HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/9/2002 * 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 9, 2002
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, David M. Goulet, H. Philip
Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez.
ABSENT: Councilmember Steven E. Frate.
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 - CITIZEN FEEDBACK
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager; and
Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Research Director.
OTHER PRESENTER: Dr. Michael O'Neil of O'Neil Associates.
This was the second in a series of scheduled City Council workshops to review the
proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Annual Budget. Several additional workshops will
be held over the next several weeks to discuss the possible budget for Council
adoption.
Due to economic uncertainties caused by the state budget shortage and the national
impact of September lit , staff advised the Mayor and Council that the City would have
limited resources ii FY 2002-03 to fund additions to the base budget.
A petition to repeal the Glendale food sales tax was submitted to be included on the
General Election ballot in May. Staff estimated that the food sales tax repeal would
result in a $4.7 million revenue loss to the City. Staff was directed to prepare two
possible budget scenarios. However, at this time the food sales tax initiative has been
removed from the ballot. Therefore, staff will be presenting only one budget scenario.
The Mayor and Cily Council directed staff to educate citizens on the potential impact of
repealing the food sales tax and seek citizen input on potential service or program
reductions.
In early March, staff mailed informational booklets to all Glendale residences. The
booklets explained the impact of the $4.7 million revenue loss and the
programs/services that may be eliminated if the sales tax on food is repealed.
Residents were asked to complete a worksheet, detailing which of these
programs/services they felt should be cut, if any. These worksheets were to be mailed
to O'Neil Associates by March 23, 2002 for tabulation.
This information was also made available on the City of Glendale website. Citizens
were encouraged to call the budget hotline or e-mail their questions or comments.
Budget staff responded to and logged all of these communications.
O'Neil Associates and staff will prepare a report, outlining the results of the citizen
budget worksheet and other feedback received from Glendale residents regarding
potential budget reductions.
The November City Council Goal-Setting Retreat was the first step in the FY 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 FY 2002-03 budget.
Due to economic uncertainties, staff advised the Mayor and Council that the City would
have limited resources in FY 2002-03 to fund additions to the base budget.
Staff also estimated that the potential elimination of Glendale's sales tax on food would
result in a $4.7 million revenue shortfall in the General Fund.
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 April 2, 2002 Workshop, the Mayor and City Council reviewed the Enterprise
Fund budgets.
The agenda for this City Council workshop was posted and all legal requirements for
notification were met.
The City Council will review the FY 2002-03 budget at workshops during the month of
April, 2002. The recommendations made at these workshops will direct staff in
preparing for final City Council budget review and adoption in June of 2002.
The recommendation was to review the citizen feedback component of the FY 2002-03
Proposed Annual Budget and provide staff with direction.
Mr. Zapata introduced Dr. Michael O'Neil, President of O'Neil Associates, a Tempe
based, full-service public opinion market research firm.
Mr. McClendon said the workbook exercise is one of many methods the City is utilizing
to evaluate its business practices. He said, regardless of whether or not the City
ultimately eliminates the 96 budget items, it is important to take every opportunity to
evaluate the programs and services that the City offers. He explained that they were
reviewing the City's intergovernmental agreements, efficiency measurements, and
service cost recovery options, as well as how they can improve the Capital
Improvement Program. Mr. McClendon reviewed other economic factors that have
2
influenced the City's need to review its business practices, including the State's budget
shortfall, the effects of the September 11- terrorist attacks on the national economy,
and the decrease in sales tax revenue. He discussed the various methods by which
public input was solicited with regard to the budget process. He said a number of public
presentations and district Council meetings are held throughout the year and numerous
citizens contact the Mayor, Council or City staff directly to provide input. He stated that
they view the survey as another tool in developing the City's budget.
Mr. McClendon stressed the fact that the survey results are not scientific. He stated
that the survey was intended only to provide information to citizens and to assist the
City in gaining a better understanding of the citizens' perspective on City services. He
said the website and hotline received 16 requests for information and 10 comments;
staff conducted 10 public presentations; 82,000 workbooks were distributed; and 1,928
workbook responses were received by O'Neil Associates. He explained that O'Neil
Associates was contracted to tabulate the worksheet results. He noted that they also
tabulated the 1996 and 1999 Glendale Municipal Surveys.
Dr. O'Neil stated that the study was designed and executed by the City and they were
asked only to calculate the data. He expressed concern about the low response rate
and the result's internal validity. He said the low response rate precludes the City from
using the data to make any kind of generalizations. He stated that, at best, the results
represent the opinion of the 2,000 people who did respond. He also explained that, in
order to have internal validity, the respondents needed to have a decent understanding
of the issues asked about in the survey. He said respondents are particularly sensitive
to how questions are phrased when the questions are detailed in nature and the
respondents' lack knowledge and/or previous consideration of the subject matter. He
stated that respondents are also more sensitive to intuitively grasped benefits;
therefore, it is easier to gain their support on those issues.
Dr. O'Neil explained the calculations they utilized in tabulating the results. He noted
that responcents said 47 items should be cut and 14 items should not be cut. He
made the broad observation that, given the choice, respondents supported making
some substantial outs and eliminating the sales tax on food. He reiterated, however,
that there was greater support for items where the benefits were directly evident and
easily understood. He said there was also a tendency not to cut items related to public
safety or those that assist the needy. He noted that the respondents also wanted to
keep a number of items related to transportation, including pavement, traffic signals,
street signs, and street lights.
Dr. O'Neil stated that the items which respondents indicated should be cut had benefits
that were not as obvious. He said respondents indicated that the public relations firm
which was hired by the Tourism Division of the Marketing Department should be
eliminated. He noted, however, that citizens regularly complain that the City does not
effectively commulicate with them. He said it is reasonable to believe the item was
marked for elimination because the description indicated there would be no real effect
as the services would be performed by the new Tourism Director. He said the
respondents may have marked a number of items for elimination, including software
licensing fees and travel expenses, because the survey question did not indicate what,
if any, immediate negative consequence doing so would have. Dr. O'Neil said it is also
difficult for items that inherently impact a sub-segment of the community to score as
high as items that impact everyone. He said, therefore, the results showed low ratings
for funding for the Glendale Dimensions television show, diversity funding, printing of
the Council agenda document and so forth. Dr. O'Neil stated that, while there is a
place for public opinion data in public policy, it has to be used with caution, especially in
3
this particular instance.
Mr. Beasley asked the Mayor and Council to indicate what information they would like
staff to provide, in light of the repeal of the food tax being placed on hold.
Councilmember Goulet asked how many responses were necessary to consider the
data valid. Dr. O'Neil said, ideally they want a 100% response rate; however, 50% to
60% is necessary before there is any degree of comfort with regard to external validity.
He explained that the higher the percentage of respondents, the lower the probability
that non-respondents substantially differ in their opinions. Councilmember Goulet
asked if people were more likely to vote no on items they are unfamiliar with or do not
understand. Dr. O'Neil said respondents are not consistently more likely to vote no;
however, they are much more sensitive to the question's wording.
Councilmember Lieberman asked why the survey failed in terms of the number of
respondents and how the City could avoid a similar response rate with future surveys.
Dr. O'Neil said the immensity of the survey, combined with the fact it was done through
the mail, required a high level of motivation on the part of the respondents. He said the
survey also dealt with issues beyond peoples' experiences, making them feel
incompetent to answer. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that the survey was too
large. He stated that a number of people had told him they started the survey, but did
not finish it.
Councilmember Martinez asked Dr. O'Neil if the number of questions should have been
reduced. Dr. O'Neil said the questions could have been reduced in number and made
broader. He pointed out the fact that the Spanish translation of the questions made the
survey appear twice as long and even more imposing. Councilmember Martinez asked
Dr. O'Neil if he expected a low response rate because of the size of the survey. Dr.
O'Neil responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Martinez asked if the survey would
have been as effective had it only been sent to 10% of the residents. Dr. O'Neil stated
that the City could have sent the survey to 1,000 residents, aiming for a minimum
response rate of 50%.
Councilmember Clark noted that the City does an annual telephone survey of 600
people. She asked Dr. O'Neil to explain the difference between telephone and mail
surveys and why a 600 person sampling is more valid than the 2,000 responses they
received with the food tax survey. Dr. O'Neil explained that, statistically, a fairly and
unbiased chosen sampling of the population will bear a resemblance to the overall
population within a known and computable margin of error. Councilmember Clark said,
while she agreed that the poor response rate makes it impossible to draw any
inference, she felt the survey identified a couple of trends. She stated that those who
responded were most likely activists and that there was definite support for items
related to basic services. She expressed concern that a number of the items the
respondents indicated should be cut were related to assisting the disadvantaged. Dr.
O'Neil stated that it would not be unreasonable to assume those who responded are
activists or involved in the community and that they probably were more informed on
the issues than the average person. He said the respondents' choices to cut or
eliminate programs aimed at the disadvantaged may have had more to do with a lack of
information regarding the programs' direct benefits. Councilmember Clark noted that
she was involved with a group that attempted to repeal the food sales tax five years
ago. She explained that their effort failed because the initiative was not properly
written. She said the issue will resurface in the future and she believed that the
Council should consider phasing out the food sales tax over a period of time. She
expressed her belief that the survey was an advertising tool used by the City to educate
4
citizens and to scare them by pointing out what they would lose if the tax was repealed.
She said, if the survey was a genuine attempt to solicit information, it was a poor one
and, in her opinion, it was an attempt to sway the public's mind prior to the general
election.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question Dr. O'Neil explained that almost half of
the respondents did not indicate the district they lived in. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated
that the Council felt it would not have time to make budget adjustments after the May
21st general election; therefore, it sent out the survey to inform people of the possible
cuts and to obtain public opinion and input. He said he never expected the survey to be
statistically valid.
Mayor Scruggs noted that the issue arose during the election period when she and
Councilmembers Goulet and Martinez were attacked by their opponents for not
communicating with the citizenry. She said the money spent to mail the survey to every
household should have been spent in hiring an expert to write the survey, which could
have then been sent to a sample population. She said she assumed the decision to
send the survey to every household was made in an attempt to avoid the appearance of
being selective. She pointed out that, in terms of items marked for elimination, the
Ocotillo District's support for cutting an item was significantly lower than in the Yucca
District. She noted, however, that with regard to items to be kept, the opposite was
true. She said the four other districts seemed to be more individually oriented. Dr.
O'Neil said, while an inference cannot be drawn, it could reflect an underlying difference
in the districts' attii:ude toward the food sales tax.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Flaaen confirmed that staff worked to keep
the survey as neutral as possible, while still providing the necessary information. Mayor
Scruggs asked if a professionally prepared survey would have most likely excluded the
educational part and been more for the purpose of polling the citizens. Mr. Flaaen
responded in the affirmative. He stated that this was what they were trying to avoid.
Mayor Scruggs took issue with accusations that the Council was trying to manipulate
the public. She stated that the Council did what any organization would do when doing
a budget exercise.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that there is great disparity in socioeconomic levels
between the districts. He said the people who responded to the survey seemed to
indicate they did not want the City to continue communicating with them by choosing to
eliminate advertising and other communication-based programs. Dr. O'Neil explained
that it is harder to garner support for services where the public does not see a direct
benefit.
Councilmember Martinez said he believed the survey was intended to help the Council
by identifying services the public would choose to eliminate, if necessary.
Councilmember Goulet noted that a number of programs need to do a better job of
educating the public on the value of the services they provide. He said a number of
people told him they were surprised at the number of programs and services effected
by the food sales tax. He said the survey's intent was not to scare the public, but to
inform and educate them on a vast array of services in a very short time. Dr. O'Neil
agreed that the fact that certain programs did not fair well in the survey could be a
reflection of their failure to communicate what they do, as opposed to a public rejection
of the actual activity.
5
Councilmember Martinez asked Dr. O'Neil if they ever conduct a random sampling
survey, but track the responses of those who voluntarily participate separately. Dr.
O'Neil explained that an adjustment formula cannot be applied when surveying
volunteer participants because their responses do not differ in predictable ways.
Dr. O'Neil stated that the survey's results should be taken as an indication of the
public's perception rather than as literal direction.
Mayor Scruggs said she would like to know how the public feels. She suggested that
the City either include an advisory question on the November ballot or have O'Neil
Associates prepare another survey which would be statistically valid. She said if, in
fact, it is the public's opinion that the food sales tax should be eliminated, she believes
it should be done on the basis of deferring projects and programs not yet initiated.
Councilmember Goulet asked if a 15% to 18% voter turnout would meet the threshold
for statistical reliance. Dr. O'Neil said, while it could generalize to the population that
votes, it would not generalize to the population as a whole. He stated that it would be
difficult to word a question in a way that would take into account the complexity of the
issue. Councilmember Goulet agreed that the City should first consider delaying or
eliminating projects that have not yet been initiated before it looks at making changes to
existing programs.
Councilmember Martinez cautioned against delaying all new projects. Mayor Scruggs
said she was referring to new projects that have high operating costs. She clarified that
the food sales tax would not effect the City's ability to build new facilities or amenities
which is done usirg different funds. She explained that food sales tax dollars are used
to keep programs running once they exist. Councilmember Martinez said, for instance,
he would have a problem delaying the multi-generational facility, even though it has
high operating costs. He said, in some ways, he wished the issue could be included on
the ballot and decided on once and for all.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Martinez' remarks. She said she
believed it would be inequitable to delay establishing programs and services that
already exist in some areas of the City, but not in others. She said people are more
likely to share in a burden if they perceive it as an equal sharing. She stated that all
programs and services should be considered when it comes to making reductions. She
noted that a "zero based" budget exercise would result in surprising findings.
Mayor Scruggs said Dr. Martin Vanacour, the former City Manager, had previously
indicated that staff would support doing a zero based budget exercise on a rotating
basis. Mayor Scruggs stated that the loss of the food sales tax would reduce revenue
to the City, while, at the same time, the cost of continuing existing services increases
each year.
Councilmember Clark clarified her position that the budget needs to be looked at in its
totality. She noted that the Council adds an inflation factor into the budget each year.
She said the City of Glendale is luckier than many cities because it still has room to
grow; however, that growth needs to be moderate and prudent.
Mayor Scruggs said, after some thought, she was convinced that an advisory question
on the ballot would not be effective due to the City's historically low voter turnout. She
asked the Council's opinion on conducting a statistically valid survey.
6
Vice Mayor Eggleston said people have indicated to him that they like the way things
are.
Mr. Beasley said they had been looking at their overall business strategy under a zero-
based scenario and would like to return to the Council to further discuss the business
model they are developing. Mr. McClendon said they were looking at all services and
programs to ensure that the City is doing things in the best way possible.
Councilmember Clark asked if they would look at certain segments of the City first. Mr.
McClendon explained that they were creating a business model that could be applied in
any area of the Ciiy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
7