Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/2/2002 * 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 GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION 5850 West Glendale Avenue April 2, 2002 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET PROCESS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Research Director. This was the first of the scheduled City Council workshops to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-03 Annual Budget. Several additional workshops will be held over the next several week 3 to discuss the two possible scenarios for final budget adoption. Over the course of the next several workshops, the City Manager will present two balanced budgets Budget "A" will assume that the sales tax on food is not repealed, and Budget "B" will assume that the sales tax on food is repealed. Today's meeting was held to focus on the Enterprise funds, which consist of the Equipment Management, Water and Sewer, Sanitation and Landfill funds. Unlike the General and Streets funds, which rely upon sales tax revenues to fund services, the Enterprise funds are self-supported by user fees and charges and will not be affected if voters repeal the sales tax on food. Therefore, it was not necessary for staff to develop an alternative budget for the departments within these funds. The November City Council Goal-Setting Retreat was the first step in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget process. At that meeting, staff presented the Five-Year Financial Forecast for the City and the Mayor and Council discussed the national and local economies and their effect on Glendale's Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. Due to economic uncertainties, staff advised the Mayor and Council that the City would have limited resources in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to fund additions to the base budget. Staff also cautioned that the potential elimination of Glendale's sales tax on food would result in a $4.7 million revenue shortfall in the General Fund, creating the need to reduce or eliminate some City services. 1 Based on carryover records over the past five years, staff identified $1 .2 million in ongoing base budget funds that have been returned to the General Fund to cover essential Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget needs. The City Manager directed department heads to identify programs and/or services that could be eliminated, if necessary. At the January 29, 2002 Council Workshop, the Mayor and Council reviewed and discussed staff's list of potential budget reductions and directed staff to move ahead in the preparation of two budget scenarios for Fiscal Year 2002-03 — Budget A (assuming sales tax on food remains) and Budget B (assuming sales tax on food is eliminated). The agenda for this City Council Workshop was posted and all legal requirements for notification were met. The City Council will review the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget at workshops to be held during April of 2002. The recommendations made at these workshops will direct staff in preparing for final City Council budget review and adoption in June. The recommendation was to review the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Proposed Annual Budget and provide staff with direction. Mr. McClendon introduced this item and reviewed the budget meeting schedule. He said they would present the results of the public survey regarding the proposed elimination of the sales tax on food at the April 9 Workshop. He stated that the Community Development budget and fees would be discussed at the Council Workshop to be held the morning of April 16, while departmental budgets would be reviewed that afternoon and continued on April 23. He said they anticipated completing the Budget Workshops by April 23, with formal adoption occurring at two evening meetings in June. He stated that the setting of the property tax levy was set to occur on July 2. Councilmember Clark asked if revised revenue projects had been developed. Mr. McClendon said he would review revenues with the Council when they begin reviewing the General Fund portion of the budget. WATER/SEWER FUND In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Reedy identified the water zone geographic boundaries. Mr. Reedy stated that all of the budgets being discussed were non-General Fund and completely supported by rates and fees. He stated that the 115th and Glendale Avenues waterline contract had been awarded the previous Tuesday. He said the Council had previously discussed the need for additional water treatment capacity in the western part of Glendale; therefore, they were proposing a 10 to 15 million gallon per day water treatment plant. He said they had asked the firm of Black and Veatch to conduct a master plan update, evaluating the City's water capacity needs. He explained that increasingly stringent federal drinking water regulations are resulting in complex operating procedures. He said they had successfully met their goal of 2 reducing the use of well water,. He stated that only 14% of the current supply comes from wells. He noted, however, that water in the western area of the City has to migrate further and, consequently, is the most aged water in the system. He said construction of a water treatment plant in the western area would improve water quality, reduce the number of complaints, and more effectively meet regulatory requirements. He estimated a three-to-four year construction period. He stated that the increased capacity would help meet future needs in the western area. He noted that they were discussing a temporary connection to the City of Peoria's distribution system. He explained that the City of Peoria currently has excess capacity. He said there may be additional partnering opportunities with the City of Peoria in terms of the Pyramid Peak Plant. He said they wanted to be sure a new plant was the best solution before making an investment. He stated that they would return to Council with detailed issues and a recommendation on how to proceed. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Reedy confirmed that Black and Veatch had been hired to evaluate the City's future needs and all of the viable alternatives. Councilmember Clark asked how the seven new wells created by Projects 9283 (page 14) and 9287 (page 16) work towards meeting the mandate to cease using well water by 2025. Mr. Reedy explained that wells are an important resource in meeting peak day demand and are the simplest solution to the need for backup resources in emergency situations. Councilmember Clark asked if all municipalities had to cease using well water by 2025. Mr. Reedy responded that they did not. He explained that ground water credits would still be available. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City of Peoria was using all of its capacity at the Pyramid Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Reedy said the City of Peoria had informed them last week that they would like to increase their delivery of water to 6,000,000 gallons per day beginning this week. Councilmember Martinez asked if the new plant at 75th Avenue would provide the City of Peoria with additional capacity. Mr. Reedy explained that the Pyramid Peak plant is closer to their points of deliver, and is, therefore, more cost efficient. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City of Glendale would have to pay the City of Peoria for the increased capacity. Mr. Reedy stated that they were considering leasing or purchasing water directly from the City of Peoria. He noted that the City of Peoria predicts 30% extra capacity for the next five years. Mr. McClendon pointed out that the new plant would be supported by impact fee revenues for the most part because it would primarily serve new growth. He said, therefore, current rate payers would not pay for construction of the facility. Councilmember Goulet noted that the City Peoria has faced continual increases in water costs. He asked if the City of Glendale would face a disproportionate cost to use the water if it entered into an agreement with the City of Peoria. Mr. Reedy said, 3 although he did not believe so, an agreement has not been finalized at this point. He said the actual cost of the water is not as significant as the distribution issues. He explained that the City of Peoria has been transitioning towards a surface water treatment and distribution system over the past five years, requiring major piping system changes different kinds of reservoirs, and a new treatment plant. Councilmember Goulet expressed concern that the City of Peoria would look to the City of Glendale to help recover their costs. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Reedy stated that Pyramid Peak was built for the City of Glendale; however, it was designed to allow for expansion to accommodate the cities of Phoenix and Peoria. Councilmember Clark asked if the City of Glendale had planned for the City of Peoria to expand to its full capacity. Mr. Reedy said they have been aware of the City of Peoria's intent to utilize their full capacity for a couple of years. He noted that the re-rating of the plant would take its capacity from 26 million gallons per day to at least 39 million gallons and potentially 52 million gallons per day. He said, therefore, they would likely discuss the potential to sell the City of Peoria additional capacity. He stated that they believed they could operate at 52 million gallons per day arid still meet all drinking water standards and county, state and federal requirements. Mayor Scruggs said it was her understanding that the City of Peoria paid the City of Glendale to build extra capacity and the City of Glendale is not entitled to utilize that capacity. Mr. Reedy explained that the City of Peoria owns 23% of the City of Glendale's capacity, not specific components of the plant. He stated that, in the past, the City of Glendale has used whatever capacity needed to meet demand requirements. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City of Peoria has first right to their 23% capacity. Mr. Reedy responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about the City of Glendale relying on the City of Peoria's capacity when the City of Peoria could decide that it needs the capacity at a future date. Mr. Reedy said he shared Mayor Scruggs' concern. He stated that this is the reason they need to construct other treatment facilities. Councilmember Martinez asked if a notification would be sent to residents in Zone 3 about the improvements to their water pressure. Mr. Reedy stated that they would notify the residents when they were closer to implementing the improvements. Councilmember Clark asked if any of the Capital Improvement Project items addressed odor control issues north of Camelback Road, at 72nd Avenue. Mr. Reedy stated that it was a carryover item in their operating budget. Mr. Reedy stated that they were continuing to work on the five-year master plan for evaluation of the City's complete distribution system. He said the older parts of the system are also the predominant areas of demand and, therefore, they were prioritizing necessary improvements to those areas. He explained that they were proactively evaluating the system to identify problems before significant failures occur. He said the goal of the Water Distribution System program is to prioritize the remodeling and 4 reconstruction of older parts of the distribution system. He pointed out that the City will be doing more maintenance as the system ages and that taking preventative measures will help keep the costs as low as possible. Councilmember Clark asked if the Water Zone 4 Line Additions were intended to service anticipated projects west of 91st Avenue. Mr. Reedy said they were, in part, but they would also c'ose loops and improve flow in various areas. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Reedy lo provide her with street locations. With regard to Project 9240, Mr. Reedy explained that the original contract on the Hidden Manor project had been rescinded and award of the contract would be on next week's agenda. Councilmember Martinez asked if the land acquisition refers to right-of-way. Mr. Reedy stated that it usually does. Councilmember Clark asked for more information concerning Project 9241 . Mr. Reedy explained that the Grand Canal isolates parts of the distribution system and, in this case, the 95th Avenue sewer needs to go under the canal and connect to the 99th Avenue interceptor southwest of 95th Avenue. Councilmember Clark suggested that another solution be found. She explained that it would impede on residents' back yards to put it on the north side of the Grand Canal starting at 83rd Avenue. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the $130,000 was for with regard to Project 9241. Mr. Reedy said it was for design. He explained that construction money would come from the sewer line extensions line item. Mr. Reedy reviewed the West Area Water Reclamation Facility expansion. He explained that it is a $41 million expansion to the current project. He said immediately upon bringing the project online, an audit discovered that what was assumed to be five years of extra capacity was actually closer to one year. He noted that they were working with Maricopa County to bring the plant's capacity up to 7 million gallons per day in June. He explained that this project would allow for an additional 15 million gallons of capacity in the future. Mr. Reedy confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that they would save money by expanding the facility at this time, rather than later. He said the Project Waters Committee ultimately felt that the City's decision to construct its own reclamation facilities and recharging as much was as possible was the right solution. Councilmember Lieberman asked when they envisioned bringing a contract to Council. Mr. Reedy stated Mr. Broyles was currently working on the contract and it should be brought to the Council within the next month. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that expansion was necessary. He expressed his opinion that it should be done as soon as possible. 5 With regard to Project 9258, Councilmember Lieberman asked how much capacity they currently purchase. Mr. Reedy explained that the city is not buying more treatment capacity, but is upgrading the capacity it owns to meet current requirements and buying more solids handling capacity. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city gets any of the treated water back. Mr. Reedy responded that it does not. He stated, that the Subregional Operating Group (SROG) offsets some of the City's costs with what it gets back from Palo Verde. He noted that they were contemplating a recharge project where they would pump water back up the New River, recharging it in the Agua Fria/New River channels along the way. He said, in that situation, the City might get 4,000 or 5,000 acres of storage water credits. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Reedy to define the difference between water and wastewater solids. Mr. Reedy explained that water solids are the byproduct of filtered drinking water, which are then disposed of at the landfill. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the project was currently under construction. Mr. Reedy explained that the carryover money allows the City to pay the contractor while it is being constructed. He said he anticipated completion in March of 2003. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Project 9275 would take up any of the police range. Mr. Reedy said it would probably not. He noted, however, that the police range will most likely have to move due to increased development of the area. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Reedy explained that irrigation demand fluctuates depending on the time of year. He said their goal was to create a balance between using effluent for direct reuse and diminishing the need for potable water. He said the City cannot pump anywhere within its "hydrologic influence." Mayor Scruggs asked if Projects 9274 and 9281 would work together. Mr. Reedy said he believed Project 9274 was redundant and was actually included in 9281. Councilmember Frate pointed out that the new CMOM requirements total almost $5 million. He expressed his opinion that it is an unfunded federal mandate. Mr. Reedy said, except with regard to reporting requirements, the City is already complying with the new requirements; therefore, it will not cost much more than it already does. He said the requirements are directed more towards cities that have not done proper system maintenance. Mayor Scruggs asked when Project 9285 would occur. Mr. Chris Ochs, Acting Utilities Department Director, said they were in the process of upgrading the security system and Project 9285 would enhance and complete the project by September of 2002. Mayor Scruggs stressed the project's importance. She said she hoped it would be accomplished very soon. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the project has an expensive operating impact. Mr. Reedy stated that a portion of the costs are associated with the number of security 6 people involved in the process. He said fiber optics and equipment upgrades are also factors. Councilmember Clark asked if the security system involves security mechanisms, at well sites. Mr. Reedy said there are a variety of ways they monitor well sites; however, not every well is under 24-hour visual observation. Mayor Scruggs stated that the City needs to protect every one of its facilities from every possible threat as soon as possible. Mr. Reedy stated his belief that the City's water is safe and that the City is providing appropriate levels of security. With regard to the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility process enhancements, CDuncilmember Clark asked if they should also begin to establish a placeholder for the Western Area Water Reclamation Facility. Mr. Reedy said the Western Area facility would basically be brand new once they completed the expansion. He said they probably would see a placeholder in the next five-year period. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Reedy said there was probably room for more storage at the Oasis site and on the treatment plant site. He said the Recharge Storage/Recovery Wells item would allow the City to construct additional wells at both locations. Councilmember Clark asked if the rate, after construction, would recapture some or all of the construction costs. Mr. Reedy explained that the current agreement has amenities paying the City for the commodity. He said the $120 per acre foot rate would recover all costs and provide the City with a revenue source. Mr. McClendon summarized the voter authorized bonds capacity that remains in the Water/Sewer system. He said the City has to go to the voters again for a bond election in Water Sewer arid should begin the process now to allow the election to occur in the spring of 2003. He said they would bring this item back to Council in the near future for direction. The meeting recessed for a short break. Mr. Beasley said, as with any type of bond issue, the City will have a public validation of the process. Utilities Mr. Reedy reported that the Utilities budget totals $27,128,888, with an anticipated carryover totaling $872,345. He said there were no supplemental requests. Councilmember Clark asked if there was any way the City could be more aggressive in terms of preventat-ve maintenance schedules. Mr. Reedy explained that, due to rapid development, the City has a number of old and new valves. He said new valves do not 7 need testing and replacement as much as the old ones. He said they believed 10% testing per year was appropriate and doing GPS readings over a three-year period was reasonable. Councilmember Clark asked how much of the system was comprised of old, versus new, valves. Mr. Reedy said over 50% of the City was constructed in the past ten years and a valve lasts 30 to 40 years. He said they hoped to operate the valves in a manner that minimizes deterioration. Mayor Scruggs asked if this was a new or ongoing goal. Mr. Reedy said they had been evaluating and replacing valves forever; however, not as aggressively as they would like. Mayor Scruggs said the City is moving towards a more measurement-based evaluation of the jobs being done in each department. Mr. Reedy said their goal was to establish achievable and appropriate levels of maintenance activities. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City had valves that were decades old and had never been checked. Mr. Reedy said there could be a few, but their goal was to locate the valves and ensure that they operate properly. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. McClendon explained that the Utilities Fund pays for services it receives from the General Fund. He said they decided it would be more accurate to line the budget process up with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. As a result, Utilities Administration will now be a budgeted expense of the Utility Fund. He noted that the item will no longer be shown as a transfer of funds on Schedule 4 in the budget document. Mayor Scruggs sa d the public will have a difficult time understanding that concept. She asked to have an explanatory notation added to that page of the budget. Mr. McClendon said they could do that. He noted that they also have a section in the document that discusses all accounting changes. Councilmember Martinez noted that Major Maintenance went down 64%. He asked why that had occurred. Mr. Ochs explained that the difference was due to a one-time expense. Council member Martinez asked if training should be done every year rather than every two years. Mr. Ochs said the training schedule is based primarily on Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and regulations. Councilmember Clark asked about their intent to convert plastic meter boxes to concrete. Mr. Oohs explained that plastic boxes become brittle in the sun and, therefore, a replacement program has been established to convert the plastic boxes to concrete. He said the program would focus on residential boxes more than commercial boxes, which are typically large vaults. Councilmember Clark asked if there was an increase of seven new positions in Fiscal Year 2002/03 and, if so, if six of those new positions would be at the West Area Plant. She said it was her understanding that the West Area Plant would not need a lot of personnel. Mr. Reedy said constant supervision is necessary to operate the plant 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. McClendon clarified that there were no additional positions this year. 8 Councilmember L eberman noted that the City is replacing steel pipe with copper. He asked why they did not put a sleeve over the copper pipes to minimize settlement factors. Mr. Ochs explained that copper pipes have better longevity. He noted that settlement factors could wear a hole in steel or copper pipes. He said they could include a plastic sleeve in the installation specifications. Mr. Reedy noted that, although they are replacing some steel pipes with copper lines, the majority of the lines being replaced are plastic. He said he did not believe sleeves were necessary. Mayor Scruggs asked if any of the items would be paid for through the class action lawsuit fund. Mr. Reedy said they probably would not be because they are not dealing with polybeutiline. Mr. McClendon pointed out that the Utilities Department will be meeting the needs of more customers next year, with no supplemental additions to their budget. Mayor Scruggs said the residents are interested in this type of information. She noted that one citizen suggested the City provide it on its website. Finance - Customer Service Mr. Reedy said the Finance Department base budget totals $2,247,515, with no carryover and one supplemental request for $36,350. He explained that the supplemental regLest would cover the estimated increase in postage costs. Building Safety Cross Connection Mr. Reedy stated that the $9,500 supplemental request would increase the half-time secretary position to a three-quarter-time position. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the cross connection control was part of the regular Building Safety program. Mr. Reedy explained that it was included in the Water Fund because the cross connections protect the water system. Mr. McClendon stated that the rest of the Building Safety budget would come to Council as part of the Community Development Group budget on April 16. Environmental Resources Mr. Reedy said the Environmental Resources Department budget totals $1,674,521, with $87,787 in carryover. Councilmember C!iark pointed out that there are conflicting figures for the West Valley Central Arizona Project (CAP) study. Mr. McClendon explained that the figure on page 343 is a rollup for the entire Environmental Resources Department. 9 Mr. Reedy noted that the Water Conservation Officer in the Utility Department retired this year and it has been decided to move the new Water Conservation Officer into the Environmental Resources Department. Mr. McClendon reviewed the Water and Sewer Fund summary. He stated that the estimated balance totals $19,537,976. He explained that the fund carries a balance because the City is accruing money for capital projects. He also reviewed the Water and Sewer Rate Analysis. He noted that they were identical to what the Council saw last year. He displayed a graph comparing Water, Sewer and Sanitation rates between various area cities, He stated that the City of Glendale is very competitive. EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT Mr. Reedy stated that the Equipment Management Department's base budget totals $5,200,728, with no carryover and $163,168 in supplemental requests. He explained that the supplemental requests were for two mechanics for transit services, parts for equipment repairs, and the purchase of tools and equipment for repairs. Councilmember Clark asked about the industry and internal standards referenced on Page 41. Mr. Stuart Kent, Deputy Director of Field Operations, said industry standards are published by a number of organizations, including the American Public Works Association. He said they were also looking to meet specific standards. Councilmember Clark asked what "a timely manner" means in terms of vehicle equipment service. Mr. Kent replied that it depends on the job. He noted that there is a time standard for performance of work. Councilmember Clark asked how many work orders they had in any given year. Mr. Kent estimated that they had 20,000 work orders each year. Councilmember Clark inquired as to where a reference to loose trash pickup could be fcund. Mr. Reedy said loose trash pickup is performed weekly and is typically covered by contract. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the seven-day time period to resolve loose trash complaints is too long. Mr. Norm Gumenik, Landfill Solid Waste Superintendent, explained that the City notifies a resident of the issue and corrects it if it is not corrected by the resident within seven days. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the $22,000 identified for tools and equipment expenses was too conservative. Mr. Kent stated that the $22,000 was for specifically targeted equipment that has already been priced. Councilmember Lieberman questioned whether they would be able to keep up with new electronic requirements to service the equipment. Mr. Reedy pointed out that they have a base budget for this item as well. Councilmember Clark asked if any of the costs associated with the new positions, additional buses, or increased service hours come from the Transportation Tax. Mr. McClendon stated that equipment in the Transportation area will be charged to the Transportation Fund. He noted that every piece of equipment worked on in the shop is charged back to the originating department. 10 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Deputy Director of Field Operations, explained that the City of Glendale solid waste system is comprised of two main components: collections and disposal. She said, in February of 2001, the Council discussed the new Landfill Development Plan, including financial projections for the residential sanitation rate and landfill tipping fee. She said, at that time, they identified key components of the plan, such as extending the landscaping and screening berms, development of a bioreactor project, development of an effluent delivery system, and relocation of the landfill entrance. She stated that the key financial projections used at that time assumed several contract customers. She said, since that presentation, there have been significant changes in the business climate. She explained that there has been an increase in competition from private landfills and both Peoria and City Waste had decided to end their contract by July 1, 2002. She said the City of Phoenix had opted to construct its own self-supporting landfill under a new business model. She stated that the loss of Peoria and City Waste equates to a loss of 100,000 paid tons per year. She noted, however, that the changes have given the City certain opportunities, including an extended landfill life and extended time frame to ensure adequate funding for closure and post-closure costs. She said it had also compelled the City to proceed with an assessment of its solid waste management business model. Ms. Schurhammer spoke about other changes in the Solid Waste environment. She stated that the City of Peoria decided not to partner with the City of Glendale on the materials recovery facility. She said prices for processed recyclables are at an all-time low and commercial sanitation costs exceeded revenue in Fiscal Year 2001. Ms. Schurhammer stated that they were implementing various cost saving measures, reviewing all business practices, improving automation and information systems, and assessing all solid waste rate structures. Landfill Fund Ms. Schurhammer reported no Landfill Fund Capital Improvement Plan spending for the next fiscal year. She said the base budget totals $8,255,127, with no carryover or supplemental requests. Mr. McClendon pointed out that this represents an operating cost reduction for lie Landfill because they added indirect costs charged as a budget item. Councilmember Clark said it was time to look at the cost benefit analysis that the City is receiving with regard to the recycling and Material Recovery Facility (MRF) operations. She asked about references to "Budget C" found on pages 60, 61, and 62. Mr. McClendon stated that Budget C was only referenced in the Landfill budget. He explained that they had prepared an alternate budget in response to the reduced tonnage. Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Clark if she was suggesting that they analyze the curbside recycling program for the purpose of possibly discontinuing it. 11 Councilmember Clark said a cost benefit analysis should be done on the recycling program to see if citizens would continue to support the program if their rates were increased. Mr. McClendon noted that the Solid Waste Management study group will analyze the recycling program operations. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the City's recycling program which was in place five years ago was not profitable either. Mr. Kent agreed. He said they have never recovered the cost of the program. Councilmember Lieberman expressed concern about the landfill's compatibility with future surrounding residential developments. He suggested that they look at purchasing land outside the City of Glendale for a future landfill. Mr. Reedy stated that the General Plan does not identify housing adjacent to the landfill. He said the committee is charged with looking at all viable options, including foregoing expansion of the landfill. Mayor Scruggs suggested they add someone from the Intergovernmental Relations Department to their team. She stressed the need for better notification to potential property buyers. She explaining that the City cannot be expected to move existing facilities when future landowners come in and raise objections. Councilmember Clark said she had previously suggested that homebuilders be required to post maps depicting present and future public infrastructure in their real estate sales offices. She said she supported Mayor Scruggs' suggestion to include someone from the Intergovernmental Relations Department to the committee. She noted, however, that they may have to look for other, non-legislative ways to post the maps. Mayor Scruggs said she was not open to considering moving the landfill and, at some point, the City will have to take a stand. Councilmember Martinez said no one ever thought that recycling would be a revenue- producing venture. He asked if there was a dollar amount attributed to the extended life that recycling affords the landfill. Mr. Reedy stated that there is a value to the landfill space that is not filled with recyclable commodities. Mayor Scruggs sad the City of Peoria might find that the new landfill will not work as well as anticipated and they would want to return to the City Glendale. Councilmember Frate noted that the City would still have to make payments on the facility and containers if they stopped collecting recyclables. Mr. Reedy agreed. He explained that they were obligated to make debt service payments for the next 14 years. He noted, however, that the debt service could be mitigated to some degree by selling the equipment. Councilmember Frate said the citizens know that the City does not make money of recyclables, but they realize it is the right thing to do. Councilmember Goulet asked about the timeframe for the study. Mr. Reedy said staff would review the business operations plan over the next six-to-eight weeks and hope to bring their evaluation back to the Council in mid-fall. He said additional analysis might 12 be necessary after Council's review. Councilmember Goulet suggested that the City postpone future projects, as opposed to discontinuing the recycling program. He noted that people are just now beginning to understand its value. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. McClendon explained that, as with any outside contract, a component of the fee charged is for capacity replacement. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Goulet's comment that people are just now beginning to see the value of recycling. She expressed her opinion that the recycling program is a luxury, and not a necessity. She said the City should, at a minimum, look for greater cost recovery on the part of the citizens. She expressed her opinion that it could be prudent to look at acquiring land at the present time to prepare for the day when the landfill closes. Mayor Scruggs questioned how the City could protect the land from future encroachment. Mr. Beasley pointed out that it takes an incredible amount of time, public input, and cost to locate a landfill. Mayor Scruggs said they also have to consider the effect of garbage trucks on other communities as they travel to and from a landfill. Councilmember Martinez said one or two East Valley cities thought about entering into agreements with the City of Glendale a couple of years ago. He asked if that continued to be a possibility Mr. Mike Hoyt, Director of Field Operations, replied that all East Valley cities are engaged in long-term contracts with either Waste Management or the Salt River Indian Community. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that the City should explore purchasing land. He said he believed a portion of the landfill could be closed due to non-compatibility issues. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that technology advances could eliminate the need for a landfill. Councilmember Clark said, since the Council cannot predict future pressures, it is not unreasonable to think the surrounding land could be designated as residential in the future. Ms. Schurhammer reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan for the Landfill Fund. She noted that the Landfill Entrance, Landfill Excavation, and Effluent Reuse projects were moved out several years. Mr. McClendon reviewed the Landfill Fund Summary. He noted that they had a $313,000 deficiency. He said there were no rate adjustments required in Fiscal Year 2002/03. He reported that a full analysis of the rate structure. upon completion of the solid waste management study, would be presented to the Council in the fall. 13 SANITATION FUND Ms. Schurhammer reported the that Sanitation Fund Capital Improvement Plan totals $825,000, with a base budget of $11,847,623 and carryover totaling $80,000. Councilmember Lieberman asked how many trucks the City could purchase for $700,000. Ms. Schurhammer stated that the City could purchase four trucks. Mr. McClendon noted that these capital items have no effect on the operating budget because their base budget already includes sufficient funding to allow for the annual lease payments. He reviewed the Sanitation Fund Summary and stated that last year's sanitation rate adjustment was intended to cover the $209,533 deficiency. Mayor Scruggs suggested that they clarify the report by changing "Excess/(Deficiency)" to "Draw Down On Prior Year Fund Balance/Addition To Prior Year Fund Balance." Councilmember Lieberman asked if Deficiency means the operation lost $209,533. Mr. McClendon explained that it was a planned situation because the rate increase in Fiscal Year 2001/02 was intended to cover two years. Mr. McClendon reported that no residential rate adjustments were required in Fiscal Year 2002-03. HE' said commercial rate adjustments will be determined as part of the analysis. Mr. McClendon stated that the next meeting was scheduled for April 9. He said the purpose of this meeting would be to review the results of the citizen questionnaire on the proposed elimination of the sales tax on food. Mayor Scruggs asked if today's workshop meeting was the only one the Council would have during the month of April. Mr. Beasley said they would look at the calendar to see if any adjustments or special accommodations need to be made. Mayor Scruggs recommended thal Council hold a workshop session on April 30th ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. 14