Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/16/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April 16, 2002 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Michael Munroe, Senior Management Assistant. The Community Development Group collects a schedule of permit and service fees related to Building Safety, Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Utilities. The current fees have been in effect since May 26, 1992. In reviewing fees charged by other municipalities, it is apparent that the City of Glendale fees are considerably lower. The City of Glendale's current fees rank amongst the lowest fees in the Valley. The purpose of this report was to review current City of Glendale fees and recommend changes to those tees consistent with similar fees charged by other communities, taking into consideration cost of service delivery. Reviewing and adjusting the City's development-related permit and service fees on a periodic basis is consistent with the City's new business plan approach. Efforts should be made to adjust the fees to recover a larger portion of the cost of delivering services. This practice is consistent with the philosophy that growth should pay for itself as much as possible. The Community Development Group, together with the Budget Department, performed a comprehensive review of the development-related permit and service fees. Three key factors were considered in the review of current and the recommendation of new fees: 1) Fee Comparison Analysis — Community Development staff conducted the Fee Comparison Analysis by comparing City of Glendale fees to fees charged by other local jurisdictions in the Valley. Additionally, the City of Glendale fees were compared to the Uniform Administrative Code (UAC) since most Valley cities currently use the fees referenced in the Code. The analysis compared the City of Glendale fees to the fees of the Town of Cave Creek, and the Cities of Chandler, Gilbert, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. 1 2) Specific Fee Analysis - Some fees are recommended for adjustment in order to encourage or discourage certain actions by the City's customers. Specifically, water heater and patio cover permits have been set at a reasonable level to encourage homeowners to acquire the necessary permits and approvals. Conversely, staff was recommending that fees charged for multiple reviews be set at levels that encourage developers to submit more complete plans. 3) Cost of Service Analysis - The Budget Office conducted a review of staff time and resources expended on development-related services, including direct and indirect costs. The analysis was conducted, based on data provided by the Utilities, Fire, and Community Development Departments. There was a great deal of research and analysis that went into this study, but it was not an exact science. Where possible, permit and service fees were analyzed on a cost-of- service basis. The new recommended fees have been summarized in a table format by department. The tables compare current fees with the recommended new fees. The report was presented to the Council for its review. Staff also analyzed how the City of Glendale's current and recommended fees compare to other local municipalities. A comparison was made with other cities of a 200-lot single-family subdivision being developed on a 66-acre parcel. Fees compared included a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat. This comparison was selected because of the frequency of single-family development projects reviewed by the City Council. Table 1 - Comparison of Planning Fees _ City General Plan Rezoning Preliminary Final Plat Total Amendment Plat Tempe $1,000 $7,600 $1,820 $1 ,820 $12,240 Mesa $1,000 $7,600 $3,000 $1,000 $12,600$1,920 Gilbert $1,500 $5,060 � _ $1,570 $10,050 Cave Creek $2,500 $3,500 $10,600 $10,600 $27,200 Chandler $500 $2,150 $1,500 No Fee $4,150 Goodyear $1809 $3,534 $1,695 $5,022 $12,060 Phoenix $1,725 $6,205 $4,900 $3,650 $16,480 Scottsdale $951 $2,572 $3,844 $23,888 $31,255 Peoria $1,000 $3,640 $2,200 $1,600 $8,440 minor Glendale $500 $2,580 $1,500 $500 $5,080 Current fees Average of $1,248 $4,444 $3,298 $4,965 $13,955 Valley Cities Glendale $750 $6,280 $6,000 $6,500 $19,530 Proposed minor amend Fees 2 From Table 1 above, it is apparent that the City of Glendale's current fees are significantly lower than the comparison cities. The City of Glendale's current Planning fees of $5,080 are $8,875 (or 64%) less than the average of comparison planning fees of $13,955. The proposed Planning fees of $19,530 would increase The City of Glendale's fees to $5,575 (or 29%) above the comparison city average. As Valley cities continue to update their fees annually, the City of Glendale's market position will continue to shift within the market. Table 2 — Comparison of Building Safety Fees Single Family Comm. Shell Res. Swimming Res. Patio Cover Residence Bldg. Pool City (1800 SF) (103,400 SF) (160 SF) Tempe $2,335 $15,551 $321 $147 Mesa $1 ,104 $10,433 $200 $114 Gilbert $1 ,787 $15,762 $165 $64 Cave Creek $2,842 $16,665 $507 $138 Chandler $1,678 $16,215 $271 $103 Goodyear $1,787 $17,521 $300 $93 Phoenix $1,030 $20,317 $300 $135 Scottsdale $4,684 $80,244 $533 $85 Peoria $1 ,787 $21,293 $308 -- $94 Glendale $1 ,243 $13,090 $145 $48 :I Current Fees Average of $2,028 $22,709 $305 $102 Valley Cities Glendale $1,787 $18,662 $350 $119 Proposed Fees Table 2 illustrates a comparison of current and proposed City of Glendale Building Safety fees with Valley cities. Current City of Glendale Building Safety fees for these four categories are, on average, 47% less than the comparison cities. The recommended fees for the Building Safety Department are consistent with the Uniform Administrative Code as adopted by other Valley cities. The 1997 Uniform Administrative Code contains fee tables to assist local jurisdictions in calculating plan review and inspection fees. The fees in the tables are based on the valuation of the work for which permits are issued. Most jurisdictions in the Western United States and the State of Arizona adopt these tables. Many jurisdictions modify the tables slightly to reflect local concerns, i.e. lowering fees to encourage citizens or contractors to obtain permits, and raising fees to discourage certain behaviors such as starting work without a permit. Every year for the past several years, City staff has participated in a Valley-wide fee study with the staff of other Valley cities. From this annual study, staff has learned that the fees from other cities are adjusted annually and reviewed on an ongoing basis. Staff therefore recommended that Council adopt an annual increase to the fees equal to the inflationary increase to the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the past 12-month period. Staff furrier recommended that a comprehensive cost of service study be conducted at least every 3 years. 3 If directed to proceed with formal adoption, the City Attorney's Office will prepare the necessary ordinance. The fees will then be scheduled for a public hearing and formal adoption in June of 2002. The proposed fees would become effective in July of 2002. Staff will provide the development community with the proposed fee schedules prior to the public hearing. The last update to the Community Development Fees was in May of 1992. Staff discussed the proposed increase to the development-related permit and service fees with developers and current homebuilders within the City of Glendale. Once the City Council has provided direction, staff will meet with representatives of the development community to inform them of the pending changes to the fees. A primary finding of the cost of service analysis is that the revenue generated by the current fees has lot kept pace with the increasing costs of providing services. The recommended fees are comparable to similar fees charged by other cities. Table 3 summarizes the total estimated increase in revenue from the proposed fees for the Building Safety and Planning Departments. The Planning Department staff was proposing a new Pre-Application fee that will generate approximately $100,000 annually. Currently the City does not charge for Design Review Pre-Application meetings. These meetings typically involve between eight and twelve staff members and last up to two hours. Many Pre-Application meetings do not result in formal applications being submitted, as developers use these meetings and staff time for information-gathering purposes and never submit an application. The fee for the Pre-Application meeting will cover the costs of an information packe" that will be provided to developers. The information packet will include copies of the design guidelines, as well as other information to assist developers. The recommended Pre-Application fee is comparable to fees charged by other valley cities. The recommended Building Safety fees are comparable to fees charged by other cities. The Budget Department could not calculate cost recovery for Engineering and Fire Department services due to the lack of sufficient cost data. Steps are being taken to collect comprehensive data that will allow cost service calculation in the future. Table 3 indicates the estimated increase in revenue from the proposed fees based on development activity levels for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Future revenues will vary, depending on the level of development activity. Table 3 — Estimated Increase in Revenues Generated From Pro•osed Fees Buildin• Safet Department Estimated Reverue from Proposed Increase in Plan Review Fees $1,100,000 Estimated Revenue from Proposed Increase in Permit Fees $1,350,000 Plannin• De•artment Estimated Revenue from Proposed Increase in Planninafpes $165,000 Estimated Revenue from Proposed New Pre-Application Fees $100,000 Total Estimated Revenue from Proposed Fees $2,715,000 4 During the past few years, the City Council has supported a policy that growth should pay for itself and that current residents should not subsidize growth. The recommended fee increases will more closely approach cost recovery than do the existing fees. The recommendaTion was to direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps for formal adoption of the recommended fees, effective July of 2002. Mr. Ernster reviewed customer service improvements being implemented, including an improved customer service survey, Home Builders Advisory Group and Developer Focus Group meetings, re-organization of the Planning Department, the establishment of a Process Improvement Team, a building inspection money back guarantee, and web site enhancements. Mr. Munroe explained that they used a Fee Comparison Analysis to compare all fees charged in the development process, except impact fees, with those charged by other jurisdictions in the Valley. He said they also compared the City's fees to those referenced by the Uniform Administrative Code. He stated that they also did some specific fee analysis to determine what should be done to encourage or discourage certain customer actions and performed a cost of service analysis. Mr. Munroe reported that the study's results found that Glendale's Community Development fees rank among the lowest in the valley. He said the study also found tht the City's fees do not fully recover the cost of services provided. He noted, however, that full-cost recovery would be prohibitive and could inhibit development. He noted that they intended to return to the Council to propose utilizing a development tracking system that would allow the City to track the projects and the costs and resources spent in providing the necessary services. He reviewed a graphic representation of the cost comparison on planning fees. He noted that the City of Glendale currently charges approximately $5,000 for a 200-lot single-family subdivision. He said the proposed fees for that same subdivision would increase to just under $20,000, or approximately $75 per single-family home. Mr. Munroe reviewed a graph depicting the comparison of single-family residence building fees. He pointed out that people pull a number of permits associated with a home, most of which fall under the Building Safety Department. He said, because they want to encourage people who are making improvements to come in and obtain the necessary permits, those fees have been held constant or only slightly increased. He stated that the proposed Commercial Shell Building fee, based on a 103,400 square foot commercial building, would increase from $13,090 to $18,662, moving Glendale towards the middle range of fees charged throughout the Valley. He said the Residential Swimming Pool fees are currently $145 and would increase to $350, while Residential Patio Cover fees would increase to $119. Mr. Munroe recommended adoption of the fees, effective July 1, 2002, with an annual inflationary increase. He also recommended a periodic review of fees every three years. Mr. Ernster noted that many other cities are also in the process of evaluating their fees; therefore, the City's relative position as compared to other cities could be different in six months. In response to concerns expressed by the Council, Mr. Munroe said they would draft a policy to look at reducing fees for infill housing on a City-wide basis. He said it was recommended that the pre-application fee be credited towards the remainder of fees for 5 a project should it move forward. He stated that they were also looking at grandfathering in all projects submitted prior to adoption of the new fee structure. Councilmember Fate asked Mr. Ernster how much revenue the increased fees would generate and if that revenue would be placed in the General Fund. Mr. Ernster estimated that the increased fees would generate an additional $2.7 million, based on the activity that took place in the last fiscal year. Councilmember Frate asked how the proposed increases were received by homebuilders. Mr. Ernster said, while they were not happy about the increases, they acknowledged that the City of Glendale has some of the lowest fees in the Valley. He said, depending on the Council's direction, they would provide hornebuilders with additional information at the Home Builders meeting later this month. Mayor Scruggs said some high growth cities in the Valley have used their fees as their General Fund to pay for ongoing city services. She said this type of revenue generation requires that the cities produce a high volume of new homes to continue paying for city services. She asked how the City of Glendale calculates its development fee revenue expectations. Mr. McClendon stated that the City looks at expected development activity when developing the generated revenue estimate. He explained that, since they expected a slight rebound next year, they built in a small percentage increase in activity. He said the balanced budget assumption they were working on assumes some degree of fee increase, but not the entire amount. He stressed the need to carefully budget building and permit fees. He explained that they identify a baseline of expected fees, with any amount received beyond the baseline treated as one-time revenue. With regard to 'Full-cost recovery, Councilmember Martinez said it seems that departments could calculate an average cost for the services they render. He said he was not concerned that increased fees would inhibit development to a certain degree because new development is supposed to pay for itself. Mr. Ernster said the Planning Department has a 9% cost recovery rate under the current fee structure. He said the proposed fees, if implemented, would increase the recovery rate to 17% or 18%. He explained that raising the fees to achieve full-cost recovery would place the City of Glendale's services way out of line in comparison to other cities and would discourage development in the City of Glendale. Councilmember Martinez stated his opinion that the fees need to be adjusted on a more regular and timely basis. Mayor Scruggs asked what was included in the costs they were looking to recover. She said she would support recovering more of the labor costs, but not all of the departments' costs. Mr. Ernster agreed that costs associated with services they provide to other departments are unrecoverable. He said the cost recovery calculation is directed only to those activities related to providing development services. He said that was why the new tracking system is needed. Councilmember Goulet said he supported the increase in fees. He asked if other cities had a similar cost recovery rate. Mr. Ernster said the City's analysis did not look at cost recovery rates for other cities. Councilmember Goulet stated that the City of Glendale is going to be faced with explosive growth. He asked if the fees would change the way the department approaches a project and manages staff's time. Mr. Ernster said they would see a big change with regard to the pre-application meeting. He stated that the fee will discourage developers from asking for a meeting just to gather information. He noted, however, that it is difficult to project what will happen in other areas of the City. Councilmember Goulet said there should be a parallel fee program if an infill incentive program is established. 6 Councilmember Clark asked what the Uniform Administrative Code is. Ms. Deborah Mazoyer, Building Safety Director, explained that the Uniform Administrative Code (UAC) is a portion of the Building Code that dictates how codes and ordinances are administered. She explained that the fees referenced by the UAC are based on the value of the property rather than its square footage. Councilmember Clark voiced her support of the fee increases. She stated that, if anything, she felt a 17% cost recovery was not aggressive enough. She said she also wanted to see a tracking system implemented because she believed it would help the City recognize the value of billable hours. She asked how development fees for a major shopping center would differ from those for a 200-lot subdivision. Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager, explained that the General Plan, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat fees would be the same; however, a shopping center would be assessed a Planned Area Development (PAD) fee of $1,500, plus $80 per acre. Councilmember Clark, asked if the development fee for a shopping center was in line with other cities. She expressed her opinion they should be increased because of the more complicated nature of the project. Mayor Scruggs explained that development fees cover the cost of the paperwork associated with the project and that the magnitude of a project does not show up until the project starts to incur building fees. Mr. Ernster agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Councilmember Clark expressed concern that the increased Swimming Pool and Patio Cover fees would discourage citizens from following proper procedures and obtaining necessary permits. She suggested that those fees be kept artificially low or that the City use a more gradual approach to increase the rates. Ms. Mazoyer pointed out that most people do not know what the City currently charges because the types of improvements that: require a permit are typically only done once. She noted, however, that residents are aware of what residents in other cities are being charged for the same service. She said the proposed increase is very slight considering it has been more than 10 years since the last increase. Councilmember Clark asked if the individual items would also achieve a 17% cost recovery rate. Mr. Ernster explained that the 17% cost recovery rate is for the Planning Department only. Councilmember Clark reiterated her position that the individual homeowners fees should be increased more gradually. Mayor Scruggs pointed out most people hire the work out to a company that would build the permit costs into their contract. Ms. Mazoyer pointed out that the proposed increases for residential projects were not as high as those for commercial projects. Councilmember Lieberman said he supported the increases and did not believe they would deter home builders or homeowners wishing to build a pool or patio. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what added value would customers see as a result of the increased fees. Mr. Ernster said customers would get better service, not because of the higher fees, but because of the new business model they are developing. 7 Councilmember Goulet asked if homeowners are penalized if they install a water heater on their own. Ms. Mazoyer said they would not penalize a homeowner, but they would try to discourage contractors from installing water heaters without a permit. Mr. Beasley pointed out that a city's quality of land and quality of life are taken into account when developers look at the fees it charges. Councilmember Frate asked if the City inspects and charges a homeowner the applicable fees for a patio, if the homeowner built it without first obtaining the proper permits. Ms. Mazoyer responded that they did. Councilmember Frate asked if such problems are often brought to the City's attention when the homeowner attempts to sell the house. Ms. Mazoyer said realtors will often not list a house unless they know the addition has been put on the County Assessor's valuation. She said the City would go out to inspect the structure once it is made aware of it. Councilmember Frate stressed the importance of obtaining the proper building permits. Ms. Mazoyer noted that homeowner associations are helpful in ensuring that homeowners know to obtain the property permits. Councilmember Clark clarified that she supported the fee increases. She noted, however, that she believed residential fees should be kept low to encourage homeowners to obtain the proper permits. Councilmember Martinez asked if a person who fails to obtain a permit would be required to pay a double fee. Ms. Mazoyer said the penalty is directed towards contractors who know permits are required, but fail to obtain them. She said they typically do not charge homeowners double fees. Mayor Scruggs said she had a licensed, bonded, and insured plumber replace the water heater in her home twice, but she did not know if the plumber obtained a permit. Ms. Mazoyer said the plumber probably did not obtain a permit if the City did not inspect the water heater. Mr. Ernster confirmed for Mayor Scruggs there would be reduced fees for infill housing, that the pre-application fee would be credited towards the actual application, and that projects submitted prior to adoption of the new fee structure would be grandfathered in. Councilmember Martinez asked if there would be any limitations placed on the number of homes with regard to infill housing. Mr. Ernster said he believed the City currently rebates approximately one-half to one-third of the impact fees for infill projects. He said they would probably do something similar in terms of development fees. Mayor Scruggs asked if a project that qualifies for reduced Impact Fees would also qualify for reduced Development Fees. Mr. Ernster answered in the affirmative. Mr. Ernster confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that they would go through a notification process to inform the public of the increases. All Councilmembems, except Councilmember Clark, voiced their consensus to proceed, given the reduced fees for infill housing, that the pre-application fee would be credited towards the actual application, and that projects submitted prior to adoption of the fee structure would be grandfathered in. 8 Councilmember Martinez asked if a developer could proceed with the citizen participation plan without first going through the pre-application meeting. Mr. Short stated that a developer would have to go through the pre-application meeting first. 2. SAHUARO RANCH FOUNDATION AD-HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation OTHER PRESENTERS: Ms. Carole DeCosmo, Director of the Sahuaro Ranch Historic Site; Ms. Anne Wallace, President of the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation Board of Directors; and Ms. Phyllis Brown, members of the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation In 1995, the City Council adopted the Sahuaro Ranch Historic Site Master Plan and approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Glendale and the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation for the purpose of operating and managing the historic site. The City Council also authorized a contingency transfer of $82,711 as the initial operating budget for the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation. The Foundation has not met the expectations of the MOU, particularly in the area of financial support for operations of the historic area. In June of 1999, the City Council directed the City Manager to appoint a committee of staff and Foundation Board members to develop a short-range plan and make recommendations on the future of the Foundation. The ad hoc committee has changed membership over the past two years and presented recommendations for the historic site and the Foundation. These recommendations will insure the successful operation of the historic site as a tourist destination and are consistent with other Valley cities in terms of management of historic places. The Sahuaro Ranch Foundation Ad-Hoc Committee recommended that the City: • assume operation and management of the historic site and employees; and • restructure responsibilities through an amended agreement, with the Foundation as a support volunteer group. The City Council awarded a contract to Woodward Architectural Group to develop a master plan for the historic site at Sahuaro Ranch Park. The scope of work included the development cf a land use plan, management plan, interpretive program plan, and financial strategies. The City Council reviewed the Sahuaro Ranch Master Plan at workshop sessions held in June and October of 1992. The City Council directed staff to assist in the formation of the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation and finalize the Master Plan for Council action. 9 The Government Services Committee discussed the formation of the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation at its meetings held on January 7, 1993, February 3, 1993, and April 20, 1993. A Citizen Steering Committee was appointed to establish the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation as a non-profit organization. The Sahuaro Ranch Foundation Articles of Incorporation were approved in July of 1993. At its meeting held on December 12, 1995, the City Council adopted the Sahuaro Ranch Historic Site Master Plan; approved a memorandum of understanding between the City of Glendale and Sahuaro Ranch Foundation for the purpose of operating and managing the historic site of Sahuaro Ranch; and authorized a contingency transfer of $82,711 as the initial operating budget for the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation. In July of 1999, the City Manager appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee, consisting of City staff and Foundation board members. The Ad-Hoc Committee was directed to review the operational needs and make a recommendation to the City Council on modifications of the MOU or the creation of a new agreement between the City and the Foundation. The Ad-Hoc Committee has been meeting regularly to discuss the issues, to review the operating systems in place at other historic sites in the Valley, and to develop alternatives for a new agreement between the City and the Foundation. The Sahuaro Ranch Ad-Hoc Committee discussed recommendations with the Foundation Board of Directors and they were in agreement with the Committee's recommendations. The City Council approved a supplemental request in the Parks and Recreation Department budget for two FTE (full-time employee) and hourly funds in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget, which totals approximately $219,000. Funds to operate the ranch are included in current appropriations The recommendation was to review the Sahuaro Ranch Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations and provide staff with direction. Mr. Smith reviewed the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation's budget for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. He noted that it totaled $257,600. He said the Ad Hoc Committee first researched how the City of Phoenix operates the Heritage Square/Rosson House and the Pueblo Grand Museum, and how the City of Mesa operates the Arizona Museum for Youth. He stated that the Committee then identified the following goals and objectives: (1) extend the ranch's operating hours; (2) continue developing historic elements of the Ranch; (3) recognize the hisi:oric site as a valuable historic landmark; (4) increase local and national awareness of the cultural significance of the site; (5) become an accredited museum; (6) enhance the grounds and landscaping; and (7) add interpretive "self- guided" tour signage. He said a staff that is too small for the site, non-competitive compensation, limited hours of operation, lack of visibility and closure of the Main House were identified as the sites major challenges. He said other challenges include the need for guaranteed funding for key programs, additional resources to expand hours and events, and the fact that the Foundation Director has to split his/her time 10 between fundraising and operations. Mr. Smith said the Committee was recommending that the City take over the operations and management of the site and that it restructure responsibilities and establish a new agreement with the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation. He said the City Council approved a base budget of $201,480 and one-time expenses totaling $17,520. He explained that the budget provides for a Museum Manager and a Curator of Exhibits and Collections. He said it also provides two 19-hour temporary positions, Museum Registrar, and Museum Service Specialist. He said the Parks and Recreation Department will help fund temporary employees to allow the site to operate five days a week. He stated that the Committee was recommending the creation of a new division, headed by the Deputy Director Arts/Cultural/Historical. He said the Deputy Director would act as liaison to the Arts Commission, the Historical Society at Manistee Ranch, and the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation. He said the position, once online, would hire a Sahuaro Ranch Museum Manager and Museum Curator. He stated that they could create the new division without using any additional General Fund monies. He explained that Phase II of the short-range plan would be to build the Sahuaro Ranch Visitor's Center offices. Mr. Smith stated that the Foundation's responsibilities would be restructured. He explained that their primary function would be to serve as a support group for the City and Sahuaro Ranch. He said they would, under agreement, perform functions that would provide a revenue stream, as well as manage the gift shop and Visitor's Center. He listed benefits to the City, including enhancement of the City's image as a community that values history, arts, and culture; increased hours of operation and expanded programming; increased fund-raising opportunities; added and improved special events; and economic development. He said the site's ability to attract visitors would also benefit the tourism and museum industries, as well as increase bus and group tours. He slated that the City would establish performance measures for optimal performance and maintain responsibility for its property. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Visitor's Center offices would be housed in a new building. Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative. He explained that that this is in Fiscal Year 2003/2004 of the current adopted Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember Goulet said the increased activity could change the character of Sahuaro Ranch Park. He asked if the City intended to change the fundamental concept of the destination. Mr. Smith said the first goal was to designate the park as a historic site. He said they view the park as a serenity park, one that does not offer active recreational features. Councilmember Goulet suggested that they identify complementary uses that might help attract people to the site. Ms. DeCosmo pointed out the uniqueness of Sahuaro Ranch Park. She said they need to focus on restoring the various aspects of the park. She noted that Sahuaro Ranch Park will be on HGTV's Great American Gardens and included in Arizona Highway's 50 Best Historic Home Sites. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that they could not add additional facilities once the park was accredited as a museum. Councilmember Lieberman asked how the recommendations would effect the Manistee Ranch Foundations ability to use the facilities. Mr. Smith explained that the Historical Society has a sub-agreement with the Sahuaro Ranch Foundation to use the Rose Garden for weddings. He said the Deputy Director of Arts and Culture would act as the liaison to all groups, including the Historical Society and the Foundation. 11 Councilmember Lieberman suggested that they remove the lemon and grapefruit trees located between the parking lot and 59th Avenue to allow passersby to see the buildings. Councilmember Clark said the City of Phoenix holds various types of events at Heritage Square and people seem to be very mindful of being in a historic place and treat it gently. She said other events are placed around the square as a marketing tool to educate people on Heritage Square's history. She acknowledged the need to preserve Sahuaro Ranch Park's uniqueness and historical character. She noted that hosting events would attract visitors to the park. Ms. DeCosmo agreed that Sahuaro Ranch would be the perfect location for several events currently held at other locations. Vice Mayor Eggleston commended the Ad-Hoc Committee on their recommendations. He said he believed they should move forward. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the exceptional job that the City of Phoenix has done of creating an inside plaza that connects Heritage Square, The Phoenix Museum, The Science Museum, and the parking garage. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Deputy Director's position was included in the $201 ,000 identified in this current fiscal year. Mr. Smith responded that it was not. He explained that it was in the Arts Fund. Mayor Scruggs asked if the $157,934 fixed costs for utilities, facilities, and ground maintenance would continue. Mr. Warren answered in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs asked what the $201,480 would pay for. Mr. Smith said it would be used to pay for the two full-time positions, two 19-hour temporary positions, and general operating supplies. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Smith how long they believed the proposed budget would be sufficient. Mr. Smith said they hoped to maintain the current level of funding and existing budget until the Visitor's Center is opened. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that, should the Council choose not to move forward, the City would still need to maintain the Sahuaro Ranch Park in good condition and add security at a cost of approximately $175,000. She also pointed out that the Deputy Director position had already been approved and, therefore, its cost would remain. She staled that the City would only save $120,000 by not following the recommendations, whereas following the recommendations could provide opportunities for revenue generation. Mayor Scruggs asked the Council if they agreed with the recommendations. No one voiced any objection. Mayor Scruggs asked who would decide which events could be held at the park. Mr. Smith said the City would make that decision. Mayor Scruggs stressed the need to put checks and balances in place to ensure that the facilities are not overbooked. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. 12