Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/30/2002 * 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 30, 2002 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Philip 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. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET PROCESS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Research Director; Mr. Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Ms. Nancy Khiel, City Prosecutor. This was the fifth scheduled City Council workshop to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-03 Annual Budget. The purpose of this budget workshop was for staff to review with the City Council total budget obligations for Fiscal Year 2002-03 and for the City Attorney and City Court to present their proposed departmental budgets. Staff was available to address issues and questions that the Council asked in previous budget workshops regarding Economic Development, the Community Action Program, Public Safety, the City's total Compensation Package, and sound walls. In an effort to follcw the City's new business model, staff will be continuously reviewing and evaluating how funds are being spent and ways to operate more efficiently as an organization. Staff has identified possible items for elimination in the Fiscal Year 2002- 03 budget and presented the items to the City Council today. Staff will be coming back to the Council on June 4, 2002 to provide a comprehensive fiscal capacity analysis of city operations. Staff will be completing and providing the Council informaticn gathered through an inclusive look at our revenues, fees, and general expenditures. 1 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 the City of Glendale's Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. Due to economic uncertainties caused by the state budget shortage and the national impact of September 11th, 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. A petition to repeal the Glendale food sales tax was submitted to be included on the General Election ballot in May of 2002. 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, since at this time the food sales tax initiative has been removed from the ballot, staff presented only one budget scenario. 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. The Mayor and City Council conducted the first four budget workshops on April 2, April 9, April 16 and April 23, 2002. The agenda for this City Council workshop was posted and all legal requirements for notification were met. The City Council reviewed the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget at workshops during April. The recommendations made at these workshops will direct staff in preparing for final City Council budget review and adoption in June of 2002. The recommenda4ion was to review the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Proposed Annual Budget and provide staff with direction. Appointed Officials Group City Attorney Mr. McClendon reported a base budget of $1,708,681, with no carryover or supplemental reqi.ests. Mr. Flaaen reviewed the department's accomplishments for the year. He said they were prepared to continue providing services with their existing resources. Councilmember Martinez asked if having 22% of the City Prosecutor's cases result in pleas being taken at arraignment was considered a good thing. Ms. Khiel said it was very good. She explained that they try to resolve cases as early in the system as possible. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City was overly eager to enter plea agreements due tD the heavy case load. Ms. Khiel answered that this was not the 2 case. She stated that they have a certain standard they use with regard to plea agreements. Councilmember Lieberman said he would like to see the City Prosecutor take a stronger role in code violations. He stated that a prosecutor's reluctance to go to court does not help the City, whereas, forcing habitual violators to go to court makes a strong statement, regardless of the outcome. Mr. Flaaen said they had previously discussed this issue and developed a work plan to ensure closer coordination between the Code Compliance officers and the City Prosecutor's Office. He stated that they were not reluctant to pursue prosecution. Councilmember Goulet asked what would be considered an "acceptable level of enforcement". Ms. Khiel said they prosecute violations of State Law and City Code to the best of their ability, but they do not focus on the number of wins and losses. Councilmember Goulet said many people believe that the City will not prosecute unless it knows that it can win and they are concerned that adequate enforcement is not taking place. Ms. Khiel acknowledged that they like to go into court with a winning case, especially on code cases; otherwise, the violators are left with the impression that their actions are acceptable. Councilmember Goulet noted that the City Prosecutor and City Attorney offices were working with him on the possibility of changing some codes, making them easier to enforce. Councilmember Clark also expressed concern about the acceptable level of enforcement. She stated that a Council sub-committee and Property Maintenance had previously discussed the issue. She said she was bothered by the philosophy of what constitutes a marginal versus a winnable case. She acknowledged that, in some instances, a case that is prosecutable may not be winnable. She said, however, the case should still be prosecuted to send a message to the violator. She asked if the Prosecutor's Office is more likely now to consider prosecuting such cases than it has been in the past. Ms. Khiel responded in the affirmative. She stated that they had taken several repeat offenders to court and received very good outcomes. Councilmember Clark said it appears that Code Compliance officers are reluctant to cite violators because they feel it is an exercise in futility and, consequently, the problems escalate. She stated that it is critical for the City to refine Code Enforcement to be sensitive to neighborhood issues. She encouraged the City Prosecutor's Office to be more aggressive in prosecuting cases. Mayor Scruggs asked if the standard of evidence required was too high or if the level of evidence submitted in code violation cases was inadequate. Mr. Flaaen explained that there is a much higher standard of proof for criminal violations than for civil violations. He said, in the past, Code Compliance officers felt there was no point in citing violators because the City Prosecutor's Office would not prosecute. He said they had attempted to let Code Complance officers know that they do not have to make the call and that they should brine the case to the Prosecutor's Office for review. He said the Prosecutor's Office will then inform the Code Compliance officer of what additional evidence is needed for a favorable outcome or if other violations can be pursued based 3 on the current evidence. He stated that they have to be cautious not to prosecute someone, only to have them be victorious. He explained that it gives the violators the impression that they are immune and makes the situation worse. He said, based on discussions with the Code Compliance Department, he believed the two departments will work better toigether in the future. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City used to have a policy that cases did not proceed to court for fear of upsetting citizens. She said, unfortunately, the severity of violation seems to be getting worse and people who are forced to live near violators are growing impatient. She said it is clearly time that the issue is addressed. Councilmember Frate said, in the past, people were mostly concerned with safety and health violations, but today's citizens are also concerned about blight. He stated that he was excited aboui: the mediation program that the City is implementing. He said it will hopefully encourage communication between residents in a neighborhood. Councilmember Martinez noted that code violation is a nationwide problem. Councilmember Goulet stated that it is really a quality of life issue that the City has to address. He said, while it may be punitive, the majority of people will not be impacted. Councilmember Lieberman said the City's code is stronger now than it was ten years ago. He noted that that the City had passed an ordinance that allows the City to cite and assess fines. Councilmember Clark agreed that the emphasis has shifted to quality of life issues and the maintenance of property values. She said this shift makes it more difficult to decide what actions qualiry as citable offenses. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Ms. Khiel how code violations are handled. Ms. Khiel explained that Code Compliance officers send a case report and pictures to her office for her review. She said her office reads the report to make sure they can make every element of the offense. She stressed the fact that they have to be able to identify the homeowner or the occupant. She stated that they follow through with most of the cases or send them back: to the Code Compliance officers if additional information or evidence is needed. She said they then decide if the case will proceed through the criminal system and violaters are summoned in person or through the mail. She stated that violators then come in for arraignment and are set to a pre-trial conference, at which time an offer is made. She explained that offers in criminal cases typically involve probation, thereby making it easier to prosecute subsequent offenses. She said jail time is required in some code violation cases. She noted that two violators were recently sentenced to serve jail time. She noted that neighbors are often reluctant to testify so they try to gather adequate evidence to prosecute without having to rely on neighborhood involvement. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that the issue should be addressed. Ms. Khiel assured the Council that they were working with Code Enforcement and would be training their officers in an effort to resolve the issue. 4 Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that the Council's comments were also directed at the Code Compliance Department and, to a certain degree, the Police Department. She stressed the fact that one of the violators who was sentenced to jail time was only sentenced after many years of repeat violations. She said the City's past policy of working with people until the violation is resolved does not work anymore. City Court Mr. McClendon stated that the City Court has a base budget of just over $3.3 million, including the reorganization and additional personnel approved earlier this spring. He said they had one carryover item for $101,312 and one supplemental request for $457,000. Councilmember L eberman noted that salary and benefits increased 22%. He asked if this included any new magistrates. Ms. Brenda Way, Court Administrator, stated that they had not added any magistrates to the court, but they intended to work on an additional judge for the court, as well as a Civil Traffic Hearing position. Mayor Scruggs asked if the additional judges were in the budget. Mr. McClendon said the base budget includes all currently authorized judge positions, at least one of which is vacant. Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired as to the total of the Court's revenue. Mr. McClendon estimated the Court's revenue collections for Fiscal Year 2002-03 to be approximately $2.5 million. He pointed out that the Court's revenue collections were less than their operating costs. He said revenue collections increased during the last year. He attributed the increase to the Court's restructuring and new procedures put in place to collect revenue due to the Court. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the Court' revenues used to far exceed its expenses. Mr. McClendon emphasized the fact that the Court is not a revenue-generating operation. He stated that the cost of bringing cases to court and ensuring that justice is dispensed was an expensive proposition. He said, while they want their fees and fines to recover as much of the cost as possible, there are limits to what can be charged. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he had tried, on numerous occasions, to explain to citizens that the City does not make money on speeding tickets. Mr. McClendon agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston. He stated that for every fine charged, a large percentage goes to the State. Ms. Way clarified that 77% of the fine goes to the State. She noted, however, that some of that amount comes back to the Court by way of grant monies. Mayor Scruggs asked if 77% was the average amount returned to the State for all violations. Ms. Way said all jurisdictions have to pay the 77% surcharge on state- related violations, but the percentage paid to the State is lower for such things as code violations. She offered to provide the Council with a revenue breakdown. Mayor Scruggs agreed that a breakdown would be helpful during conversations at Council district meetings. 5 Councilmember Martinez asked if Court Special Revenues includes all fines paid to the Court. Mr. McClendon explained that there are two special revenue funds in the City Court budget: (1) the Court Security and Improvements Fund, which is the $12 surcharge charged by the City; and (2) Court Special Revenue, comprised of grant money received from the State. Councilmember Clark pointed out that the City competes with other cities for State grant monies. She asked to see how much of the grant pool is returned to the City. She said the City is moving juvenile court functions to the County. She expressed concern about accessibility of those functions to Glendale youth. She suggested that the City obtain feedback after the program has been implemented to determine how well it is serving the needs of Glendale youth. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the City chose to move the juvenile court functions to the County. Ms. Way said the City Court did an adequate job for juveniles who willingly completed the diversion program, but was very limited in what it could do with juveniles who did not. She said the Superior Court has the authority to place juveniles on intensive probation, supervised probation, or in jail. With regard to a question posed by Councilmember Clark concerning grant funding, Ms. Way explained that the State tracks the money each city returns to the State and allows the City to use that balance. Councilmember Clark asked what percentage of the monies returned to the State are available to the City. Ms. Way said she would provide those figures to the Council. She noted that the State funds carryover to the following year if not used. Ms. Way clarified for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the City dropped the juvenile court program because of the inability of City Judges to deal with juveniles who did not complete the program. She said they would have kept the program had the number of juveniles successfully completing the program outnumbered the ones that did not. She stated that the on-y way to ensure juveniles receive proper penalties for their crimes is through Juvenile Court at the Superior Court. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that it is important to stop bad behavior at a young age. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the money they get back from the State has to be used for certain things. Ms. Way said they have to provide a spending plan, outlining what the City plans to do with the money. She noted that guidelines are in place that dictate how the money can be used. Mayor Scruggs slated that Mr. Cecil B. Patterson, Jr., Acting Presiding City Judge, reported that Glendale was one of the only cities not using Juvenile Court. Ms. Way said the cities of Phoenix, Mesa and Glendale are going exclusively through Juvenile Court. She noted that the City of Chandler's program uses a combined approach. Mayor Scruggs asked if Juvenile Court can recommend diversion programs. Ms. Way answered that it could do so. She explained that it is one of the first options given to juveniles. Mayor Scruggs clarified that, while there would be no difference for a person 6 who would have successfully completed their diversion program when juveniles were handled by the City, other options are available to Juvenile Court for juveniles who do not complete the program. She said, similar to the code compliance issue, the City has found that its policy of handling issues in a nice way does not work and that more stringent penalties are needed. Councilmember Lieberman said he had sentenced many juveniles to community service, but he had not received any feedback to know if they actually went or how many hours they served. Councilmember Martinez asked how they intended to meet their objective to maximize the likelihood that the police are able to execute warrants and bring recalcitrant defendants to court for sentence compliance by expediting one issuance. Ms. Way explained that they have two outstanding warrant officers who have been very successful in issuing warrants. She said they were very good at tracking down individuals and were working hard to clear up warrants. She noted that the City was also involved in the recent County Warrants Sweep and was able to issue a large number of warrants. She was unable to provide the number of unserved warrants. She explained that it constantly changes. Councilmember Martinez asked Ms. Way to provide an estimate. She said the number was over 10,000 three years ago. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Court had considered offering amnesty to those with outstanding warrants, allowing them to pay their fines without penalty. Ms. Way said the current warrant officers call individuals and warn them that officers will come to their house if they do not pay their fines. She said that has been very effective. She explained that the warrant officers are Glendale police officers who do one-year terms with the Court. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what percentage of outstanding warrants was considered uncollectable. Ms. Way was unable to estimate the number . Ms. Way confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that they were adding two full time Spanish language interpreters. Councilmember Lieberman stressed the importance of having interpreters available. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Court was able to provide an interpreter for any language. Ms. Way responded that it was. She said they typically know that an interpreter will be needed prior to the person's appearance in court. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what other languages they encountered. Ms. Way said they provide interpreters for all languages. She reviewed a list of languages encountered during the past year. She said interpreters are typically hired through agencies. Mr. McClendon stated that the supplemental request would be used for Court renovations. He said the supplemental will be paid for out of the Court Security and Improvements Fund. He noted, however, that the fund does not presently have an 7 adequate balance. He stated, under those circumstances, they would use Lease Purchase Financing, with the annual payment made out of the Court Securities and Improvements Fund. He noted that this will be the last year of payments on the previous physical improvements. The meeting recessed for a short break. General Fund Summary Mr. McClendon reviewed the General Fund Balance. He stated that $56,036 was still unallocated. HES said, typically, the Contingency Appropriation is available for emergency situations and becomes, in effect, the ending fund balance, rolling into the following year. Ongoing Expenditures Mr. McClendon discussed ongoing expenditures. He reminded the Council that, in an effort to cover the current year's revenue shortage, they put a policy into place that prohibited departments from using salary savings and that unbudgeted carryover savings from last year were not brought forward. He said departments made base budget reductions totaling almost $1.2 million to cover the shortage they face in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. He said $549,420 is available to fund the following additions to the budget: (1) Prisoner Maintenance Increase (PD) - $385,000; (2) Request for Standby Pay (PD) - $25,000; (3) Provisions of Animal Control Services - $108,000; and (4) Security & Utility Increase at Manistee - $8,000. He said the additional items, when netted against a $60,000 credit for a Fire Department FTE (full- time employee) conversion, total $466,000, leaving $83,420 in unallocated ongoing funding. In response to a question posed by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Mr. McClendon explained that, in the past, they had allowed departments to use salary savings to cover the cost of recruiting for a position and to cover overtime or temporary costs that accrue during a vacancy. He said, this year, the departments were told to use funds in other areas of their budget to cover those costs. With regard to carryover savings, Mr. McClendon explained that each department was allowed to carryover the amount it identified in last year's budget as its expected savings. He said, however, if their savings exceeded the anticipated amount, the excess funds were used to cover the revenue shortage. He said carryover is allowed because it encourages departments to spend their funds wisely. Mr. McClendon ccnfirmed for Councilmember Clark that departments were allowed to keep their estimated carryover savings. He noted, however, that any amount beyond that went into the General Fund. Councilmember Clark asked what the City's total carryover amounted to. Mr. McClendon said he did not know the total amount. He noted that $600,000 in carryover savings accrued to the General Fund. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. McClendon to provide her with the City's total 8 carryover amount. Mayor Scruggs asked if the entire $83,420 was available for new programs. Mr. McClendon pointed out that $27,384 was used to cover one-time amounts in the budget. One-Time Funding Mr. McClendon said $4.3 million was available in one-time funding. He added that the entire amount was used to cover preliminary allocations and supplemental requests. He explained that, by reducing the amount of lawsuit monies paid back to the Contingency Fund, they were able to put $1 million into the Economic Opportunities Fund. He said, consequently, it will take one additional year to completely restore the lawsuit monies to the Contingency Fund. Councilmember Clark asked if the City was actually short $27,384. Mr. McClendon explained that $27,384 of ongoing money would be used to fund the shortfall. In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Mr. McClendon stated that the $300,000 Civic Center capital item represents a transfer into the Civic Center Plan to fund the planned maintenance reserve. Councilmember Lieberman noted that certain funded projects at the Civic Center were not finished. Mr. McClendon agreed. He stated that two projects in the current year were not completed and would be carried over to next year. Mayor Scruggs asked if the amounts carried over for those two projects could be used to cover unanticipated expenses. Mr. McClendon said they would typically require unanticipated expenses to come before the Council for approval. He stated that the Council could choose to use Contingency Funds or to move money from the carried over projects to cover the expense. Mayor Scruggs asked if the carryover amounts would be replenished if the Council chose to utilize those funds to cover the expense. Mr. McClendon responded in the affirmative. He estimated that 75% of all carryovers are the result of equipment purchases that were planned in one year, but not received until the following year. Councilmember Martinez asked if the money directed to the Economic Opportunities Fund could be reallocated later if it becomes clear that it will not be used. Mr. McClendon stated that the Council always has the authority to reallocate unspent funds. Councilmember Clark stated that the increased storage space at the Civic Center was a priority. She asked why it had not as yet been accomplished. Mr. Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager, said the storage facility was not completed because peak seasons at the Civic Center do not allow for construction. He noted, however, that the storage facility would be finished by July of 2003. He said the fountain would be completed by the end 9 of September. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City was certain to receive the Universal COPS Grant reimbursement. Mr. McClendon answered in the affirmative. He explained that they fund the position out of ongoing money, but still receive money from previous years' grants. Council Requests and Follow-Up Items General Fund Contingency and Economic Development Mr. McClendon said they were recommending that they increase the Economic Opportunities Fund by $1 million by redirecting the lawsuit contingency repayment. He said they were also recommending that they reallocate $25,000 out of the remaining $56,036 in unallocated funding to restore the reduction in the Economic Development base budget. Community Action Program Mr. McClendon stated the half-time Community Worker for homeless services is included in the budget and would be funded by the County. He said the city could fund the position if, for some reason, the county funding did not materialize. He stated they are also recommending that the remainder of the unallocated funding be used to fund one full-time support/clerical employee. He reviewed the funding sources of the Community Action Program (CAP). He noted that Maricopa County provides $159,961 and the Glendale General Fund currently contributes $123,742. Councilmember Clark asked if the Maricopa County funds were grant funds and if that amount changed on a yearly basis. She also asked if the Maricopa County funds are assured for the next fiscal year. Ms. Norma Alvarez, Community Action Program Administrator, said the funds are made up of service dollars, and not administrative dollars. She said the amount had been assured, but could increase. Councilmember Clark asked if Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was a grant amount and if it was assured. Ms. Alvarez responded that it was not. She explained that, while they had never had a decrease in total service dollars, some or all of the funds set aside for temporary assistance could be redirected to fund one of the other service programs. Mr. McClendon explained that the service dollars are direct County dollars and do not come through the City of Glendale budget. Councilmember Clark asked why they were considering an $11,000 reduction to Emergency Rental Relocation Funds. Mr. McClendon stated that the item is unrelated to the Community Action Program. In response to a question posed by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Ms. Alvarez explained that the program helps administer the County funds and indirectly Community Action Program services. She pointed out that there is no other agency that assists people in filling out the appropriate paperwork. 10 Councilmember Clark asked if there was any other funding source, aside from the $50,174, to assist families in emergency situations. Ms. Alvarez responded that there was not. Councilmember Clark acknowledged that there is greater need than the City can sustain. She asked what the typical annual shortage equals. Ms. Alvarez agreed that there is never enough money. She noted that they had been completely out of temporary assistance since January. Councilmember Clark said temporary and emergency assistance funds were obviously under-funded. She suggested that the City consider a supplemental in future budgets. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would be possible for the City to supplement dollars that do not come through the City. Ms. Alvarez explained that the City could choose to contribute to Maricopa County's bank from which funds are distributed. Ms. Alvarez noted that Maricopa County had established that there is a greater need for human services. She thanked Mayor Scruggs, the Council, and Mr. Beasley for the opportunity to bring forth her department's challenges. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to restore the $25,000 to Economic Development, to add one full-time support/clerical position to the Community Action Program, and to contribute funds, if necessary, to allow for an additional half-time community worker for homeless services. She also directed staff to fund the replacement of lawsuit Contingency funds by $1 million less and to move that $1 million to the Economic Opportunities Fund. Councilmember L.ieberman asked about the $13 million repayment on Manistee (Northern Crossing). Mr. McClendon stated that they show it as revenue from the sale of assets. He explained that it will either be direct income as the property is sold to retailers or it would be financed. Councilmember Lieberman asked about the funds needed to pay off the financing. Mr. McClendon stated that the first payment on the financing would not be due until Fiscal Year 2003-04 and would be built into that year's budget. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern that they were only looking at the current budget year. She cautioned everyone to keep in mind the fact that they could have an additional $1.6 million payment in Fiscal Year 2003-04 if there were unforeseen problems with Northern Crossing. Mr. McClendon agreed that, in a worst case scenario, none of the properties would be sold and the City would have to make an annual payment. He admitted that this would make it difficult to do other planned items in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and future years. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that there would be a considerable loss of interest income if money was taken out of the Contingency Fund. Mr. McClendon agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston. 11 Councilmember Lieberman inquired as to the time period for repaying the $1.6 million. Mr. McClendon said it would be done on 10-year financing. Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, noted that sales tax revenue generated by the project was one of the key components of the development agreement. He said, depending on the transactions that occur during the year, the amount could be much lower than $13 million. Public Safety Mr. McClendon said their long-range projections show that the City will be able to fund adequate personnel in future years to keep pace with population growth. In response to previous Council comments and questions, he proposed that they return to the Council on June 4th to present a comprehensive needs assessment of staffing, capital and support needs, based on an evaluation of population growth and crime rates. Councilmember Clark stated that a comprehensive survey is necessary to identify the City's true needs, both now and in the future. She said the City needs to find a way to meet those needs, whatever they may be. Mr. McClendon assured Councilmember Clark that their first priority when doing all of their long-range forecasting is to maintain the public safety compliments necessary to support population growth. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the Council would be unable to make changes to the budget at the Jure 4th meeting should the results of the comprehensive assessment indicate there are unmet needs in Fiscal Year 2002-03. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the Council agreed there would be 12 additional officers in Fiscal Year 2002-03. Mr. McClendon explained that the currently authorized positions which ware not yet filled had been fully funded in Fiscal Year 2002-03. He confirmed that the long-range plan calls for 12 to 16 additional officers each year. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the City was receiving any new funding from the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Mr. McClendon said models show they are still eligible for grant monies. Councilmember Lieberman said he heard that the program was scaled back to assist only those communities with special needs. Mr. McClendon said whether the City is successful in obtaining those funds remains to be seen, but they would pursue all available monies. Councilmember Goulet asked what time period the needs assessment would cover. Mr. Randy Henderlite, Police Department Commander, said they went back five years to obtain a historical basis and would provide an estimate for Fiscal Year 2003-04, as well as three and five year projections. Councilmember Goulet asked if they would offer equipment, as well as personnel and projected crime rates, based on population growth. Mr. Henderlite answered in the affirmative. He explained that it would cover capital, sworn, and civilian costs. Councilmember Clark said she was given the impression that the number of officers available during any given year was driven by budget considerations rather than the department's needs. She suggested that they examine the needs generated by the 12 £T •eo!lod puns diaq os Bale auo wois Aeuow 6uinow sse66ns o} `padolanap se `se6pnq co-Zoo Jew\ leos!d aqT oau! joeq o6 oT pasueM Jagwewl!ouno3 Aue p wise s66nios JoAelj •anua ej ui slpoi6 eq} papaeoxe sasuadxa pue g1MOJ6 so elm eqs `JanaMoq `Juan( luaaano aqs u! p!es aH •sasuadxa ui gsMOJ6 aqs os puodsauoo Alleo!dAs suo!soelioo xes sales u! ylMoa6 eqs pasess aH •s66naoS JoAen qs!M paaJ6e uopuelao j aw •pasoalloo sexes sales u! aseaJou! Aue sassso suo!s!sod Jao!ss° asogl qpm pase!oosse seseeJoui_ Ism asneoaq saaAoidwa cc sueimno aqs uegs WOW Aue puns louueo xus sales %I:0 eql. pies aqs •ai!d of 6u!o6 pa!yl auo pue ao!lod of 6u!o6 spJlgs-oMj spM )(es sales X4!3 aqs of %l•o pappe says an!se!T!ui uaz!s!o 17661- e peuoquaw s66nJos JoAeL .spun sseq s,Aj!a aus so auo sem p p!es eqs •(naN) pun asuodsaa poogaogq6!eN aqs uo pasuawwoo NJela Jagwewllounoo •lauuosied so aagwnu aqs uegs suepodw! aaow s! lauuosied so asn sua!o!ssa aqs says `JanaMoq `pasou aH 'peke allIJapueH JW •passaappe aq pinoqs legs anss! Jagloue s! oispJ uaz!s!o-os-Jeo!sso ao!lod aqs 6u!s!eJ pies >pen Jagwewllounoo •asuodsaj ase!peww! eJinbei pue 6u!seaJoui aae semi aouelo!n o!Tsawop pue suap!ooe olne legs pasou uewaagan Jegwawilounoa •awls paub!sseun ,saao!sso aollod aseeioui os sAeM pu!s os 6u!fus aJaM (ass segs pa11'ss OH •uewaagan Jagwawl!ouno3 qPM paaibe aPIJapuaH JW 'ams aqs so %S•Z6 ileo-uo Aisuaamo ale saaolsso eollod segs palou uewJegan Jegwewi!ouno3 •puewwooei kegs sa6uego Aue Jos eleuo!TeJ punoE ap!noad ll!M (aqs legs uolsa1663 Joken ao!A Jos paWJ!suoo aH •aansns aqs u! aq of suew1Jedaa 0111 loadxe (aqs aaayM so 6u!puelsaapun ue i!ouno3 an!6 0l pue spaau aims Jos suo!loafoJd J!egs asep!len oT auop sum luawssasse 0111 pies as!IJapueH JlN •suewssesse On!suagaadwoo aqs 6ul6uejje Jos ssBTs paNuegl uossa1663 JoAen ao!n •Jn000 aowas Jos slleo eaagM Mogs slapow paleJaue6 -Jasndwoo segs peuleldxa aH •aJaM Aegl legs papuodsai aj!IJapueH •JW •ao!AJas Jos silex uo paseq paAoldep ale sJao!sso ao!lod p pwise zeu!IJe j Jagwewl!ouno3 •lauuosied leuo!l!ppe Jos lsenbaa J!egs poddns of AJBSS00au usurp aqs seq Mou luewiJedaa ao!lod aqs p!es aqs 1uawdolanap euaiy sasoAoO 0111 qpm °seaJou! Aie ili pinoM sale) awuo Apedoad sass sous aqs pe6paIMo.J)loe aqs •aldoed so sieqwnu a6ael mail) lass sluawdolanap e6Jel qpm paleloosse swalgoad ass so aJeMe s! luewlJedea ao!lod aqT p!es s66nJos JoAew •ssuawdolanap ao!sso pue `le!OJawwoo 'i!esaJ 6uowe Jel!w!s aq pinoM sewuo Asaadoad legs palms )1Ja13 Jagwewllouno3 •sa!Jo6ese0 Jel!w!s ajedwoo op ANT Tnq 'ssuaUJdolanap aiedwoo os llno!ss!p uasso s! 1! p!es as!IJapuaH JlN •spaau Jul!w!s aTBJaue6 Ale 1!I pinoM Toafoad seloAoa aqs pias aqs •loefoad ileal peagMoiay Mr. McClendon confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that all authorized officer positions are fully funded in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. Mayor Scruggs, of behalf of the Council, directed staff to proceed with the printing and public hearing on the budget as developed. She questioned whether any members of the Council were advocating that the budget be changed to add more money to Police. She asked the Council if all members were happy with the Public Safety budget as proposed. Councilmember Lieberman said he was not. Councilmember Lieberman asked where additional funds could come from. He asked Mr. Henderlite, if he could, would he choose to add more officers. Mr. Henderlite said, while more officers are needed, it would not necessarily be beneficial to hire them at the expense of other programs. He cautioned against hiring strictly on the basis of the City's officer-to-citizen ratio. Councilmember Lieberman noted that, in the past, the City has been short on officers and had to use Maricopa County Sheriff's officers and the City of Phoenix police officers. He also expressed concern about response times. He noted that it often takes 4.5 minutes for backup units to respond in his area He said he could live with the budget for this year, but would encourage everyone to listen to a police scanner to better understand the situation. Mr. Henderlite acknowledged that the City uses aid from other cities. He pointed out, however, that the City of Glendale also sends its officers to aid other cities when needed. Mayor Scruggs commented that people in north Glendale would be thrilled to receive a backup officer in 4.5 minutes. She said it has never happened and is not projected to happen in the future. Councilmember Martinez voiced his opinion that the City needs to dedicate more officers to speeding. He asked Mr. Henderlite to address that issue at the June 4th meeting. He said he was satisfied with the budget for this year. Councilmember C lark questioned whether any area of the City sees a 4.5 minute backup response time. She said Fiscal Year 2000-03 is a holding pattern because money is not avai able to expand services. She stated, however, that the City should see the upcoming year as an opportunity to closely examine what, and how, services are offered. She said many issues will require continued discussion after adoption of the budget. She stated that she would like to see the implications that certain items have on other departments and for the City to develop long-term strategies. Mr. Beasley stated that the budget cannot be viewed as seasonal and, therefore, they will be bringing issues forward throughout the year. Councilmember Clark stated that she was frustrated by piecemeal approaches. She explained that the departments are all interrelated. She asked that future budget processes identify the implications that an item might have on other departments. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council wished to be more involved in the budget from a policy perspective. 14 Human Resources Mr. McClendon said they would be coming to the Council for a series of workshops in July of 2002 to discuss the results of the Compensation Study, the proposed total compensation model, legal requirements affecting total compensation programs, which benefits are most valued by employees, implementation of external customer satisfaction surveys, the Education Assistance Program, and measuring the effectiveness of programs. The Council made no comment on the Human Resources strategies. The Council stated that they were satisfied with the Human Resources budget, including the one- time $100,000 addition to the Education Assistance Program. Ms. Parker-Diggs noted that they would not spend any of the $100,000 until after the Council workshops in July of 2002. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Education Assistance Program was available to all levels of education. Ms. Parker-Diggs responded that it was. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a cost associated with obtaining a GED (high school graduation education certificate). Ms. Parker-Diggs stated that the City offers a program that pays the costs associated with getting a GED. Loop 101 Sound Walls Engineering Plan Mr. McClendon displayed a slide showing everything that has been done or is planned and funded to address the issue of sound walls on the Loop 101. He explained that it is a four-phase program, totaling over $8 million. He said there is an opportunity to review the plan when the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is updated every year to determine if the amounts are adequate or if other issues need to be addressed. He said staff's recommendation was to review the issue during next year's CIP process, when data from the interim studies being done to assess the effectiveness of improvements that have already been made are available. Councilmember Martinez said Phase II sound measurements were scheduled to occur in the next couple weeks. He asked where the funds would come from if mitigation was needed. Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, said they were currently doing a field investigation to evaluate the effectiveness of the walls constructed during Phase I. He said the study will be completed in June of 2002 and, depending on the findings, they would re-evaluate the computer modeling done during the 1999 study to determine if additional measures were needed. He stated that they would come back during next year's CIP process with their recommendations. Councilmember Martinez asked if the study would address noise that resonates off the mountains. Mr. Broyles said the field investigation only measures noise levels, but other noises will be added through computer modeling. Councilmember Martinez asked if they would be able to estimate the cost of any needed improvements. Mr. 15 Broyles responded that they would. Councilmember Martinez asked how many areas would be measured. Mr. Broyles stated that they had not identified a particular number of areas. He explained that they want to be sure they cover the receptor areas used in the computer modeling and areas where residents have identified concerns. Councilmember Martinez asked if the study would include the area south of the Loop 101. Mr. Broyles said he was not aware of any concerns south of the freeway, but the study could be expanded to include that area, if necessary. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the $8 million spent on this project would only benefit a very small number of homes. He stated that the City needs a community center and other improvements much more than sound walls. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City was now going to start budgeting, based on regions. He said he thought they had moved past north/south issues. He said the sound walls are a quality of life issue for people who live in the area. He noted that it affects close to 1,000 homes. He said the City has already spent a sizeable amount of money on the study and, if high decibel readings are found, the City has a responsibility to address and correct the situation. Mayor Scruggs said the Council enacted guidelines with regard to sound walls on freeways, which guidelines state that the City will address noise one-half mile to the north and south cf the offending corridor. She noted that Councilmember Lieberman had voted in favor of Phase II at last week's meeting. She said it will benefit all areas of the City because of the economic development the freeway brings to the City. She estimated that the issue effects even more than 1,000 homes and probably more than 10,000 citizens directly. Councilmember Clark said $8 million is a staggering amount to put into sound walls. She said she was more concerned that the walls put in between 51st and 58th Avenues may not be doing the job. She asked if the walls in Phase II were being made taller. Mr. Broyles stated that they were moving to an average height of 16 feet in Phase II. Councilmember Clark said, while sound walls are appropriate, additional funding for the project has to fit in with other competing priorities and should be considered as part of the CIP process. Councilmember Martinez asked if noise mitigation in new developments was the developer's responsibility. Mr. Broyles said he believed those requirements were now in place. Mayor Scruggs asked if the developer of new housing along the freeway in West Glendale has to build sound walls. Mr. Broyles explained that the developer would be required to evaluate the noise levels within a certain distance of the freeway and to build noise walls if noise levels exceed the City's current standard. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about the sporadic development of walls. She asked when and where noise level readings are taken and if the City of Glendale is responsible for monitoring the developer and ensuring the readings are accurate. Mr. Broyles said they evaluated the Loop 101 from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road as part of the 1999 16 study. He stated that the study was based on 2020 vehicle volume projections. He identified the noise contours. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City did not know about the Coyotes project when the 1999 study was conducted. She asked if newer data should be obtained. Mr. Broyles agreed that the City needs to do another noise study to take the arena project into account. Mayor Scruggs said, while residential development will not occur directly along the freeway, it could be within one-quarter to one-half mile. She asked if developers would be required to build the sound walls along the freeway or closer to the residential development. Mr. Broyles said noise levels would be reduced to 63 decibels within 660 feet of the freeway. He said, therefore, developments occurring beyond 660 feet from the freeway would fall within the City's noise level requirement and would not be required to build additional noise walls. He said additional traffic volumes could impact the readings, resulting in 660 feet being an inadequate distance. He said, in that case, they would ask developers to evaluate the noise levels. Councilmember Clark pointed out the fact that they have already exceeded the traffic volume anticipated for 2020. She questioned how the City could develop a future policy if it was not able to accurately project traffic volumes. Mr. Broyles said the 660 foot distance was idertified so that commercial development would be encouraged in that area. He said their next step was to identify the freeway's total capacity and evaluate what kind of increase in noise levels that level of traffic would create. He said, based on the additional volume of traffic, they found that the noise levels would increase two to three decibels at most. Councilmember Clark asked if they considered the ability to construct additional capacity and how that would effect future noise levels. Mr. Broyles said the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) anticipated adding an HOV (high occupancy vehicles) lane and required the City to design sound walls that would allow for an additional four feet of height. Councilmember Clark asked how high they could realistically build walls. Mr. Broyles stated that there was a 20 foot maximum. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that ADOT is contributing 15% of the cost, which represents the reinforcements needed to support the additional four feet. Councilmember Goulet asked if it was possible to use sound readings from other areas of the Valley that would be representative of the expected development in the West Valley. Mr. Broyles stated that the consultant who was hired to conduct the 1999 study and who designed the noise walls for Phases I and II specializes in noise attenuation. He said the City needs to rely on that expertise and the consultant's recommendations of how to best mitigate noise concerns. He said they had conducted noise studies on Phase II, prior to the walls being constructed, and would return to take additional readings once .:he walls were constructed to evaluate their effectiveness. Councilmember Goulet said they need to know if sound walls in other areas of the Valley do not adequately mitigate noise. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the walls would be built on the City's right-of-way or the right-of-way of the State. Mr. Broyles said the walls being built along the northern section of Loop 101 are constructed on a combination of homeowners' properties and ADOT property. Councilmember Lieberman noted that a subdivision in his district has 17 443 homes within one-half mile of Grand Avenue and the railroad. He asked, hypothetically, if noise walls should be built around the railroad tracks. He said the point he was making was that there are noise problems throughout the City. Councilmember Clark noted that the railroad is looking to increase its number of switches. She pointed out that the coupling and uncoupling of railroad cars is quite noisy. She agreed that the City should look at providing some sound mitigation. Mayor Scruggs suggested that either Councilmember Lieberman or Councilmember Clark bring it up for consideration in the CIP process. Councilmember Lieberman said noise mitigation was brought up three years ago, but never acted upon. Mr. Broyles said, while there is a perception that the noise walls are not as effective as originally thought, they will not know how the wall is performing until the actual noise measurements are taken. Fiscal Year 2002.03 Budget Adjustments Mr. McClendon said they have taken every opportunity since last fall to evaluate how the City offers its programs and services. He said they have already (1) transferred the Deputy Director fcr Sanitation and Landfill to the Enterprise Fund - $104,305; (2) taken advantage of work done by the Information Technology Department staff to reduce local telephone costs - $92,165; and (3) eliminated the City's membership in the Heritage Alliance -, $4,000. He said the total savings of $200,470 is already reflected in the budget. Mayor Scruggs asked if their withdrawal from the Heritage Alliance would have any effect on the significant number of Heritage Fund grants that the City receives. Mr. Beasley said, given the state's budget situation, the funds would no longer be available and the City could safely discontinue its membership. Mr. Beasley stated that the City could reallocate the $4,000 if the State, in fact, does not eliminate the fund. Mr. McClendon reviewed potential reductions totaling $224,637 which were identified during their business plan analysis. He said if the Council chooses to eliminate any or all of these items, the savings would be placed in a set-aside for one-time purposes during Fiscal Year 2002-03. He stated that any unused amount would then be evaluated as part of the available money for appropriation in Fiscal Year 2003-04. Mr. McClendon explained that there is a current appropriation of $25,000 in the Code Compliance budget for emergency rental relocation. He said, to date, the full amount has not been needed; therefore, staff was comfortable in reducing that amount. He said they would eliminate final printing of the budget document, replacing it with an easy-to-use electronic web-based version. He stated that the Tourism Department has been using an outside public relations firm, but now feel it can provide the same services using in-house staff. He said they were also proposing the elimination of the City's support of the Thunderbird Rugby tournament, WorldPort festival, and State of the City program. He also proposed replacing the outside contracts for occupational 18 nursing services with two part-time City positions. Councilmember L.ieberman stated that this year's WorldPort festival drew a larger audience than ever before. He said, while he was not opposed to withdrawing the City's support, he was concerned because the event appears to just now be gaining momentum. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. McClendon stated that all of the proposed reductio items were still included in the budget. He explained that eliminating any o,' all of the items from the budget would create additional savings. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that WorldPort is one of the only events held in the northern part of the City and, because of its cultural aspects and its increased popularity, he would like to see it continued. Mr. Vern Biaett, Special Events Manager, said this year's attendance was up slightly, primarily during the Pikeman performances and the opening Parade of Nations. He stated that this is the most expensive festival on a cost-per-participant basis. He noted that it cost $3 per person, where their goal is $1 per person. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that Luke Days and an event in the East Valley were also going on the same weekend. She said some of the people attending those events would have attended WorldPort if it had not been scheduled on the same weekend. Mr. Biaett stated that there were 18 different events going on that weekend in the Phoenix metro area. Councilmember Clark stated that she was in favor of eliminating the City's support of WorldPort because of its high cost per participant. She suggested revisiting the issue if the event could be held at a different time of year when attendance might be higher. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the event usually has trouble with the weather as well. Mr. Biaett agreed with Vice Mayor Eggleston. He stated that they have had bad weather 50% of the time. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that they should consider moving the festival to another time of year when they would be more likely to have good weather. Mr. Biaett noted chat they had never been able to attract specific sponsors for the WorldPort event. He explained that specific sponsors would allow for more advertising and promotion, as well as better entertainment. Mayor Scruggs said part of the reason the City supported WorldPort was because it promoted the American Graduate School of International Management (Thunderbird). She said the festival is important because it is so different from other festivals and introduces people to an array of different cultures. She suggested that they do a one- year abeyance and that Mr. Biaett work closely with the school to determine if they were interested in continuing the festival and if additional sponsors could be found. Mr. Biaett said he had discussions with the school's Vice President of Marketing, who said they were interested in continuing the event and believed they would be able to bring in 19 additional sponsors. Councilmember Frate noted that businesses in the area have complained that the event takes some of their business away. He said the school receives most of the advertising and, as a result, people assume it is a school event rather than a City event. Councilmember Clark said she supported Mayor Scruggs' suggestion to stop funding the festival for one year to see if the City and the school can work together to make the event more cost effective. Mr. McClendon continued identifying possible budget adjustments, including elimination of the Diversified Cooperative Education Program at the City Court; elimination of the City Juvenile Court program; reduction of funding for Planning software; and elimination of the City Clerk's software licensing fees for optical imaging. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk, why the City Clerk no longer needed their software licensing fees. Ms. Oliveira said, at the time the budget was prepared, they did not have any licensing fees associated with the current software because they were looking at installing another software program. She said those funds will likely be needed once the new software is installed. She said installation will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. She said the $14,497 was based on the old system. She explained that they do not have the figures for the new software. Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, said they were not aware of the new licensing fees and would withdraw the item from consideration. Mayor Scruggs asked if the amount should be increased. Ms. Oliveira said she hoped to be able to absorb any cost increase. Mayor Scruggs said to increase the amount to $15,000. Mr. Ernster stated that the Planning software funds were originally set aside last year to cover software licensing costs associated with the new automated tracking system. He said they would iDe able to cover the first year's licensing cost out of their initial acquisition of the system and would come back during the next budget cycle to discuss ongoing costs associated with the licensing. Mr. McClendon said they were recommending that the funds for any eliminated items be placed in the Contingency Fund and used for one time purposes so that they are available if the comprehensive analysis indicates the items should be returned. Mr. Biaett asked for clarification with regard to keeping the WorldPort festival in the budget. Councilmember Clark said it was her understanding that the City would not fund the festival for a period of one year. while it was reconfigured to be more cost efficient. She questioned whether any changes would actually occur if the City continued its funding. Councilmember Martinez said it was his understanding that WorldPort would remain in the budget and that Mr. Biaett would work with the school to increase the number of 20 sponsors. He expressed concern that discontinuing the City's support for a period of one year would undermine the festival's increasing popularity. Mayor Scruggs explained that her suggestion was to put the item in abeyance for one year and that Mr, Biaett work with Axiom to see if sponsors can be secured and to determine if the event should be held during a different time of year. She said Mr. Biaett would then report back to the Council. She stated that the Council would likely direct that it not go forward if they were unable to reduce the cost. Councilmember Lieberman said he would not like the City to lose the event for one year, especially if the new Marketing Director believes he will be able to secure additional sponsors. He stated that they would have to work even harder to re-establish the event if it was discontinued for a year. He noted that he would consider dropping the event next year if the City does not receive help from the school. Mayor Scruggs said the money would still be available in the Contingency Fund if Mr. Biaett and the school were able to reduce the per-person cost. She said the City would likely decide not to support the event if the school was unable to offer any assistance. She asked Mr. Biaett if he believed it would be possible to reduce the per-person cost. Mr. Biaett said it was possible, but would require work. He said the Vice President of Marketing seemed committed to making the event happen. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the City dropped its support of the annual balloon race because the President of the school wanted the City to contribute more money into the scholarship fund than the City was prepared to contribute. Mr. McClendon clarified that the City Clerk software licensing fee would remain in the base budget and the remaining items would become part of the Contingency Fund appropriation. He said the money for WorldPort would be moved back into the budget upon Council's aul:horization. Special Revenue Funds Final Balancing Police and Fire Special Revenue Summary Mr. McClendon said Police (Fund 02) and Fire (Fund 04) would end the year with ending fund balances of $415,294 and $220,217, respectively. Mayor Scruggs asked if the funds earn interest. Mr. McClendon stated that all funds are allocated their share of the interest earnings. Transportation Fund Mr. McClendon stated that the Transportation Fund has a fairly substantial ending fund balance of $6,776,728. He explained that the reserves would be used for a substantial capital investment coming in years 2003 and 2004. He noted that the fund just started 21 collecting revenue on January 1, 2002. Councilmember Clark pointed out that the $14 million in capital expenditures was related to voter-authorized street improvements, traffic signals, new buses, bus stops, and bus route expansion. Mr. McClendon agreed with Councilmember Clark. Mr. McClendon confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the Police, Fire and Transportation funds rely heavily on sales taxes. He said that was the reason they believed it was important to maintain adequate reserves. Repeal of Food Sales Tax Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Flaaen if the City could include an advisory question regarding the removal of the sales tax from food items on the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Flaaen resporded in the affirmative. He said it would be appropriate for the Council to direct the City to hold an advisory election, asking the electorate if they supported amending the Ciry Code or Charter to eliminate the sales tax on food for home consumption by phasing it out so as not to adversely impact the services provided by the City. Mayor Scruggs asked what the City would do next if the electorate responded in the affirmative. Mr. Flaaen said the Council would still have the final decision on eliminating the sales tax and. if it chose to proceed with doing so, it could work with the City Manager's office to determine how to best phase the tax out. Councilmember Clark cautioned that an affirmative response to the advisory question would raise the level of expectation that the tax will be removed. Councilmember Martinez said he would like to see the question included on the ballot. He stated that the language would have to be clear that an affirmative vote would in no way commit the Council to repealing the tax. Mayor Scruggs asked when the decision to place the question on the ballot would have to be made. Mr. Flaaen said the Council would have to make a decision before it takes its break at the end of July. Councilmember Martinez stated he would support moving ahead with the advisory question. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he would also like to proceed so the Council could find out where people stand with regard to the tax. Councilmember Li9berman stated that the City's first payment of $9 million will be due in 2004. He pointed out the fact that the food sales tax revenue would be used to make that payment. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the State got into trouble because of the Legislature's policy to get rid of i:he state income tax. 22 Mayor Scruggs directed Mr. Flaaen to continue researching how the question should be worded. Mayor Scruggs Expressed concern that the original initiative would have reversed previous votes by citizens. She asked the Council if they should ask about the portion of the sales tax that goes to fund Police and Fire in a separate question. Councilmember Clark said she would support an advisory question. She expressed her opinion that the tax is discriminatory because everyone, regardless of economic status, has to eat. She said breaking the question down into separate questions would, in essence, prejudice the question. Councilmember L eberman disputed Councilmember Clark's comments. He said 68% of those eligible receive food stamps and, therefore, are not negatively impacted by the food sales tax. He expressed his opinion that there should be separate questions regarding the portion of the tax that is directed towards Police and Fire because they were citizen driven-initiatives. He said he did not want to see the food sales tax repealed, especially with regard to public safety. Councilmember Martinez and Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced their opinion that the question should be broken out. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that they also provide a place for people to indicate that they do not want any changes made to the food sales tax. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that a decrease in public safety and transportation services would most effect the people held up as being the ones most negatively affected by the food sales tax. She directed Mr. Flaaen to continue his research and submit a written report to the Council, outlining their options. Mr. Flaaen said he would return with a report in mid-May to allow the Council ample time to make a decision before the end of July. Mr. McClendon reviewed issues to be addressed at the June 4th Workshop. He said they would bring forth suggested strategies and timetables. Councilmember Clark said, rather than specific recommendations, she hoped that staff would bring forward a range of options, along with the positive and negative consequences associated with each. Mr. Beasley stated that this would be done as part of the business plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. 23