Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/19/2000 * 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 December 19, 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; Rick Flaaen, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. FOLLOW-UP TO FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 CITY COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING SESSION CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget Director; and Ms. Pilar Aguilar, Budget and Rate Manager. On November 16, 2000, the Mayor and City Councilmembers convened with the Management Team and Budget staff to discuss their vision for the City of Glendale and to establish their goals for Fiscal Year 2001-02. Based on projections provided by the Management and Budget Department, the Council developed a list of goals for the upcoming fiscal year. These goals are: One-Time • $1,000,000 Economic Opportunities Fund ($250,000 net cost) • An additional $300,000 for the Transit Reserve • An additional $200,000 for Right-of-Way Beautification • Set aside $100,000 for Additional Infill Housing • Set aside $330,000 for Land Acquisition Ongoing • An additional $50,000 for Right-of-Way Maintenance • Continue Commitment to Maintaining Transit Services 1 City Council directed staff to provide further information regarding the following goal- related projects: • Cost of specific right-of-way projects: • 75th Avenue, from Independence High School to Bethany Home Road • 67th Avenue, from Sweetwater Avenue to Thunderbird Road • Butler Drive, from 47th to 51st Avenues • 47th Avenue, from Northern Avenue to Butler Drive • Union Hills Drive, from 59th to 67th Avenues • 57th Drive median — Foothills Library • Additional Geographic Information System Needs • Police Staffing Needs • Random Gunfire Locator System • West Area Infrastructure Assessment • Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation • Union Hills Drive and 83rd Avenue Traffic Study • Paint, Plant, Pave & Sign (PPPS) Program Modifications • Adult Center Service Improvements Staff's responses to each of these issues were given to the Council, prior to today's Workshop, for review and discussion. The Council goal-setting session is the first step in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget process. The goals developed at this meeting will set the stage for developing the Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget. • Total Fiscal Year 2001-02 Ongoing Funds Available $1 ,125,066 Allocated at the Goal-Setting Session 50,000 Remaining Ongoing Funds $1,075,066 • Total Fiscal Year 2001-02 One-Time Funds Available $3,207,366 Allocated at the Goal-Setting Session 1,180,000 Remaining One-Time Funds $2,027,366 The recommendation was to discuss the information presented and finalize the development of the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Council Goals Statement. Transit Councilmember Lieberman asked if there had been any news on the half-cent sales tax scheduled to end in 2006. Mr. Book said Mr. Skip Rimza, Mayor of the City of Phoenix, had put a proposal on the table to extend the half-cent sales tax statewide. He stated it was also possible that Maricopa County could extend the sales tax on its own. He said the tax would be divided 50/50, with one quarter-cent going towards additional or new freeway funding and one quarter-cent going towards transit. 2 Councilmember Lieberman asked if it was true that 95% of the money coming in was already committed to paying off projects that were already underway. Mr. Book said it was his understanding that most of those funds were already committed. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that, as of July 2001, the Community Funded Transit would be gone. Mr. James Book, Transportation Director, said it was the desire of the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) to eliminate that fund. Mayor Scruggs noted that the RPTA Board of Directors were meeting on Thursday, December 21, 2000 and a team of Finance Directors from the various cities were directed to help unravel the RPTA finances and determine how they could pay off their outstanding debt. She confirmed that the RPTA had recommended eliminating the fund immediately. Councilmember Clark said the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) was due to expire in Fiscal Year 2002/2003, but may be renewed. She asked when they would know if the fund would, in fact, be renewed. Mr. Book said it would take a legislative action for the fund to continue. He noted that there is no commitment beyond Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Councilmember Clark asked how they could make LTAF II funding permanent when the vehicle license tax is continually being reduced. Mr. Book explained that the LTAF II was tied to the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century. He said the fund is committed until Fiscal Year 2002/2003, and extending it beyond that year would also take a legislative action. Councilmember Clark noted that the RPTA has no assured funding source beyond 2006. She asked if they would be talking about a half-cent sales tax in the future. Mayor Scruggs said it would be unlikely because they do not have the authority to call for a transit election. She noted another action might replace the funding, in whole or in part. Councilmember Clark clarified that they would lose Community Funded Transit in the amount of $72,000 this year and asked if it had already occurred. Mayor Scruggs stated that it was scheduled for July of 2000. Councilmember Clark noted that they would lose another $1.7 million in two years if they did not get another renewal of LTAF or a permanent source of funding for LTAF II. She said they lose another $1 million from the RPTA around Fiscal Year 2005/2006. She stated that those funds need to be replaced just to maintain the same level of service and asked if the citizen committee would discuss any of those funding issues. Mayor Scruggs stated that they could look at replacing what they presently have with local funding or another new source. She said everything they do in transit is based on non-permanent, rescindable funding sources. 3 Councilmember Clark stated that, as a result, they need to immediately plan for the $72,000 loss. She said they would then have a little breathing room to decide how to replace the $1 .7 million to $2.7 million that would be lost over the next several years. Mayor Scruggs asked what they had set aside for transit funding last year. Mr. McClendon reported that they had set aside $150,000 last year as a one-time item in the transit fund contingency. Mayor Scruggs said this was where they were making their mistake. She explained that they were trying to replace an ongoing cost with one- time funding. She stated that it needs to be changed to an ongoing cost item. She noted that they have over $1 million remaining in ongoing funds. She expressed her opinion that, unless they prepared in advance, the services would end with a flash cut. She said, if a new funding source was found later, the funds could be returned to the base budget, but they have very few years to work towards replacing those funds and we cannot afford to miss this opportunity. Councilmember Clark suggested earmarking $100,000 on a permanent basis out of the ongoing available funds for transportation. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mayor Scruggs if that was her intent, at last year's budget meeting, when she suggested putting monies towards transportation needs of the future. Mayor Scruggs explained that her suggestion at last year's budget meeting was to take it out of ongoing funds and add more to the base budget each year. She noted that there are other scenarios which revolve around the enormous debt that the RPTA owes to the City of Phoenix. She said some of the scenarios have cities pick up the transit that comes from the RPTA almost immediately. Councilmember Clark recommended that they allocate $100,000 in ongoing funds as a permanent funding source. Mayor Scruggs noted that "ongoing" means they would have the same $100,000 each year. Mr. McClendon explained that, if the Council gave instructions to fund $100,000 ongoing, the base budget would then include $100,000 every year. He said, if the Council wanted the fund to increase, the Council would either need to include an instruction in the action to increase the fund by a certain amount or dedicate another amount of ongoing funds at next year's budget meeting. Mayor Scruggs asked the Council if they would also entertain a motion to move $150,000 from last year's one-time monies to ongoing. She explained that this would give them a $250,000 beginning budget. Councilmember Clark agreed. Mayor Scruggs clarified that each year thereafter, the budget would increase by $100,000. 4 Councilmember Martinez suggested adding the $300,000 which the Council had decided to take out of one-time funds to the $150,000, to create an even larger base budget. Mayor Scruggs agreed that it would make reaching $1 million by 2006 feasible. Councilmember Clark stated that the figures might need to be updated, depending on what occurs in 2003 through 2006. She asked if the Citizen's Transportation Committee could recommend a scenario where a portion of sales tax is used to fund enhanced transportation services and maintain existing services. Mr. Book said the Committee would be discussing that issue. Mayor Scruggs expressed the Council's consensus for leaving the $300,000 transit reserve on the one-time side and adding $150,000 from last year's ongoing funding, to create a $450,000 base budget. She said they would also set up an automatic system to add $100,000 of ongoing funds in subsequent budget years. Right-of-Way Projects Councilmember Clark stated that she and Councilmember Frate supported funding concrete sidewalks. She confirmed that they want the sidewalks separated from the street, to provide additional protection to the pedestrians. Councilmember Goulet said he was also in favor of the sidewalks. He asked if there had been discussion at one time about a street that would run southwesterly from the north end near Maryland Avenue and, if so, if it would have an impact on how far north the project should run until that has been defined. Mr. Anderson explained that the sidewalks would be located within the new development. Councilmember Goulet explained that he was concerned about repeating the process at the intersection of Maryland and 75th Avenues. Mr. Anderson stated that development in the area is imminent and they would work with the developers to make sure sidewalks were not put in only to be taken right back out again. Councilmember Lieberman said the Molokans had expressed concern about continuing Maryland Avenue east of 75th Avenue, thus consuming part of their cemetery. He asked if anything has been done on that project. Mr. Anderson said the City was not pursuing that project. Councilmember Martinez asked what the projects would cost. Mr. Anderson explained that both the 75th Avenue and 67th Avenue sidewalk improvement projects would cost a total of approximately $500,000. Mayor Scruggs asked staff if they had any contact with the people who live between Sweetwater Avenue and Thunderbird Road to see if they had a desire for sidewalks. 5 Mr. Frate said the issue had been brought up at a neighborhood meeting and the residents expressed a desire to have sidewalks. Mayor Scruggs noted that residents in the area had resisted similar improvement efforts in the past. Councilmember Goulet said a project at the northwest corner of 55th and Orangewood Avenues has no sidewalks, nor does the north side of Orangewood Avenue. He said detached sidewalks would be a tremendous addition to the existing neighborhood in terms of safety. He said trees, fencing, and lighting would also enhance the corner and make it safer for children in the area. Mr. Anderson noted that the property is owned by the Catholic Diocese and they would have to negotiate a right-of-way. He offered to look at different alternatives available to the City and bring the issue back to the Council. Mayor Scruggs asked if they could expect these projects to happen in Fiscal Year 2001/2002 if they decided to move forward with the projects that were identified at the November goal setting session. Mr. Anderson stated that the money would become available in 2001 and the projects should be completed by 2002. In response to comments made by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Mayor Scruggs stated that, based on the projects listed so far, they have $1 ,035,000 in one-time money. Mr. Anderson noted that ongoing costs associated with sidewalks along 67th and 75th Avenues could be eliminated. Councilmember Frate said he would rather see the $300,000 that had been set aside for median improvements being used to fund items that the people want. Councilmember Martinez said they need to find out how much the Orangewood Avenue project would cost. Mayor Scruggs noted that the project did not receive a majority of consensus at the goal setting meeting; therefore staff was not directed to develop costs on it. She said staff could now be directed to do so if the Council so desired. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Anderson what the $300,000 median improvement would do. Mr. Anderson explained that the median would be similar to those already landscaped between 59th and 67th Avenues. Councilmember Clark asked if an irrigation system would be put in to care for the live plants. Mr. Anderson replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that they go ahead with the $1 million in one-time funds that they had already earmarked and, if additional funds were found later, revisit the issue at that time. 6 Councilmember Clark emphasized that she was not against the item, but she only wanted clarification on the medians. Mayor Scruggs asked about the brick pavers. Mr. Anderson explained that the brick pavers are used for turning lanes, where it is too narrow to put in any landscaping Mayor Scruggs noted neither the existing subdivision in the area between 63rd and 67" Avenues, nor the City's Foothills Public Safety Building, contributed to the development of the median. She asked if they had required the developments on the north side of the street, including Walgreen's and the hospital, to pay for the median. Mr. Anderson said some of the development did pay their portion of the median share. He agreed that the subdivision on the south side predated the requirements for medians. Mayor Scruggs said the cost to the City does not include funds that came from other developments and would be less than $300,000. She recognized the fact that the City has responsibility for the block located in front of the Public Safety Building. She asked how much they had already collected from development towards the $300,000. Mr. Anderson estimated it to be approximately $50,000. He noted that new development occurring between 59th Avenue and the bridge would also contribute. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Anderson stated that Union Hills Drive, between 59th and 67th Avenues, would not have the mound in the middle of the median. Geographic Information System (GIS) Mayor Scruggs expressed the Council's consensus to go forward with the GIS system. Police Department Staffing Councilmember Clark stated that she supported the proposal as presented. She asked how the recruiting efforts had gone over the past weekend. Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief, reported that 300 applications for police officers, 150 applications for communications specialists, and another 100 applications for positions elsewhere in the City were handed out. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Dobrotka if he believed they would be able to get the needed officers based on that recruitment effort. Mr. Dobrotka stated that, although they were competing for a shrinking pool of qualified applicants, the City of Glendale was doing very well in attracting qualified candidates in comparison to other Valley cities. Councilmember Martinez noted that some cities are paying a bonus to people who apply and successfully obtain a position. Mr. Dobrotka said he had discussed the issue with the City Manager and they both realized that the City might have to give it serious consideration in the future. Councilmember Martinez stated his support of the proposal. 7 Mayor Scruggs asked if they wanted to talk about a back-up position if the grant funding does not come through. Mr. McClendon said he had already funded them with ongoing money because they need to be able to keep the positions after the grant expires. Random Gunfire Locator System Mayor Scruggs noted that there was majority City Council support for the random gunfire locator systems. She stated that the question was whether to purchase one or two systems. She asked for confirmation that the Police Department was favorably disposed towards the system and the results issued by Police Chiefs in other cities. Mr. Dobrotka confirmed that they were. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested trying a system at one particular location for six months and then moving it to another location. Mr. Dobrotka noted that it costs $2,000- $5,000 to move the system. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that the system does not actually result in arrests, but acts more as a deterrent. He suggested covering a one-square mile to start. He stated that the word would spread that the City has the system. Councilmember Goulet said the sense of relief to people who live in the areas is incredible and he, therefore, recommended purchasing two systems and covering two square miles. Councilmember Clark asked if they could purchase one system, with the option of purchasing a second at the 50% reduced rate. She explained that she would like to test the first system for six months before purchasing the second. It was stated that the 50% reduction is only applicable on the first purchase. Councilmember Clark stated that, in that case, she would support purchasing two units. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would also support purchasing two units. In response to Mr. Dobrotka's question, Mayor Scruggs stated her belief that officers were being used in the manner which the Council wanted. West Area Infrastructure Assessment Councilmember Clark stated that the water and sewer system, treatment capacity needs, and the telecommunications infrastructure identified were exactly what she had asked to have assessed. She said she was pleased to see, in terms of treatment capacity needs, that a study would be completed in February of 2001. She asked if an ongoing study was being conducted with regard to the water and sewer system and what the expected completion date of the study would be. Mr. Anderson said they have an ongoing study on the backbone system and have found that some of the lines in the western area are of minimal depth. He said the basic backbone system in that area is actually in good shape. Councilmember Clark asked if they had a specific study they 8 anticipated completing and presenting to the Council next year. Mr. Anderson said the study for the capacity issue was expected to be completed in February of 2001 and the study for the shallow line issue was expected to be completed shortly thereafter. Councilmember Clark asked if staff had addressed what the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) would need to deal with the telecommunication infrastructure for the area in which the City wants to encourage employment. Mr. Book explained that they had approached fiber optic communications under two different scenarios. He said the first scenario was to link the computerized signal system together, providing a very good backbone system. He said they were continually pursing Congestion Management Air Quality funds through the Maricopa Association of Governments' system in an attempt to get federal funding at a very high rate. Councilmember Clark asked if staff was preparing to bring forward any funding scenarios in upcoming CIP years to address the critical needs in the area identified as a major employment area. Mr. Book said they would bring them into the CIP process. He noted his concern that starting at the end of the ten-year cycle would put it too far out. Councilmember Clark agreed. She stated that they need to identify additional funding sources and move some of the items up. Councilmember Goulet said he thought they had conduit that went westerly on Glendale Avenue. Mr. Anderson explained that, although they put in a line with the Western Area Water Reclamation Facility, the gap identified by Mr. Book still exists. Councilmember Clark said there were two major gaps, from 59th to 83rd Avenues and from the Glendale Municipal Airport to Litchfield Road. She expressed her opinion that the most important gap in the short term was the one between 59th and 83rd Avenues. Mayor Scruggs said she believed they were doing the CIP in January or February of 2001. She noted that the City's planning area only goes to 115th Avenue; therefore, a gap between 115th Avenue and Litchfield Road is not as critical. Mr. Book explained that they overbuild the system for future use by putting in multiple conduits. Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation and the Union Hills Drive and 83rd Avenue Traffic Study Councilmember Clark said she supported the traffic study at 83rd Avenue and Union Hills Drive. She noted that 6 to 8 of her neighborhoods had requested speed humps and, for one reason or another, the City determined that they were not warranted. Acknowledging the City's unwillingness to install speed humps because of public safety issues, she stated that the City's continual refusal was a problem in her district. Mr. Book explained that they go through a detailed process when evaluating the need for speed humps. He noted that some cities actually require neighborhoods to participate in the cost, up to 50%. He said the City of Glendale does not do that. In order to get the neighborhoods to buy in, the City asks them to go through the process. He agreed that they turn down a number of requests because of public safety service response 9 times. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was already enough money in the budget to put in speed humps without having to ask for additional money. Mr. Book stated that there was. Mayor Scruggs expressed the Council's consensus to move forward on the traffic study with the City of Peoria, taking $25,000 out of the contingency fund. Paint, Pave, Plant & Sign Program Councilmember Clark asked how much of the $150,000 that was budgeted last year had been expended. Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, said they currently had $405,000 available in the fund and, if all the projects in the offing were funded, there would only be $50,000 left. He stated that they had been aggressively marketing the fund during the past year and currently have enough projects in queue to reduce the fund to approximately $50,000. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that it is a good program and he suggested adding $50,000 out of ongoing funds. Mayor Scruggs noted majority support for increasing the budget by $50,000 in ongoing funds, for a total budget of $200,000. She asked that Council be given an update on the program at a future Workshop session. New Glendale Adult Center Program Needs Councilmember Clark asked if the multi-generational facility in the north part of the City was currently operational. Councilmember Martinez stated that it was scheduled to come on-line in July of 2001. Councilmember Clark pointed out that they will need to find money to fund the same type of programming at that facility. Mr. McClendon explained that the funding for the ongoing operating costs for the multi-generation facility to be constructed in the north part of the City was included in their long-range projections. Councilmember Clark asked what type of funding they projected for that multi-generational center. Mr. McClendon stated that they had set aside funding for 11 staff positions, in addition to a programming person and a maintenance person. Mayor Scruggs asked what positions they currently have at the facility. It was explained that the existing facility currently has 2.7 full-time employees and would go to 5.5 full- time employees. Mayor Scruggs indicated Council's support of funding the new program needs. 10 Councilmember Lieberman stated that they would immediately need one-time funding if the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) grant does not go through. He suggested that this money be reserved until it was determined whether the grant would be received. Mr. McClendon stated that they have full funding on the ongoing side for the positions. He said it was assumed, on the one-time side, that they would get some grant money back. He said they would have to add to the one-time side if they did not get the grant. Councilmember Martinez noted that red light running was supposed to come to the Council before the end of the year. He asked if money could be set aside in the event the Council decided to move forward on this item. Dr. Vanacour stated that they would bring this item back to the Council in January or February of 2001, prior to the completion of the budget. Councilmember Clark asked, in the event the money reserved for the COPS grant was not used, if $400,000 of that money could be moved into the $500,000 programmed for the park at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. Mayor Scruggs said there would also be other ideas for those funds. Mayor Scruggs suggested moving $47,000 from ongoing to the $440,000 in one-time to achieve the $480,000 needed to assure that the Police Department can move forward with its hiring process. The Council expressed their support of this suggestion. Mr. McClendon said they would know the status of the COPS grant prior to the final budget balancing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. 11