Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/21/2000 * 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 November 21, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. REQUEST AND PRESENTATION OF FALL 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT REQUESTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Erik Strunk; Neighborhood Partnership Administrator; and Mr. Patrick Krause, Neighborhood Partnership Senior Management Assistant. OTHER PRESENTERS: Ms. Susan Ferrell, Chair of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods, and Mr. Jerry Berntsen, a member of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods. As part of the City Council's commitment to revitalizing older neighborhoods, the Mayor and Council established the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods (the "Commission") to make recommendations on neighborhood enhancement and revitalization projects. The purpose of today's workshop was to review the recommendations of the Commission for the Fall 2000 funding cycle. For Fiscal Year 2000/01, approximately $700,000 in general fund money has been set aside for such projects. Of this amount, approximately $350,00 has been made available to neighborhoods for the Fall 2000 funding cycle. Savings from previously approved projects and remaining funds from the Spring 2000 grants cycle, bring the total amount available for the Fall 2000 neighborhood grants process to $412,402.07. The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a one-month review process of seven neighborhood grant requests and recommended six of them to the Mayor and Council for approval. Each of the following grants include a contingency amount. 1. O'Neil Ranch Neighborhood - $249,560.05 to design and install new park equipment and irrigation improvements within O'Neil Park. 1 2. Shamrock Mobile Home Park - $79,444.94 to install a sidewalk and a landscaping package along the south side of Glendale Avenue from approximately 84th to 85th Avenues. 3. Rossmoor Village Homeowners Association - $40,427.56 to fund the repair of its internal streets in the area of 49th and Puget Avenues. 4. Sweetwater Estates - $16,500 to fund the design of an eight-foot wall and landscaping package along 59th Avenue, from just south of the AC/DC canal to Ironwood High School. Initially, this neighborhood requested $322,628 to fund the construction of a new eight-foot wall and landscaping on the west side of 59th Avenue, from Sweetwater Avenue north to the AC/DC canal; new landscaping south of Sweetwater to the end of the Independence High School; and landscaping on the east side of 67th Avenue, immediately north and south of Sweetwater Avenue. Due to the size and scope of the project and after review and discussion by the Commission, the grant request was amended to fund design services only. 5. Sweetwater Estates - $7,327.95 to fund the re-paving of a public parking lot located at Desert Valley Park. The park is located on the south side of Sweetwater Road between 61St and 63rd Avenues. 6. Arrowhead Ranch Phase I HOA - $19,141.57 to fund the construction of new decorative bollards along the east and west side of 71st Avenue, just north of Union Hills Road. Over the past five years, 137 grant applications have been received by 62 different Glendale neighborhoods. Of these, the Commission has favorably recommended 98 to the Mayor and Council. The Fall 2000 grant recommendations represent the culmination of the twelfth neighborhood grants process overseen by the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods. The Mayor and Council have approved all previous grant recommendations of the Commission. The Fall 2000 project funding cycle began with two "early bird" grant orientation sessions on July 15 and July 20, 2000. Two additional orientation sessions were held on August 12 and August 17, 2000. All registered neighborhoods were notified by mail and invited to attend the orientation sessions. Numerous articles have appeared in the local newspapers and monthly Partnership Office mail-outs regarding the orientation sessions and the availability of neighborhood revitalization funds. Information regarding the funding process was also publicized on the City of Glendale Internet home page. If approved by the Mayor and Council, the total for the Fall 2000 neighborhood grants cycle (including all necessary contingencies) will amount to $412,402.07. Funds are available in Account Number 01-8968-8330 (Neighborhood Projects). 7 The recommendation was to review this item and discuss the Fall 2000 grant recommendations of the Commission on Neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that the Shamrock Mobile Home Park is in need of assistance. He said he hoped that the Park's owners would also be encouraged to make improvements. Ms. Ferrell said the Park's owner had addressed the issue of painting and possibly demolishing unsightly buildings. Councilmember Martinez asked if the sweat equity in the Arrowhead Ranch Phase I HOA project was in the form of actual labor or cash. Ms. Farrell said it could be in the form of cash, community work, donated items, or anything else that reduces the cost of the project to the City. Councilmember Martinez asked about the length of the wall in the Sweetwater Estates project. He also asked if this project would use up most of the available money. He noted that other projects have been split into phases to spread out costs. Ms. Farrell said the neighborhoods are aware there is no guarantee that the City will actually build a project once the design work is completed. She stated that it is best to identify challenges and issues in the design work. She said they always deal with spending a majority of their money on one project and they will be discussing that issue at their December 6, 2000 meeting. Councilmember Martinez noted that a lot of the City's parks need improvements. He stated that the Master Plan for parks will be coming before the Council soon and it identifies other funding sources. He asked where the O'Neil Ranch Park project would fit into next year's budget. Ms. Farrell said, when the grant was submitted, money was not available and staff advised them it was possible that the O'Neil Ranch Park project could be submitted to Council as part of the Capital Improvement Budget. She stated, however, that they had to consider current available funding because they had no guarantee it would actually be included in the Capital Improvement Budget. She agreed that the improvements requested for O'Neil Park could exceed the money provided. She stated that they hoped the Parks and Recreation Department will continue to keep the park in its Capital Improvement Project and make whatever improvements it can. She noted that there is no mechanism in place for the Commission to recommend to another department that it include a project in its Capital Improvement Budget. Councilmember Martinez said the project would work out well in this session because other projects were not competing for the monies. He stated his support for the O'Neil Park project. Ms. Farrell explained that they ask neighborhoods if there is a priority when a project with multiple parts comes in. She stated that they need to create a mechanism for dealing with requests that do not fall within the revitalization improvements the City wants the Commission to fund. Mayor Scruggs said the problem is that the Capital Improvement Program is full and moving new projects to the front of the line would require moving other projects back. She said handling it through the Neighborhood Partnership Program moves the projects to the front of the line without affecting other projects. She agreed that they are currently using the Partnership Program to fund infrastructure needs. Councilmember Clark thanked the Commission for their efforts. She said they get more applications than they could possibly fulfill and have to prioritize those projects. She said that clearly defining revitalization could be key in moving away from infrastructure projects. 3 Councilmember Frate asked if the Commission had neighborhoods, that had successfully obtained grants, that mentored other neighborhoods that did not obtain grants. He also asked how many grants that were originally applied for and rejected never came back. Ms. Ferrell said they would mentor a neighborhood and ask successful neighborhoods to work with other neighborhoods. She stated that they also provide constructive criticism as to why the Commission was not able to support a project. She estimated that there were fewer than five projects that did not come back after initially being rejected. Councilmember Frate explained that he asked this question in order to let the public know they should not be discouraged if their request was initially rejected. Ms. Ferrell noted that training classes and orientation sessions are held in order to help neighborhoods through the process. Councilmember Goulet thanked the Commission for their hard work and congratulated the neighborhoods that had been awarded funding. He asked how cash and sweat equity were factored into the grants and if there was a sliding scale. Ms. Ferrell clarified for Councilmember Goulet that they do not have a sliding scale for sweat equity. She said sweat equity is looked at as it relates to the project. She stated that they recommend a significant cash match when a homeowners association project is being done completely on private property. She said some of the Commissioners choose to weight the partnership factor as more important and others do not. She stated that, with the new sweat equity banking rules they are using, they hope to get more sweat equity in projects. She said a direct savings to the project was their first priority, whether through donated materials, volunteered hours, or a cash donation. She explained that sweat equitybanking allows a neighborhood to contribute sweat equity to another project. She saidif neither of those two options work, a neighborhood would be allowed to contribute hours to a community project. Councilmember Goulet asked for an explanation of the Commission's discretion in projects that cost $2,500 or less. Mr. Strunk said the Small Grants Program is designed to accommodate quick neighborhood requests and is capped at $2,500, with a one- third matching requirement. He stated that the requests are less intensive and do not entail any detailed design work or architectural studies. Councilmember Goulet noted that neighborhoods can apply on a monthly basis. Mr. Strunk said they would allow applications to be received on a monthly basis for the remainder of this fiscal year. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Commission requires sweat equity banking before the neighborhood project happens. Ms. Ferrell stated that they do not. She explained that, if finding the sweat equity needed for a project request is not possible, the Commission requests the neighborhood complete a sweat equity project in the neighborhood or community within the timeframe of the grant. Mr. Strunk said a neighborhood has six months to complete its sweat equity pledge if it is not related to its project. Mayor Scruggs asked if Ironwood High School was a partner in the Sweetwater Estates project. Mr. Strunk said the neighborhood had indicated they did not approach the school. Mayor Scruggs said the Peoria Unified School District and Ironwood High School should be part of the project. Mr. Strunk agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Ms. Ferrell said they have had projects in the past where schools have indicated their support, but have not contributed any sweat equity. She agreed that approaching the school would be appropriate if the Sweetwater Estates project returned in another cycle. Mayor Scruggs noted that teen groups and organized clubs are always looking for volunteer projects and including the schools would provide a great opportunity not only to obtain sweat equity, but to make the project a true neighborhood effort. 4 Mayor Scruggs asked how they accounted for ongoing expenses for the various projects. She also asked if the Commission was given an estimate on the City's ongoing expenses. Mr. Strunk said most of the requests are capital expenditures. He stated that they are very careful to work with the different departments effected by a project and give them an opportunity to review and comment on all aspects of the project. He noted that the contractor is responsible for maintaining the rights-of-way for a period of time and then they are turned over to the Right-of-Way Department. Ms. Ferrell explained that, in some instances, the neighborhoods pledge a portion of the maintenance as their sweat equity. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Commission had done a great job. Ms. Ferrell noted that the Commission had spent over 130 hours in reviewing projects this cycle. Mayor Scruggs said the projects were ready to move forward. Mr. Strunk clarified that the Sweetwater Estates project had received a letter of support from Ironwood High School. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his gratitude for the Commission's efforts. Councilmember Martinez thanked the Commission. 2. NAME FOR NEW CITY PARK CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director; and Ms. Shirley Medler, Parks and Recreation Superintendent for the North District. This was a request to discuss a name for a new neighborhood park that was recently added to the City's park system. The 5.5-acre neighborhood park is located at 64In Avenue and Villa Rita Drive and borders Skunk Creek to the north. At its regular meeting held on October 16, 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed several possible park names that had been submitted by the public. In total, nineteen responses were received by the Parks and Recreation Department and compiled for review. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend three names to the City Council. The Commission recommended Sunset Vista Park, which received three submittals from the public; Arroyo Vista Park, which received one submittal from the public; and Cactus Wren Park, which received one submittal from the public, with no particular order given to any of the suggestions. In September and October of 2000, letters were sent to residences located within one square mile of the park, requesting ideas for park names. No additional costs are associated with this request. Park regulation signs displaying the park name will be installed at the park. Additionally, a permanent Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund plaque, recognizing the State's contribution toward development of the park, will be installed at the park. 5 The recommendation was to review the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendatjons of Sunset Vista, Arroyo Vista, and Cactus Wren for the 5-acre park located at 64 Avenue and Villa Rita Drive and provide staff direction. Councilmember Martinez recommended that the park be named Sunset Vista. Councilmember Frate agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Mayor Scruggs noted that the subdivision that worked hard to obtain the park is also named Sunset Vista. 3. TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION AND REQUEST FOR TELECOMUNICATIONS LICENSE BY METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Martin, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; and Mr. Chris Ware, Regulatory and Communications Manager. In 1996, Congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act (the "Telecom Act"), which was intended to deregulate the telecommunications ("telecom") field and to foster competition by new telecom providers. The Telecom Act recognizes a city's authority to manage its right-of-way, but preempts all local laws that have the effect of prohibiting competition by new telecom providers. The Telecom Act prohibits a city from erecting "barriers to entry" for new telecom providers and requires a city to manage its right-of-way in a "competitively neutral" manner that does not favor one telecom provider over another. In 1996-97, The League of Arizona Cities and Towns (the "League") and the telecom industry negotiated with regard to State legislation that would help implement the provisions of the Telecom Act. The League and the industry could not reach an agreement on State telecom legislation. From 1998 to 2000, the telecom industry has lobbied for State legislation that limits cities' regulatory authority over the industry. As a result, State legislation has been passed which does the following: 1. Requires a city to issue a telecom license to any new provider that has obtained a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (a "CC&N") from the Arizona Corporation Commission. 2. Requires a city to process a request for a telecom license within a reasonable period of time. 6 3. Allows a city to charge a telecom provider construction permit fees that are reasonable, non-discriminatory, and cost-based, including the costs of road damage attributable to street cuts. 4. Preempts a city from charging a telecom provider a rental fee for its use of the right-of-way, except under limited circumstances involving a provider that engages in only interstate service. 5. Limits a city's ability to negotiate with a telecom provider for in-kind services, and allows the provider to offset the value of such services against any sales tax that it owes. Under State law, a city may include only the following requirements in a telecom license, and only to the extent such requirements are reasonable, competitively neutral and non-discriminatory: 1. Proof that a provider has a CC&N from the Corporation Commission. 2. Construction and mapping requirements. 3. Insurance, performance bonds, and indemnification requirements. 4. Enforcement provisions that are consistent with State law. Under State law, the Corporation Commission has primary responsibility for regulating telecom providers. A telecom provider must apply for a CC&N at the Corporation Commission, which holds a public hearing on each application. The provider testifies concerning its qualifications at the hearing and interested parties may intervene. If the Corporation Commission is satisfied that a provider is qualified to offer telecom services, it issues a CC&N that sets forth conditions under which the provider must operate. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. ("MFN") is a new telecom provider that will offer services in the Phoenix area. MFN has obtained a CC&N from the Corporation Commission and has applied for a telecom license to put its fiber optics in the City's right-of-way. MFN has already constructed telecom facilities in the City of Phoenix, pursuant to its telecom license with the City of Phoenix. MFN intends to install its fiber optics in a limited area in the City of Glendale. The initial route will be a loop to get from the Glendale/Phoenix border to Qwest Communications' central office located at 7029 North 58th Avenue, for purposes of interconnecting with other providers' telecom facilities at the central office. MFN's route will use portions of Orangewood Drive, 58th Avenue, Glenn Drive, 59th Avenue, and Peoria Avenue. MFN uses a loop route to increase its system reliability. 7 MFN intends to offer telecom service directly to retail customers and to lease access to part of its system to other telecom providers that will act as re-sellers. MFN plans on putting excess conduit or fiber optics in the right-of-way as a part of its construction, which may alleviate the need for street cuts by other providers in the future. In order to minimize street cuts, MFN will negotiate with the City to lease or purchase part of the City's empty conduit along 59th Avenue. If such an agreement can be worked out, it will be handled in a separate agreement after MFN's telecom license is approved. MFN will agree to the same basic terms and conditions in its telecom license as those agreed to by the City's other licensed telecom providers, including construction, mapping, insurance, bonding and indemnification requirements. MFN proposed that it be allowed to extend its service area up to one mile from the initial route noted above if the City Manager approved such extension. Any further extension of the service area would have to be approved by the City Council. This extension policy is the same policy that the City of Phoenix agreed to with MFN. On January 6, 1998, the City Council held a workshop session on a "Model Telecom Ordinance" that was drafted by The League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Before action could be taken on this proposed ordinance, U S WEST Communications sued several cities that had already adopted the Model Telecom Ordinance. No further action has been taken by the City on a telecom ordinance. During the last three legislative sessions, the State legislature adopted amendments to the Arizona State Statutes governing telecom licenses. In July of 1999, the Council approved a telecom license for Electric Lightwave, Inc. In January of 2000, the Council approved a telecom license for Cox Arizona Telcom II, L.L.C. In June of 2000, the Council approved a telecom license for TESS Communications, Inc. There has been no public involvement to date concerning MFN's request for a telecom license. The City is not required to conduct a public hearing on a request for a telecom license. There will be no costs associated with granting a telecom license to MFN, except for construction permitting costs and pavement damage costs that the City is allowed to recover under State law. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman noted that Number 4 of the Arizona State Legislation prevents the City from charging a rental fee for street usage. He said he had read about a city that had sued and won the right to charge a rental fee. He asked why that city had been able to do so, when the City of Glendale was not. Mr. Ware said the 8 critical difference is that, under Michigan law, it is clear they are allowed to charge a rental fee, whereas Arizona's State Legislature has pre-empted the cities in Arizona from doing so. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City requires a bond from the companies to return the streets to their prior condition. Mr. Ware said the license agreements have two separate bonding requirements - one requires at least $50,000 in payment and performance bonds for construction work, and the second requires $20,000 in the form of a General Performance Bond to secure the performance of any and all obligations under the license. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they had ever collected any of that money or insisted that a company fix any problems. He also asked who was responsible for seeing that the streets were returned to their previous condition. Mr. Ware said the City Engineer's Department oversees permitting and inspections. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they had to have the City Engineer's authorization before releasing a bond. Mr. Ware said they had only issued three telecommunications licenses to date, none of which have expired. Mayor Scruggs noted that having their bond on file does not force a company to fix the streets. Councilmember Clark asked if the City could preclude another company from coming in and tearing up the same street to install fiber optic cables. Mr. Lynch said the right-of- way requirements mandate that they use existing conduit. Mr. Ware said one of the provisions in the telecom licenses states that a company has to use excess conduit if it exists on the route they want. He acknowledged the possibility of the conduit filling up in the future. He stated that they had tried to address the issue in their licenses. Dr. Vanacour pointed out that, in this case, they would be using and paying for the conduit already in the ground at 59t Avenue. He said he would look at what other cities were doing with regard to repairing the streets and then revise Glendale's ordinance if it was not strong enough. Councilmember Lieberman asked for confirmation that they could pull cable within one mile of the main line. Mr. Ware said, with written permission of the City Manager, they could do so. He stated that they would have to come back to the Council for anything beyond one mile. He explained that MetroMedia's intent is to get to the QWest central office in downtown Glendale. Councilmember Martinez asked about monopoles and how they were processed and approved administratively. He asked why not use this same process rather than bring it to the Council. Mr. Ware stated that monopoles get into wireless communication, which is a different area of law. He said if someone wants to construct a wireless site entirely on private property, there are provisions under the City ordinance to get administrative approval if using an existing pole. He said providers who want to put antennas on an existing pole in a right-of-way require that the license agreement be brought to Council for approval. He said the current request is for wire service and no one has figured out how a wireline company can operate without using right-of-way. Mr. Ware said, in the past, they had always come to the Council for approval; however, he could look for a way to handle approval administratively. Mayor Scruggs stated that, since the Council is unable to deny the requests, she did not see why they have to come to the Council. Mr. Martin explained that, since it entails the leasing of City property, Council action is required. 9 In response to issues brought up by Councilmember Lieberman, Mr. Verburg said they could make returning the streets to their prior condition a condition of the license agreement. He agreed that State law pre-empts the City from charging rent. He noted that the City of Tucson has recently imposed a tax on users. He suggested that the Council might want to discuss a similar tax at a future meeting. He agreed that the leasing of City land requires Council approval. He noted, however, that he was not sure the granting of a license agreement constitutes the leasing of land. He said he suspected they could set up an administrative system, wherein the Council gives approval authority on certain types of land to the City Manager. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Council had the ability to postpone approval until after the Glitter and Glow event in January. Mr. Ware said it was standard policy that, unless there is an emergency situation, permits would not be issued for work during the holiday season. Mayor Scruggs said she strongly recommended that it be continued through the end of Glitter and Glow. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that MetroMedia would tear up 58th Avenue. Mr. Ware explained that MetroMedia had originally proposed to go down Glendale Avenue and back out to Olive Avenue. He said they had involved the City Traffic Engineer and, at staff's request, MetroMedia changed the route to its current configuration. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for an example of the enforcement provision in Number 4 of the Arizona State Legislation. Mr. Ware said it refers to termination and liquidated damages provisions. He said the terms were taken from State law. Dr. Vanacour summarized by stating that they would look at tighter enforcement and research a sales tax provision. Councilmember Frate asked if the City had ever held an educational campaign to advise the public that the City cannot mandate or control whether telecommunication companies tear up streets. Mr. Ware said they could look at signing a street to inform the public that a telecommunications company is responsible for tearing up a street. Councilmember Martinez noted that construction companies distribute fliers to update residents in the area on the status of the project. Mayor Scruggs suggested holding annual or semi-annual planning sessions to share plans and coordinate projects. Mr. Ware stated that the City of Phoenix Engineering Department conducts monthly meetings and notifies interested telecom companies. 4. FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Martin, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Charlie McClendon, Management and Budget Director; and Ms. Sylvia Forry, Budget 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 Budget staff recently revised the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process to provide the Mayor and City Council an earlier opportunity for input, discussion and prioritization of the projects within the plan. 10 The purpose of today's workshop was to review the capacity available and for staff to receive Council priorities for projects. In September of 2000, the CIP Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from several City departments, submitted their departments' CIP updates to the Budget Department staff for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 CIP budget. Budget staff presented the revised process schedule to the Mayor and Council at their November 16, 2000 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 2000-01 CIP budget is $96,640,498. The Fiscal Year 2001-02 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 the CIP Steering Committee to develop the Fiscal Year 2002- 11 CIP based on input received from the City Council. Councilmember Clark asked if the Transit General Obligation Bond could be used for another purpose if the grants do not come through. Mr. McClendon said, up until the bonds have been issued, Council has the authority to move the funds into other categories. Councilmember Clark said they have $4.2 million allotted for streets. She asked if most of that money was designated for the parking garage. Mr. McClendon said the downtown parking garage was a key component of the Downtown Urban Design Plan and those bonds have already been sold. He stated that those monies could not be moved to another category, He noted, however, that they could be redirected to another street project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 11