if the reduction to street light maintenance raises safety or liability concerns. Mr. Book noted that police reports always comment on the condition of the streetlights. Mr. Flaaen said the City should be protected in terms of liability as long as it has a reasonable maintenance plan and response time to reported outages. He stated that, if a reasonable plan is not in place or response times are inadequate, the City could be held liable. Councilmember Goulet said he was not comfortable with the transportation-related reductions. He stated that the services they proposed to cut help save lives and improve the quality of life in the City. Councilmember Martinez asked if any of the items could be supported through the transportation tax. Mr. Book said the intersection studies could be funded by the tax; however, many of the programs were not mentioned in the transportation plan and cannot be funded through the tax. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that traffic signals should be part of the transportation plan. Mr. Book said a number of signals are covered by impact fees and a plan to connect the signals was included in the transportation plan. He explained, however, that they are talking about giving up two new signal constructions. Mayor Scruggs asked about the proposed elimination of security at the Airport. Mr. Book said they believed the reduction in security could be overcome with technology. Mayor Scruggs asked who would monitor the security cameras. Mr. Book explained that they would be monitored by the Traffic Management Operations Center. Mayor Scruggs referred to a Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) meeting wherein they discussed lax security at reliever airports. She said a region-wide study is currently underway on the issue of overnight security; therefore, the City needs to keep its overnight security until something else can be put in place. 12 Mayor Scruggs stated that anything which reduces the City's ability to process plans and applications and provide good service would be counterproductive to the City's efforts to draw people and businesses to the community. She said she was also troubled by any reductions that affect safety. She asked for additional information concerning aerial photography and the City's ability to make developers pick up the costs of certain services. Councilmernber Martinez said citizens still identify speeding in neighborhoods as their biggest concern and he would not like to see the program for installing speed humps eliminated. Mr. Book said the Transportation Election doubled the funding for traffic mitigation and the proposed cut would effectively reverse that doubling. Community Services Group Mr. McClendon stated that this group represents almost $1.4 million of the proposed reductions and includes the Parks and Recreation Department, the Community Partnership Department, the Library, and the Neighborhood Services Program. He said they were proposing that funding to the Sahuaro Ranch Historic Site, $219,000, be discontinued. He said the cuts also eliminate the Glendale Recreation After School Program, totaling $421,000. He noted that the program could be continued as a fee- based program; however, that would exclude participants who could not afford the fee. He stated that the $422,000 reduction to the Library Materials budget would reduce book purchases in the business, consumer, education, career development, and health collections. He pointed out that this reduction would be somewhat offset by access to electronic resources. He stated that a fewer number of best sellers would be purchased, resulting in longer wait times, and the funding for the media collection would be reduced. Councilmember Goulet said he did not support the elimination of Glendale University or the Glendale Recreation After School Program (GRASP). He said the reduction in Library Materials would not serve the community well and he was strongly opposed to the reduction in the Neighborhood Grants Program. He said he could support the elimination of the drive-up window. Councilmember Martinez stated that he did not want to eliminate the GRASP program because it does too much good for the City's youth. He said he could support a reduction in the Neighborhood Grants Program, even though it is one of his favorite programs. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to be creative in finding a way to continue Glendale University, because over 300 people have used it to better understand how their government works. She stressed the fact that she would not support the elimination of the GRASP program. She recommended that the City continue the Code Compliance Emergency Rental Relocation Fund. Councilmember Lieberman said he was in favor of (1) continuing Glendale University, (2) a reduced budget for Sahuaro Ranch, and (3) retaining the GRASP program. He said he would support the $220,000 reduction to the Neighborhood Grants Program, if necessary. He pointed out the fact that the fund would still have $480,000. 13 Mayor Scruggs asked if there would be enough work for the people in the Neighborhood Grants Program if 31% of its budget was removed. Mr. Erik Strunk, Director of Community Partnerships, listed a number of the program's other responsibilities. He assured Mayor Scruggs that they would have plenty of work to do. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Strunk to review the mediation program. Mr. Strunk said the community mediation program will pay bigger dividends in that, as the citizens are trained on how to resolve their own problems, staff will be free to handle other issues. Councilmember Martinez stated that the program would free up the Councilmembers' time as well. Councilmember Frate voiced his support of keeping the GRASP program. He stated that the cost of similar private programs make them illusive to many citizens. He said the alternative for many would be to leave their children unsupervised. Non-Departmental Mr. McClendon stated that development agreements make up the largest part of this group's budget. He noted that they are contractually obligated to make those payments. He said contributions to not-for-profits account for a substantial piece of the remaining budget. He noted that not-for-profit organizations make the most of the contributions because they are able to provide services at a very effective and low cost. He said they had proposed eliminating the annual contribution made to the Chamber of Commerce. He explained that it would require Chamber members to pay higher membership fees or face the elimination of programs. He said Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) served 6,133 unduplicated men, women and children last fiscal year, 1,200 of whom claimed former Glendale residency. He said elimination of their funding would result in CASS running in a deficit and having to reduce their services. He stated that the City's $54,000 contribution to the Glendale Human Services Council, if eliminated, would drastically reduce their services to needy Glendale families. He said elimination of the YWCA (Young Women's Christian Association) Meals on Wheels contribution, $48,500, would force the YWCA to find increased funding from other sources or reduce or eliminate the services they provide. Councilmember Lieberman said he would support reducing the contribution to the Chamber of Commerce by half, but not eliminating it completely. He recommended that the City retain its WestMarc membership. He noted that Mayor Scruggs is on the Board of Directors and the information passed between WestMarc and the Council is invaluable. He said a reduced contribution to CASS may be acceptable; however, eliminating the full contribution is not. He said he also believed the YWCA contribution should continue, although he would consider a reduced amount. Councilmember Martinez agreed that they should continue supporting the Chamber of Commerce and retain a membership in WestMarc. He stated that the services provided by CASS, the Glendale Human Services Council, and the YWCA are very important and the City's contributions to those organizations should be retained. Mayor Scruggs said she would like to continue the full contribution to the Chamber of Commerce. She stressed the fact that the social justice sought by those fighting to repeal the food tax will not be achieved if those who can least care for themselves are hurt. She said CASS has done an admirable job of caring for the homeless, a service the City of Glendale is unable to provide. She stated that the Glendale Human Services Council is working hard to get contributions and members and she supported retaining the City's contribution to that organization. She pointed out that the YWCA 14 Meals on Wheels program is only at risk because the Council moved it out of the annual Community Development Block Grant Funding program to protect it. She said the Council originally supported increasing the City's contribution to the program and, therefore, they would certainly support retaining the current contribution. She asked for additional information on the Los Vecinos and Sister Cities contributions. Mr. McClendon explained that the Non-Departmental Sister City contribution is a contribution to the agency as a sponsoring member. He explained that the Sister City item included in the Council Office budget provides Councilmembers funding when they host visitors or go to sister city functions. Ms. Illardo reported that the Council has not used all of the Council Office Sister City funding, which is why it was recommended for reduction. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they would still need to invite the Pikeman if the City eliminated World Port. He explained that doing so spends a lot of the Sister City funds. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he could not find anything in this area he would support eliminating. He expressed frustration at having to cut programs and services that are vital to the City. He questioned where the proponents of the food sales tax repeal would suggest they make cuts. He expressed his opinion that the Council cannot consider eliminating the contributions to these non-profit organizations. Councilmember Frate asked for more information on the proposed elimination of Threat Assessment Team funding. Mr. John Krystek, Police Department Foothills Neighborhood Patrol Commander, explained that the Threat Assessment Team is composed of six primary personnel who respond to threats to City employees or elected officials. He said they also provide training to supervisors on recognizing and dealing with workplace violence. Councilmember Frate suggested that funding for the Threat Assessment Team be kept in the budget. Mayor Scruggs asked what the $15,000 was used for. Mr. Krystek explained that the funds are used for training City employees in identifying and handling workplace violence and domestic violence issues. Councilmember Goulet asked for additional information regarding Diversity Committee and Threat Assessment Team funding and what could be done to retain those services. He said he would not want to cut funding to the Chamber of Commerce, but would be willing to cut the City's annual picnic and the rugby tournament. He said he was not convinced that the City should retain its membership in WestMarc, but he would not support eliminating CASS. He also asked for more information on Los Vecinos and the outside agency pool. He stated that he would not want to see the cuts proposed for Glendale Human Services or the YWCA Meals on Wheels program. Public Safety Groin Mr. McClendon reported total reductions in the amount of $878,291. He said the first cut would be to eliminate the Expansion Bicycle Unit, saving $331 ,000 and eliminating six full-time employees (FTE's). He clarified for Mayor Scruggs that these positions are in the base budget, but are currently vacant. Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, explained that the City hired 52 police officers in 2001, but lost six people through attrition. He said the department also has a couple vacant civilian positions. He said he anticipated 10 vacancies by the end of the year. He stated that he did not intend to fill any vacancies between now and the end of June. 15 Councilmember Frate asked where the bicycle patrol would be headquartered. Mr. Dobrotka said the third bike unit was initially slated for the Westside Public Safety Facility; however, the two existing bicycle units will continue to cover the City. Councilmember Frate asked about the time involved in sending candidates through the Police Academy. Mr. Dobrotka explained that, excluding the time necessary for background investigations, a candidate goes through a 15-week academy experience and then return to the Department's field training office for another 15 weeks. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that it would not be practical to wait until June to hire the needed officers. Mr. Dobrotka said 40% of the City's $120 million budget is designated for the Police Department and the City will not be able to meet the required $4.7 mililion reduction if the Police Department fails to make its share of reductions. He stressed the importance that other departments play in their daily operations. He noted that he was initially going to request two additional FTE's for Human Resources and the City Auditor's Office. He stated that his offer to leave the department's open positions vacant was a viable option for Council's consideration. Councilmember Frate said Mr. Dobrotka's position should dispel any concern on the public's part that cutbacks will come first in the form of public safety. Mr. Dobrotka stated, for the record, that the Council had never recommended that Police or Fire be cut. He clarified that several Councilmembers specifically stated that Police and Fire should not be cut. He reiterated that it was his decision to come forward and suggest that the Police Department be considered as a part of the overall reduction. He said it would ultimately result in a negative impact on crime prevention if the Police Department was not included because of the drastic cuts that would be required in other departments. Mayor Scruggs stated that this was the reason why she would not support eliminating the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. Mr. Dobrotka clarified that his recommendations were not reflective of the program's value or importance. He said DARE is the only program that makes a potential long-term contribution to the future of the City; however, it is the furthest from the Department's core services. Mayor Scruggs acknowledged that the Visual Improvement Program contributes to crime prevention. She stated, however, that it is difficult to support it when compared to a program such as DARE. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated, however, that he was not in favor of giving up on the bicycle program or DARE. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Dobrotka for wanting to contribute to the City's reduction efforts. In response to Councilmember Martinez' questions, Mr. Dobrotka stated that he did not intend to fill any vacant positions until the Council has completed their deliberations on the budget. Councilmember Martinez voiced his opinion that the DARE program should remain on the table. Councilmember Goulet said he opposed all of the proposed cuts to Public Safety because the City's expected growth will demand that those types of services continue. He complimented i:he men and women on the bicycle patrols. He stated that they do an invaluable job. He said he also supported the DARE program. He said he would hate to see Fire Emergency get cut because hiring fewer firefighters would result in increased overtime. He stated that cutting the Rose Society looks good when compared to reducing fire support services to people who risk their lives for their community. He said the long-term effect and future costs of cuts made to vital services will increase many times over. 16 Councilmember Frate said Fire Community Relations provide fire safety education to 33,000 school children. He stressed that the amount saved by cutting the program in no way compares to the program's potential for saving children's lives. Mr. Mark Burdick, Acting Fire Chief, explained that a portion of the reduction reflects overtime compensation for firefights to maintain the program. He noted, however, that many firefighters volunteer their time to keep the program going. He pointed out that, since the September 11 terrorist attacks, children want reassurance that the firefighters will be there. Councilmember Frate noted there are no other alternatives for providing this type of information to the children. Mr. Burdick agreed with Councilmember Frate. He stated that, while teachers can provide the information, nothing reinforces the message as much as having technical experts on hand to stand behind the information. Public Works Group Mr. McClendon stated that, because many Public Works functions are funded through Enterprise Funds, the only place to make cuts are Street Maintenance and Cleaning Programs and Facilities Maintenance and Security Programs. He explained that the $170,000 reduction to Right-of-way Maintenance would reduce the frequency with which right-of-ways are maintained. He said, while reducing funding for the Pavement Management Program would save money in the short term, over the long term streets would not wear as well or last as long. He stated that Security reductions would result in one individual patrolling between several facilities. Councilmember Martinez expressed concern about reducing Street Maintenance funding. He stated that it would cost the City more in the long run. Councilmember Frate asked for more information on the removal of one Street standby person. Mr. Reedy explained that the standby person is able to respond quickly to calls during off-hours. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was not in favor of reducing the frequency of right-of-way maintenance. He said he also did not want to reduce funding for pavement management. He explained that vandalism in parks necessitated increased security services and those problems would recur if security services were reduced. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. On Councilmember Clark's behalf, Mayor Scruggs asked what savings would be achieved by an across-the-board hiring freeze for the coming fiscal year. Mr. McClendon said, based on typical vacancy frequencies, they estimate $1 .2 million could be saved on General and Street Funds. He pointed out, however, that those saving would be one-time savings. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. McClendon explained that one-time reductions only postpone the problem because the items come back as expenses in the next fiscal year. He noted that normal revenue growth in future years is required to support the normal growth in expenses. Councilmember Goulet stated he would not support an across-the-board hiring freeze. He stated that this type of process would strangle the City. 17 Mr. McClendon reviewed examples of the savings that an average family would see if the food sales tax was repealed. He explained that they went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is responsible for researching how much people across the country spend on hundreds of categories. He said, based on their consumer price index and the Glendale median income, a typical family of three would realize a savings of $1.87 per week. He said a low income family of three only spends $4.54 per week on taxable food items if they are taking advantage of food stamps and, therefore, pay only 8 cents per week in sales tax on food items. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that homeless individuals cannot receive food stamps because they do not have a permanent address. Mr. Mark Holleran, Chief Executive Officer of Central Arizona Shelter Services, said approximately one-quarter of the population they serve are mentally ill and are likely to lose their food stamps if they get them. He agreed that the lack of a mailing address is a big problem. Councilmember Martinez asked if people living at the shelter can use the shelter's address. Mr. Holleran said, technically, they can do so and that is how a number of their clients receive their food stamps. Councilmember Lieberman noted that citizens with a corrected income of $22,100 are eligible to receive food stamps. He said those who receive food stamps actually have a tax exempt corrected income of $26,100. Ms. Illardo discussed the City's plan to mail a worksheet to every household in the City, in both English and Spanish, asking which services those residents could live without if the food sales tax was repealed. She explained that the purpose of the worksheet is to educate the people on the basic makeup of the budget. She stated that the residents will fill out a score sheet specifying whether each of the items should be cut or not. She said the scores will be tabulated and brought to the Council. She said in-depth background information will be put on the Internet and public announcements will be broadcast on KGLN, notifying residents that the worksheets are coming and instructing them on how to fill them out. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council was considering the budget now because it needs time to plan for whatever cuts may be necessary should the food sales tax be repealed. She noted that citizens who rely on those services will also need time to make other arrangements. Councilmember Frate stated that they were holding their budget meetings in open session to reduce the amount of misinformation. He said, as an example, it is being said that Glendale is the only city in Arizona that imposes a food sales tax, when, in actuality, there are 66 other cities. He complimented Mr. McClendon and staff on the excellent job they did in compiling the information and thanked the department heads who addressed the Council. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Frate that people are stating, both verbally and in print, that Glendale is the only city imposing a food sales tax, which is incorrect. She suggested that the brochure include answers to the most frequently asked questions. Councilmember Martinez asked to have the services and projects identified for elimination or reduction itemized. 18 Mayor Scruggs thanked the staff for the long hours they dedicated to this process. She acknowledged the concern that there must be amongst City employees as to the stability of their jobs. She stated that there is no justice in putting people out of jobs, where there services are needed to help others. She said the Council will do what it can to keep people from joining the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed. She stressed the fact that the City values each and every employee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 19