Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/19/2002 * 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 February 19, 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. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director; Ms. Pilar Aguilar, Budget and Rate Manager; and Ms. Sylvia Forry, Budget and Research Analyst. As part of the annual budget process, the City Council adopts a capital improvement budget consisting of improvements such as city buildings, streets, water and sewer lines, and parks. The Water & Sewer Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects are included in the Citywide CIP. However, since they are funded through water & sewer rates, they will be discussed at the budget hearing workshop scheduled for April 2, 2002 regarding the Enterprise Funds. 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 $4.7 million in General Fund revenue in Fiscal Year 2002-03. This potential loss in operating funds could affect those capital projects funded through the General Fund. The CIP process has been improved to include: - Improved project request forms; - Updated project cost estimates; - Development of a CIP management division; and - Review by Willdan & Associates The purpose of today's workshop was to receive Council priorities for projects for Fiscal Year 2003-2012. 1 Budget staff presented the improved Capital Improvement Plan process to the Mayor and City Council at their November 30, 2001 Goal Setting Session. Throughout the CIP public hearing process, public notices will be posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law and City policies. The total Fiscal Year 2001-02 CIP budget is $127,436,765. The Fiscal Year 2002-03 CIP budget is currently in development. The recommendation was to review the available capacity and priorities for CIP projects and provide staff with direction. Budget staff will work with City staff to develop the Fiscal Year 2003-12 CIP, based on input received from the City Council. Mr. McClendon stated that a high emphasis was placed on having departments provide accurate cost estimates. He said they also worked hard to ensure consistency in showing operations and maintenance costs and, unlike past years, have included carryover. He explained that this year was more complex than previous years because of the bonds being issued for the western area arena mixed use development project. He recognized Ms. Sylvia Forry and Ms. Pilar Aguilar for their efforts on compiling the information. He stated that, based on reasonable expectations in terms of the economy, the plan will work for the next five years. Ms. Aguilar reviewed the Capital Plan Process. She explained that the citizens are involved in the Capital Plan process through various Boards and Commissions, by participating in the City's bond elections and by contacting Councilmembers directly. She said the Council then considers that input during its workshops and provides direction to staff at it goal setting sessions. She noted that the Council gives staff further direction every time a master plan is reviewed and updated. She stated that staff then takes all input, both from citizens and the Council, and assesses all infrastructure needs to identify mandated projects. She said they also review all replacement schedules and growth needs. She said cost estimates are then developed and used for the financial analysis conducted by the Budget and Finance Departments. Ms. Aguilar explained that, in an effort to improve the process, they revised the request forms to ask for more detailed information. She said they are also considering developing a CIP Management Division as part of the Community Development Group, which would help streamline the process and provide improved information on the Capital Plan. She said the Capital Process was reviewed by Will & Associates, who found that the City had done a thorough financial analysis of the plan and that a framework is in place, but that a policy framework needs to be established. She said they also recommended that the City continue the process improvements undertaken. Ms. Aguilar explained that this year's plan development dictated that the plan be based on the previous year's plan, that all funding options be assessed, and that the new voter approved transportation plan be included. She said any amendments to the plan have to be balanced to existing funding sources, with priority given to existing projects. She stated that the hockey arena was also included. Mr. Lynch reviewed the history of the hockey arena. He stated that contract documents have been completed and the City has gone through some preliminary financial activities. He stated that, since various categories of bonds will be effected, as a placeholder, they have set aside $15 million of General Obligation Bonds in the 6% category and $20 million in the 20% category. Mr. Lynch briefly reviewed the constitutional limits on General Obligation Bonds. He stated that the City has had a sustained growth in assessed valuation and is projecting similar growth in future years. He reviewed other financing mechanism used to pay for items in the Capital Plan, including Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Highway User Revenue Bonds, Landfill Revenue Bonds. and Lease Revenue Financing. Ms. Aguilar stated that a number of projects in the plan will be financed through Development Impact Fees. She explained that the projects financed through the Development Impact Fees must be related to growth. She said other projects will be funded by the Transportation Tax. She stated that, as far as they could tell, the City can use pay-as-you-go financing for the first year, with bonds and other financing mechanisms used in future years. She reported that the plan was approved by a citizens committee and future amendments will require approval by the Citizens Oversight Committee. Ms. Aguilar stated that the CIP for Fiscal Year 2002/03 totals $193,000,000, including estimates of carryover, $30 million for the arena and the new Transportation Tax. Councilmember Clark asked if the overage, when compared to last year's Capital Improvement Plan totaling $52 million, was due to the carryover of the arena. Ms. Aguilar said the carryover amount totals approximately $84 million. She said another $14 million is attributable to Transportation Tax projects and $14 million is for project adjustments and/or new projects. Councilmember Clark asked if a carryover can run for several years. Ms. Aguilar responded in the affirmative. She explained that the appropriation would only be eliminated if the project that it is attached to is deemed unnecessary and removed from the plan. Councilmember Clark asked how new projects, those not identified in last year's Capital Improvement Plan, can now come forward. Ms. Aguilar explained that approximately $12 million of the $14 million directed towards new projects are for new mandates for water and sewer. She said the remaining $2 million goes toward projects in General Obligation Bond categories, HURF (Highway Users Revenue Funds) categories and so forth. She stated that some projects did not appear in last year's plan because they were carryover from a prior year. Councilmember Clark asked how projects are moved back without Council direction. Ms. Aguilar said a project could be moved back for a variety of reasons, including cost estimate increases on higher priority projects. Councilmember Clark asked how long carryovers are kept on the books. Ms. Aguilar stated that the carryover remains until such time as the project is removed from the plan. Mayor Scruggs said the Council had previously discussed the need to do a more precise job of estimating when a job would actually come online and, based on that discussion, staff agreed to try to focus projects in the year its money was expected to be expended. Mr. Lynch said they had timed the actual sale of bonds so as to get money when the project is ready to begin. Mr. McClendon noted that funding for some projects that are expected to take several years to complete is now shown over the course of the project. Ms. Aguilar stated that 30% of the plan will be funded by Water, 8% by Impact Fees, 4% by the General Fund, 2% from Landfill revenues, 3% by HURF bonds, and 7% by the Transportation Plan. She said General Obligation bonds will be the major funding component at 40%. She reviewed the planned bond sales and the remaining 3 constitutional limits on each. She stated that 34% of the money will be spent on transportation, 2% on the Airport, 3% on flood control, 3% towards General Funds, 3% on government facilities, 2% for grants, 35% on water and sewer, 1% on landfill, 2% on the library, 11% on parks and recreation and open space, and 4% on public safety. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Ms. Aguilar explained that $30 million in arena bonds are scheduled to be sold this fiscal year. Mr. Lynch explained that the chart reflects the future year's capital plan and, while the $30 million in bonds the City will sell over the next few months has been taken into account, it is not included in the chart. He stated that the $150 million in arena financing would be funded through the excise/sales tax generated at the site. Councilmember Clark asked how they determine how much needs to be reserved in savings. Mr. Lynch said the deposit set aside is usually 10% of the total borrowings. He noted that the City had previously bought an insurance policy in lieu of putting funds into a savings account, allowing the City to keep cash flows available and working for projects. Councilmember Frate pointed that out the City has to have an excellent rating to be able to buy insurance. Mr. Lynch agreed with Councilmember Frate. He stated that the rating determines the cost of the insurance policy. Councilmember Clark asked if the City was using the Municipal Property Corporation as the funding mechanism for the Operations Center. Mr. Lynch explained there was a separate voter proposition for government facilities, including the Operations Center. Councilmember Clark asked if the concepts of nexus and rationality were still important to impact fees. Mr. Reedy stated that the fees have to be relevant to the area of development; however, a predominant number of developments affect the entire City. Ms. Forry reviewed the Airport category. She stated that those projects are funded through state and federal grant sources, as well as a local match funded through the General Fund. She noted that Project 8572 — Runway Taxiway Overlay is a duplicate of Runway Taxiway Extension and Overlay. She said, as a result, project costs total $10.5 million for the first five years and $5.6 million for Fiscal Year 2002/03. Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, explained that the Runway Extension Project was originally divided into two $2.6 million units but, because the Federal government funded the entire amount at once, the two projects were combined into one project totaling $5.2 million. He said they removed one of the $2.6 million projects, but neglected to remove the second, resulting in the discrepancy. Ms. Forry stated that the projects from the Grants category are funded through several different grant sources. Councilmember Clark asked if last year's Project 9424 — Digital Radio System - was removed because the City was unable to secure the necessary grant funding. Mr. McClendon explained that last year's project was intended to assist with the total system. He noted that funding is no longer available. He said the project is now being pursued through other funding mechanisms. Councilmember Clark asked why it was being included as a line item for Fiscal Year 2005/06 if it was not certain that the City would receive the grant. Mr. McClendon explained that the item has to be included in the operating budget because the City has to plan for paying the match. Councilmember Clark asked why the traffic signal computerization item could not be moved into the Transportation Fund. She also asked if the Skunk Creek/Bell Road project was moved up because the City received grant funding. Mr. McClendon 4 explained that funding for the traffic signal computerization will be received from non- local forces, allowing the City to get more for its money. He said, therefore, some elements of the transportation package will be funded through grants, while others will be funded through the direct local sales tax. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the Skunk Creek/Bell Road project is not slated to begin until Fiscal Year 2004/2005. She asked Mr. Book to discuss the CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program) process. Mr. Book explained that CMAQ funds come from TEA-21 (The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) and are a primary source of funding for the Transportation Plan. He said the grant is usually entered into the CIP once the funds have been awarded. Mayor Scruggs noted that CMAQ funds are re-directed if, for some reason, the original project is not ready to be implemented. Mr. Book agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Ms. Forry said projects in the Cultural/Historic category are funded with General Obligation bonds. She stated that there is $18,215,000 in projects slated for the second five years. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director, explained that the description for Project 8871 should read, "the restoration of historic properties" and not "the resale of historic properties". Ms. Forry explained that Economic Development projects are funded with General Obligation bonds. She stated that there is $48 million in projects during the second five years. Councilmember Clark asked how long the carryover for "Redevelopment Land Acquisition" and "Economic Development Infrastructure" had been carried over. Ms. Forry stated that the bonds were sold in Fiscal Year 2000/2001 . Mayor Scruggs stated that this item was directly related to a Council goal to acquire property so that redevelopment can occur. She explained that the funds are banked until an opportunity to acquire property arises. Councilmember Clark clarified that her question was an attempt to gain information, and not to imply she believed that the projects should be removed. She explained that her concern was that funds being carried over for a number of years could be better spent on projects that could commence immediately. Councilmember Martinez asked if funds were available for a parking structure. Mr. Lynch stated that bonds were issued and approximately $4 million of those funds remain and are reflected in the Capital Plan. Ms. Aguilar explained that $2.1 million in bonds were sold for the parking structure. She stated that the downtown redevelopment plan project, originally scheduled for Fiscal Year 2000/01, had been delayed and, therefore, the funds were available for allocation to another parking project. Councilmember Clark asked if any other categories had undesignated funds. Ms. Aguilar responded that they did not. 5 Ms. Forry stated that projects in the Flood Control category are funded with General Obligation bonds. She said there is $17 million in projects slated for the first five years, with $4.9 million slated for Fiscal Year 2002. Councilmember Clark asked why three new storm drain projects were included when funding was not scheduled to occur for several years. Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, explained that the City includes storm drain projects as placeholders and tries to schedule them to coincide with other street improvements. Councilmember Clark asked why total project funds increased over the last Fiscal Year. Mr. Broyles explained that the totals changed because they were able to more accurately identify funds for each individual project. He said the totals will continue to change as the projects get closer to the year when they will actually be funded. Councilmember Martinez asked about the $732,000 for the Skunk Creek channelization. Mr. Broyles explained that those funds reflect the final payment. Ms. Forry stated that Government Facilities projects are also funded with General Obligation bonds. She said the Field Operations Center is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2002/03, at a cost of $7.6 million and a five-year total cost of $15,794,500. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Stuart Kent, Deputy Director of Field Operations, explained that the City will spend $16 million within the next five years and $39 million in the second five years. Ms. Forry said Library projects are funded with General Obligation Bonds and Development Impact Fees. She stated that there are no projects funded with General Obligation bonds for the first five years, but two projects will be funded through Development Impact Fees. Councilmember Clark asked why it was deemed better to move the library to a new building rather than to renovate and expand the existing building. Ms. Rodeane Widom, Library Director, explained that moving costs were based on the library moving to a building similar in size to the Foothills branch. Councilmember Clark asked why they included this item when the City Center Plan had not yet been adopted. Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, explained that the City, through its citizen participation process, determined that the Library should be moved. He said, if the move ultimately does not occur, the funds would be directed elsewhere. Councilmember Lieberman reported having a heated discussion with constituents who do not want the library to be moved. He asked if it would be possible to expand the current facility. Ms. Widom said, while possible, it would require a great deal of renovation and could ultimately be less cost effective. She pointed out that the events in the park make it difficult for people to access the Library. Councilmember Lieberman stated that, based on the City's possible future population, the City Hall facility could be too small. Councilmember Clark stated that she was concerned because moving the Library was listed in the CIP, when the Council had not yet discussed or approved doing so. Ms. Aguilar explained that most new projects included in the CIP are put in the second five years. She stressed the fact that the Council can direct staff as to whether they want an item included in the plan or not. 6 Mayor Scruggs said placing the items in the CIP allows the City to show the public its intent for the future. She asked Ms. Aguilar, should the food tax repeal be successful, how the potential reduction in revenues would effect items expected to come online over the next two years. Ms. Aguilar stated they would have to reconsider the opening dates for any new projects that have a high operating impact. Mayor Scruggs asked how the plan accounts for the potential repeal. Mr. McClendon stated that, because of reduced expenditures, the City will be able to continue with the items in the first year of the plan should the repeal be successful. He said the impact will be seen in terms of revenue that the City would use to accommodate future facilities. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that items in the CIP may be less important than items the Council is contemplating cutting. Mr. McClendon agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked when the Council would make that decision. Mr. McClendon stated that they intended to come to the Council with recommended reductions during the budget hearings in April. He said the Council could, at that time, direct staff to remove items from the CIP instead. Mr. Beasley questioned whether it would be wise to remove items from the CIP, considering the length of time it took to get them in originally. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Development Impact Fees were the source of funding for the West Branch Library. Mr. McClendon responded in the affirmative. He explained that the Impact Fee structure currently in place is designed to recover the development cost over time. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed that out the West Branch's operating costs for the first two years are high. Mr. McClendon explained that the operating costs for the first two years reflect the cost of initially acquiring, processing, and preparing materials. Ms. Forry stated that the Open Space and Trails category is funded with General Obligation bonds and has project costs for the first five years totaling $18.7 million. Councilmember Clark asked what the $150,000 expenditure for the Downtown Greenbelt included. Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director, said the language would be changed to reflect citywide open spaces and trails. Ms. Forry reported that projects in the Parks and Recreation category are funded with General Obligation bonds and Development Impact Fees. She stated that projects in the first five years of the plan total $45 million, with $24 million occurring in Fiscal Year 2002. Councilmember Clark asked if the $400,000 carryover for Project 8941 was a result of the Parks Master Plan. Mr. Smith explained that the carryover has been carried for several years and is in response to the demand for increased soccer fields. He said they had not been able to build lighted facilities in several locations because of neighborhood opposition. He stated that they were looking at creating lighted facilities at the Paseo and Foothills parks. Councilmember Clark inquired as to the purpose of the fence on Project 9007. Mr. Smith explained that the fence line would be expanded to keep people from illegally entering Thunderbird Park. He said the funds would also go towards preserving the natural habitat. Councilmember Clark noted that the Bonsall Recreation Center Gym no longer appears in the CIP. She asked if it had been permanently deleted. Mr. Smith stated that the Bonsall expansion was eliminated because the land is no longer available. Councilmember Clark asked why the indoor multi-sports center, originally designated as Project 8923 at a cost of $12.6 million, had come back as a new project at a cost of $16.9 million. Mr. Smith stated that the project was not new and was included in the out years. Councilmember Clark said the allocation for Project 8942 - 7 West Area Pool - was originally scheduled for Fiscal Year 2002/03. She asked why it was moved back to Fiscal Year 2004/05. Mr. Smith said it and two other projects were moved back because the City would not be able to absorb their operational impacts if the food sales tax was repealed. He said the City should be able to adjust the costs up if the economy improves. He explained that it was their recommendation to move funds from future projects to higher priority first year projects whose costs might be higher than originally anticipated. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about bringing the Multi-Generational Facility North online when the City is being forced to cut other programs and services, especially when a funding source for the center has not yet been identified. Mr. Smith said completion of the design process will provide the definitive cost of the site. He said neither the Multi-Generational Center North, nor the North Area Pool, are expected to come online until late-2004. Councilmember Martinez asked if the timelines were the same as the Council had given last fall. Ms. Meaghan Ellsworth, Senior Management Assistant for the Community Services Group, responded that they were not. She explained that the timeline had been expanded to include a pre-design study, a revenue policy study, and a business plan for the center. Mr. Smith stated that they had learned from the Adult Center the importance of quantifying all costs. Councilmember Martinez noted that citizens still expect the facility to come online according to the original timeline. Councilmember Clark asked about the status of the Adult Center project. Mr. Smith stated that the project went out to bid on February 7 and the bids were expected back by February 28'11. He said, although the cost estimates were revised, they continue to be within the funding reflected in the budget. Councilmember Frate agreed on the importance of identifying all of the costs involved in the Multi-Generational facility up front. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Multi-Generational Facility operating impact takes estimated revenue into consideration. Mr. Smith stated that the figure reflects the estimated operating costs, but does not include revenue. He said they were in the process of developing a business plan which will identify actual costs. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. McClendon explained that the Council could swap the funds for the Multi-Generational Facility with another project of similar size slated to occur in Fiscal Year 2003/04. The funds, however, could not be used to accelerate a project currently outside the first five years. The meeting recessed for a short break. Ms. Forry stated that projects in the Public Safety category are funded with General Obligation Funds and Development Impact Fees. She noted that the first five-year project costs total $20.1 million, with project costs for Fiscal Year 2002/03 totaling $13.7 million. Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, stated that the Cities of Phoenix and Mesa are in the process of installing 800 mHz digital radio systems, making it necessary for the City of Glendale's Police Department to upgrade its radio system. He stated that the forensic lab he originally wanted to build as part of the West Side facility was found to be cost prohibitive at this time. He said that money, as well as money set aside to upgrade the records management system and to purchase police laptop computers, would be re- 8 directed towards a digital communication system. He stated that they hoped to return to the Council within the next month to discuss the details of upgrading the City's radio system. Councilmember Lieberman asked if $5 million would cover the cost of the upgrade. Mr. Dobrotka responded that it would not. He stated that it would cost $9 million. Councilmember Goulet asked how long it would take to implement the system and if, once implemented, its cost efficiency would be dependent on other cities also utilizing the same technology. Mr. Dobrotka explained that the system would be a stand alone system. He noted, however, that other West Valley cities have indicated interest in becoming users of Glendale's system. He assured Councilmember Goulet that if other cities decide to use Glendale's system, the cost would be shared by those cities. Councilmember Lieberman asked if it would take too long to implement the system for it to be used to replace the Sanitation Department's system which was recently lost in a fire. Mr. Dobrotka stated that it would take from nine months to a year from the date an agreement is signed for the system to be installed. Councilmember Clark said she would like to see the upgrade move forward. She pointed out, however, that a majority of the smaller west side cities will remain on an analog system and will lose the capability of communicating with the City of Glendale. Mr. Dobrotka stated that the City, at this time, is not necessarily capable of communicating between departments. He noted that Mr. Dennis Garrett, Director of Public Safety, would like to see a statewide system, allowing all emergency services to communicate. He stated that upgrading the City's system to digital would move towards that goal. Mr. Dobrotka pointed out that the City's Police Department currently cannot communicate with the City's Fire Department. He stated that the upgraded system would allow that communication to occur. Mayor Scruggs stated her support for the upgrade. Ms. Forry stated that the Transportation category projects are funded through several sources, including the half cent sales tax, General Obligation bonds, HELP revenue bonds, and some Development Impact Fees. She stated that the project costs for the first five years total $192.6 million, with $45.1 million occurring in Fiscal Year 2002/03. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he reviewed each of the Transportation Fund categories and found all were funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax. Ms. Forry agreed that the Transportation Fund is funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax. She noted that other categories funded through General Obligation bonds, HELP Revenue Bonds and Development Impact Fees are included in the Transportation category. Councilmember Clark asked if the most congested intersections identified in Project 9448 were the same as the intersections that were designated the most dangerous last fall. Mr. Book said the 30 intersections are those identified in the Transportation Plan and were chosen because it is believed they will have the most congestion problems in 2020. Councilmember Clark asked if median landscaping could be done on either side of the cable barriers on the freeway. Mr. Book said Project 9452 would replace the landscaping that existed prior to the installation of the cable barriers. He stated that the State of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has agreed to do the landscaping and will reimburse the City. 9 Councilmember Clark asked why preliminary engineering was not incorporated into each project rather than listed as a separate line item. Mr. Book explained that an engineering consultant will identify and define each project in detail. Councilmember Clark expressed her support for the Lane Drop Elimination project. She asked if the Pedestrian Circulation project in Arrowhead would be on private or City of Glendale property. Mr. Book stated that the improvements would be to street rights-of-way. Mayor Scruggs stressed the importance of the small project that would widen 59th Avenue from Wescott Drive to Beardsley Road. She stated that people accessing and leaving the post office cause severe traffic congestion. She asked if that project could be made a part of the Lane Drop Elimination project. Mr. Book agreed the area has a lot of congestion. He stated that one of the cement projects will conduct a progression analysis. He explained that the increased number of signals in the area make signalization more difficult. He stated that they were confident they should be able to accomplish directional flows. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that traffic flows on either side of the Loop 101 are high during peak hours as people are attempting to access the freeway. Mr. Book stated that right turn traffic is easier to move. He noted that the City might utilize right turn arrows in the future. Councilmember Martinez said he had been contacted numerous times about the issue. He voiced his support for accelerating the project, if possible. Mr. Book stated that the City is able to address the issue and most likely will do so much earlier than anticipated. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. Book explained that the City currently does not have a hardwire connection between ADOT signals and the City's signal system. He stated that the Coordination Project will hardwire those systems, making the City's system much more reactive to ADOT signal changes. Councilmember Clark asked why new bus bays would not be included in the Transportation Fund rather than Streets and Parking. Mr. Book explained that the 'h cent sales tax is new money and cannot be used on previously identified items. Councilmember Clark pointed out that Project 9558 has the wrong project description. Councilmember Martinez said he had also been contacted several times regarding Project 9557. He asked what the $513,000 would do. Mr. Book explained that the Transportation Department has prepared plans to do a southbound right turn lane at Patrick Lane. He stated that there may be an opportunity to accelerate that project. Ms. Forry said the Landfill projects are funded through Landfill Revenue bonds. She reported that the first five-year project costs total $3.7 million and the Fiscal Year 2002/03 project costs total $2.9 million. Councilmember Lieberman asked what was currently in the reserve account. Ms. Aguilar stated that the budgeted fund balance, as of June 30, 2001, was $16.9 million. Councilmember Lieberman asked how fast the balance grows annually. Ms. Aguilar stated that the fund actually had a $926,000 shortfall this year. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the shortfall was directly attributable to the recycling facility. Ms. Aguilar said, while the shortfall can be attributed to the recycling facility in part, she was not sure to what extent. Councilmember Lieberman pointed the fact that out the funds quoted for Fiscal Year 2008 to 2012 include a built-in inflation figure. Ms. Forry said Water and Sewer projects are funded with Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. She said the proogects in this category will be discussed in greater detail at the budget hearing on April 2 . 10 Ms. Forry said the Other Project category is funded with grants and other revenue sources such as the General Fund. She reported first five year project costs of $25.9 million and Fiscal Year 2002/03 costs of $10.5 million. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. McClendon explained that the Building Maintenance Reserve was set up for major improvements that can be planned and scheduled, whereas the Building Maintenance Contingency covers major improvements that are unplanned in nature. Councilmember Lieberman asked if, at one time, the Council had agreed that a certain amount would be put into the Building Maintenance Reserve and Contingency funds. Mr. McClendon stated that $300,000 goes into the Reserve Fund and $400,000 goes into the Contingency Fund each year. Mayor Scruggs asked how they had accumulated more than twice the annual allocation. Mr. Erik Strunk, Director of Community Partnerships, explained that some projects take longer than others and are carried over to the next year. Ms. Aguilahr stated that the plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 14 and the final product, including carryover revisions, would return to the Council in May. Councilmember Clark stated she would like to see a corrected version as soon as possible. Mayor Scruggs said the Council would review the CIP in conjunction with the Operating Budget to determine whether certain CIP items should be deferred or whether existing services should be cut. Mr. McClendon said this would occur during four budget workshops scheduled for April. 2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Duffy, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Assistant to the Director of Intergovernmental Relations. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Intergovernmental Relations Department staff discussed the most significant bills and their current status. This was the first legislative update of the 2002 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration and were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations Department staff contacts. Intergovernmental Relations Department staff highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. This item was presented for information, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. 11 Ms. Duffy presented video clips of interviews with House and Senate leaders and select Legislators. She said the Legislature was canceling committee hearings that week to focus on the budget. She stated they did not have a budget agreement for Fiscal Year 2002. She explained that the current situation is due primarily to spending increases approved by voters that the Legislature cannot touch, built-in formula increases due to population, sales tax decreases due to people purchasing services instead of goods and Internet sales, the poor economy, a drop in tourism and, lastly, the Legislature's overspending. The RFP (request for proposals) for the Luke area land use study is being held and may not be funded. She said the latest budget numbers indicate a $1.2 million shortfall for Fiscal Year 2002, a 6.6% reduction in state-shared revenue. Councilmember Lieberman said the State was worried about losing key people if the salary increases did not go through. With regard to Glendale's Legislative Priorities, Ms. Duffy said they believed they could improve on timeliness at the Legislature by developing a set of core principles. Ms. Tranberg and Ms. Duffy reviewed the bills currently under consideration. HB 2487: Eminent Domain. Slum and Bli•hted Areas Mayor Scruggs asked why this bill seems to have an unusual combination of sponsors. Ms. Duffy explained that there was an issue in the City of Mesa, where it was felt that eminent domain was not properly used and, for that reason, some Legislators would like the eminent domain legislation revisited. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the bill will be hard to defeat, considering the number of sponsors it has. Ms. Duffy expressed her opinion that the bill will have less support in the Senate. HB 2410: Eminent Domain Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that HB 2410 could have some merit. Mr. Flaaen explained that once, a condemnation dispute goes to court, juries have a difficult time understanding land use issues and typically split the difference. He said the bill would, in most cases, force the government to settle closer to the appraised value obtained by the land owner. Councilmember Lieberman pointed that out the City would also have to pay court costs and attorney fees. Councilmember Goulet said eminent domain can be a potentially valuable tool when used appropriately. He said the language "estimated highest price" in HB 2410 caused him concern. He said it should be determined by the best use for the property. He said there were key phrases in all three bills that, as worded, made him reluctant to offer his support. Mayor Scruggs said HB 2489 (Annexation; Property Owner Approval), SB 2410 (Eminent Domain) and HB2487 (Eminent Domain; Slum and Blighted Areas) appear to be in response to claims that the government condemns one business person's property only to sell it to another business person. She said the bills do not consider situations where a good and sound purpose for the condemnation exists. 12 HB 2571: Treatment Facilities; Group Homes; Registry Councilmember Clark spoke about the difficulties in determining where group homes are located. Ms. Duffy explained that all group homes would be part of the licensing provision, if approved. HB 2441: Drive-Thru Liquor Stores In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Flaaen said the Legislature could choose to prohibit existing business from offering drive-thru service. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that drive-thru service should be eliminated. SCR 1002: Property Tax Increase; Notice; Hearing In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Ms. Duffy explained that SCR 1002 would require both a public hearing and a public vote to increase the levy limit. Councilmember Clark said the more the State lowers property tax, the more cities are forced to rely on sales tax. She noted that sales tax revenue is adversely effected during times of recession. HB 2181: Tax Credits• Enter•rise Zones Councilmember Clark expressed concern about the lack of support for HB 2181. She said it was amazing to see the types of businesses attracted by this legislation. She explained that the legislation puts caps in place in terms of the number of years, the number of employees, the timeframe to apply, and so forth. She urged her fellow Councilmembers to voice their support of the bill. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. 13