Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/11/2002 (5) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002, AT 1:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, with Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Philip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez. Also present were Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDALE CHARTER A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the two ordinances and three resolutions to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the May 28, 2002 City Council Meeting, as each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them as written. The motion carried unanimously. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE GLENDALE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager, presented this request for City Council approval of a professional services agreement with URS Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $3,455,417, for general engineering services to complete capital projects in the Glendale Onboard Transportation Sales Tax Program. This contract is for two years and could be extended for an additional four years. Emphasis in the first two years is on defining projects, preliminary engineering, and public involvement to initiate project construction. City Council action to begin engineering services was authorized on January 8, 2002. On January 23, 2002, the City of Glendale requested proposals for general engineering services to implement the capital projects approved by the voters of Glendale on November 6, 2001. A review panel with 1 representation from the Engineering Department, the Transportation Department, and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) reviewed seven proposals. Three of these firms were interviewed and, based on qualifications, URS Corporation was selected as the preferred firm. The General Engineering Consultant (GEC) will be responsible for defining the projects and completing the preliminary engineering for most of the capital projects committed in Proposition 402 for the first five years of the Program. The Program includes street projects, bicycle/pedestrian projects, and transit projects totaling an estimated $90 million. The GEC will also facilitate public involvement and project control, as well as providing oversight for final design and construction engineering of initial capital projects. GEC support services will include traffic engineering, environmental assessment, financial analysis, right-of-way services and utility location services, as needed. This program will be fully accountable to the public, including opportunities for citizen input and program oversight by the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. The term of agreement for this contract shall be for two years and will be renewable on a two-year basis for up to six years, subject to City Council approval. If the contract is extended, the emphasis for the consultant will be to oversee project design and construction, as well as facilitating right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. Funds for these services in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 are available in Transportation Sales Tax Account Number 25-6350-7330 and the remaining funds are available from engineering and design costs as programmed in the Draft Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with URS Corporation in an amount not to exceed $3,455,417. Mr. Johnson introduced representatives of URS Corporation who were present at the meeting: Mr. David Hedlund, Project Manager, and Mr. David French, Principal in Charge. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there were cost estimates associated with the other proposals. Mr. Johnson said they had advertised for professional services which, in accordance with State Statute, do not have a cost estimate. He stated that they had selected the most qualified candidate and negotiated the cost with the selected consultant. It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve the professional services agreement with URS Corporation in an amount not to exceed $3,455,417. The motion carried unanimously. 2 ORDINANCES 2. SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, presented this item. In November of 1999, the voters of the City of Glendale authorized the issuance of $411 million in bonds for various capital improvements in the City. The authorization included flood control projects, economic development, transit, public works facilities, landfill, water and sewer, parks, and street improvements. On May 28, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the sale of general obligation bonds not to exceed $45,000,000. The sale of the bonds will be used to fund various approved capital improvement projects covered by the 1999 or prior voter authorization. In order to respond to legal requirements and market conditions, authorization was requested for the City Manager to complete the sale of the bonds subject to certain conditions. The bid will be awarded based on the lowest true interest cost to the City. Bond maturity may not exceed twenty-five years. The true interest cost may not exceed a rate of 8%. A representative of Johnson Consulting Group, the City's independent financial advisor, was be present to help evaluate the sealed bids and answer any questions. Funding for the debt service on the bonds has already been included as part of the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 capital improvement plan budget adoption process. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance authorizing and providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds not to exceed $45,000,000, and declaring an emergency. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much of the 1987 bonds were being paid off and re-authorized. Mr. Lynch responded that there was some component of the 1987 General Obligation Bonds that had not been expended. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was carryover of the 1987 bonds that the City was paying off and putting into the new bond structure. He inquired as to whether the City would be issuing new bonds or if it was paying off the 1987 bonds and re-issuing additional bonds. Mr. Lynch replied that the City was issuing additional bonds. Councilmember Lieberman asked for confirmation that the City was not bonding for projects it had not previously bonded for. Mr. Lynch said Councilmember Lieberman was correct. Councilmember Lieberman asked if any of the funds from the General Obligation Bonds would be used for the West Gate project. Mr. Lynch replied in the affirmative. He said $27.9 million of these bond funds are associated with the project and the remaining amounts are for other projects that are included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. 3 Councilmember Lieberman asked if all of that money was to be spent on infrastructure. Mr. Lynch replied that all of the West Gate project funds would be used for infrastructure. Mayor Scruggs clarified that it was her understanding the remaining funds from the 1987 General Obligation Bonds would be used, in addition to the new $45 million of General Obligation Bonds authorized in the ordinance under consideration. Mr. Lynch agreed that Mayor Scruggs' clarification was accurate. Ordinance No. 2259 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES JUNE 1, 2002, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $45,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PROJECTS OF THE CITY AND TO PAY ALL NECESSARY LEGAL, FINANCIAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND OTHER COSTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF SAID BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A BOND REGISTRAR AGREEMENT (WHICH SHALL INCLUDE AN ESCROW ACCOUNT OR AN ESCROW AGREEMENT AS AN EXHIBIT); AUTHORIZING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING, DTC LETTER AGREEMENT AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance No. 2259 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES Mr. Michael Munroe, Senior Management Assistant for the Community Development Group, presented this item. The Community Development Fees are a schedule of development-related permit and service fees collected for the Building Safety, Engineering, Planning, Transportation, Fire and Utilities departments. The current fees have been in effect since May 26, 1992. Reviewing and adjusting the development-related permit and service fees on a periodic basis is consistent with the City's business plan approach. In addition, the Council has directed that the Community Development Fees be adjusted automatically on an annual basis in accordance with the Consumer Price Index Urban Users (CPIUU) inflationary index. 4 On April 16, 2002, the City Council reviewed the recommended ordinance revisions and directed staff to bring forward the ordinance for adoption. The Community Development Fee ordinance stipulates periodic review and adjustment of the fees, including an annual inflationary adjustment. The City Council further directed staff to draft a policy for a credit towards or reduction of Community Development Fees for projects that qualify as infill housing. Staff is drafting this policy and will bring it forward to the City Council as part of a comprehensive infill housing policy that will address the credit or reduction of fees for both Development Impact Fees and Community Development Fees. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance amending the Code of the City of Glendale authorizing and directing the automatic annual adjustment of the Community Development Fees in accordance with the Consumer Price Index Urban Users inflationary index. Councilmember Martinez stated that we were doing this because the City's fees are low compared to other cities. Councilmember Clark said the City needs to re-coop the cost of doing business which it has not been doing. Mr. Munroe agreed with Councilmembers Martinez and Clark. He said the last time fees were revised was in May of 1992. Councilmember Lieberman said he liked the fact that the fees would be annually adjusted to the consumer price index. Mr. Munroe confirmed Councilmember Lieberman's statement that there will be an annual adjustment. He said there will also be a periodic review, similar to the recent comprehensive study, that will be done every three years, with recommendations to the Council. Ordinance No. 2260 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION), CHAPTER 9 (BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 16 (FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION), CHAPTER 28 (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT), CHAPTER 30 (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS), CHAPTER 31 (SUBDIVISIONS), AND THE ZONING CODE ARTICLE 3 (ADMINISTRATION) AND ARTICLE 7 (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OR AMENDMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES; AND ESTABLISHING AN APPENDIX B TO THE GLENDALE CITY CODE ENTITLED, "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES". 5 It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No. 2260 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. RESOLUTIONS 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES Mr. Michael Munroe, Senior Management Assistant for the Community Development Group, presented this item. The Community Development Fees are a schedule of development-related permit and service fees collected for the Building Safety, Engineering, Planning, Transportation, Fire and Utilities departments. The current fees have been in effect since May 26, 1992. Reviewing and adjusting the development-related permit and service fees on a periodic basis is consistent with the City's business plan approach. In order to change the Community Development Fees, the City Council must adopt a resolution enacting the new fee schedule. On April 16, 2002, the City Council reviewed the recommended schedule of Community Development Fees and directed staff to bring forward a resolution for adoption. If adopted, the new schedule of Community Development Fees will become effective 30 days after City Council adoption. Also at the direction of the City Council, staff has implemented a "grandfather policy" that outlines the fees to be paid by projects currently in the City's planning and permitting (Building Safety) processes. The Community Development Fee ordinance approved tonight also stipulates periodic review and adjustment of the fees, including an annual inflationary adjustment. The City Council further directed staff to draft a policy for a credit towards, or reduction of, Community Development Fees for projects that qualify as infill housing. Staff is drafting this policy and will bring it forward to the City Council as part of a comprehensive infill housing policy that will address the credit or reduction of fees for both Development Impact Fees and Community Development Fees. Staff has been notifying the development community of the recommended schedule of fees for several months. Staff has also met and discussed the new schedule of fees with current developers and homebuilders within the City of Glendale. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution setting and amending the Community Development Fees and establishing an effective date of July 11, 2002 for the new fees. 6 Councilmember Goulet asked if staff would be recommending amending or replacing this resolution in the near future. Mr. Munroe explained that it would be a separate staff-recommended policy to amend the current infill housing program. Mr. Munroe confirmed for Councilmember Clark that a separate amended policy concerning infill housing will come forward for Council's consideration at a workshop this fall. Councilmember Goulet asked if it would be an adoption of a separate policy. Mr. Paladini said the fee schedule becomes part of the City Code as an appendix. He noted, however, that he would recommend the fee schedule be incorporated into the City Code once the policy is finalized, creating actual legislation that provides for the rebates. Councilmember Lieberman asked if another resolution would be needed to incorporate the draft infill policy into the City Code. Mr. Paladini stated that the resolution currently being considered by the Council strictly adopts the fee schedule. He recommended that a comprehensive policy for infill rebates be done as a City Code amendment. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Council could establish an incentive to build infill housing to encourage its development. Mr. Paladini stated that there are number of ways the Council could create incentives. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that the City already has an infill housing incentive program. He noted that it is only applied in certain designated areas. Mayor Scruggs asked if the incentive program was in the City Code or if it was an administrative policy. Mr. Reedy explained that the Council adopted a pilot incentive project three and a half years ago for two specific areas of the City. He stated that the project was a Council policy and worked very effectively. Mr. Jon Froke, Planning & Zoning Director, said looking at the overall infill policies has been a team effort. Resolution No. 3582 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SETTING FORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY BUILDING SAFETY, ENGINEERING, PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, FIRE AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENTS; AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 3582 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. 7 5. PARTICIPATION IN ARIZONA MUNICIPAL FINANCING PROGRAM Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, presented this item. In July of 1986, the Arizona Municipal Financing Program (AMFP) was formed to provide pooled financing for capital expenditures by cities and other public agencies, in order to reduce the associated financing and transaction costs. The opportunity exists for the City to utilize the AMFP to obtain $5,055,000 to finance multipurpose arena complex construction. Under the AMFP pool, the City's municipal property corporation (MPC) may issue excise tax bonds at tax exempt rates, thus lowering overall borrowing costs for the City. Since the pool was formed prior to 1986 tax law changes, borrowers are subject to more favorable pre-1986 tax laws. Borrowings from AMFP require a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing prior to final action, which was held by AMFP counsel on the City's behalf. Additionally, the MPC board of directors considered adoption of their resolution authorizing a loan agreement at their June 7, 2002 public meeting. Subject to Council adoption of the resolution, staff will draft documents authorizing the issuance of MPC obligations secured through a ground lease with the City. In addition, documents would be drafted that provide for excise tax revenues to be pledged by the City, to provide the MPC with funding to repay the obligations. Request for consideration and approval of those documents would occur at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing participation in AMFP. Resolution No. 3583 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, (1) AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF GLENDALE IN THE ARIZONA MUNICIPAL FINANCING PROGRAM AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; (2) APPROVING THE FORM OF AND REQUESTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY CITY OF GLENDALE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY CORPORATION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,055,000 BETWEEN THE ARIZONA MUNICIPAL FINANCING PROGRAM AND THE CORPORATION; AND (3) AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION. It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 3583 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. 8 PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION 6. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, presented this item. He stated that, after four special budget workshops held in April of 2002, the City Council completed its review of the proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget. The workshops provided the Council with the opportunity to closely analyze and evaluate all aspects of the budget. The public hearing today on the proposed budget is required prior to Council adoption of the preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Council approval of this preliminary budget will set the maximum level of expenditures for next year. Adjustments and reallocation of expenditures can be made after adoption of the preliminary budget, but the total amount of expenditures cannot be increased. This year's budget process marks Mr. Beasley's first as Glendale's City Manager and undeniably ranks as the most complex since his arrival here eight years ago. Consequently, he was particularly pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget. When the process began late last year, the City found itself faced with a host of uncertainties, most notably the slowing economy in the wake of 9-11 and a decrease in state-shared sales tax revenue. Additionally, an initiative to repeal Glendale's sales tax on grocery items and a legislative proposal to further reduce state-shared revenue threatened the City's seemingly secure revenue base. All of these issues became moving obstacles throughout the six-month process. With these challenges as the impetus, Mr. Beasley and the Leadership Team began developing a new business plan strategy with a new focus on the "big picture". The first step in implementing this ongoing plan includes a comprehensive examination of the City's existing business practices and identification of areas where employees can improve operations while continuing to provide its citizens the best services possible. Even before the budget process started, staff knew this would be a tough year. In an effort to meet Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget obligations, staff began searching for ongoing funds to support them. Budget staff analyzed carryover savings history over the past five-year period and identified departments with a history of significant savings every year. As a result, the Leadership Team authorized staff to transfer $1.2 million in allocations from those departments' base budgets to cover essential Fiscal Year 2002-03 needs, including the salary package. 9 Once staff surmounted the initial roadblocks, it soon became apparent that the City's budget would not support any significant additions. In fact, it appeared the City might actually face reductions. To prepare for this possibility, Mr. Beasleyl asked each department head to identify programs or service areas that could be considered for elimination if the need arose. Staff understood the magnitude of the situation and made the difficult decisions necessary to prepare the budget. Mr. Beasley felt great pride in the teamwork and cooperation employees demonstrated during this complicated undertaking. Fortunately, the City was not forced to make those cuts. However, this new business practice proved beneficial in that the Leadership Team and the City Council agreed that some of the items identified for reduction or elimination had actually run their course. After considerable discussion, the Mayor and City Council directed staff to eliminate ongoing funding to selected programs, returning $205,948 to the General Fund. Staff will soon be conducting these types of analyses regularly as part of the new business plan implementation. Each department will analyze its base budget allocations and identify areas where changes have occurred over the years. For example, if participation in a program has declined over time, why? If the demand no longer exists, can the funding for that program be better utilized somewhere else? Closely examining the way the City does business will provide employees with a fresh focus and ignite a renewed enthusiasm throughout the organization to consider innovative alternatives in providing services to our citizens. A key component in this drive toward renewed creativity includes studying the true cost of services the City provides and examining ways to recover those costs. Staff will be researching this issue over the next several months. The first service areas slated for analysis include parks and recreation programs, water and sewer, and solid waste management. Considering the City's limitations in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget, no new General Fund programs were added and increases were limited to a few required cases. These include: • Animal Control Service Contract Increase — The cost of the City's contract with Maricopa County Animal Care and Control has increased by $160,000 this year. Staff reallocated $52,000 in ongoing base budget funds, resulting in approval of a $108,000 supplemental request. • Council Redistricting Process — A one-time appropriation of $94,500 was approved in the Intergovernmental Relations Department to complete the Council Redistricting process. 10 • Prisoner Maintenance Increase — This budget was increased by $385,000 in order to keep up with increasing inmate costs at the Maricopa County jail. • Special Election for General Plan 2025 — The Council approved a $115,000 one-time increase to fund the state-mandated election on Glendale's General Plan update. This election is required as a result of Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus legislation. In addition to the General Fund increases, revenue generated by the 0.5% transportation sales tax enacted by voters in 2001 will fund $4,642,439 in supplemental requests in accordance with the approved Transportation Plan. This plan includes enhanced Dial-a-Ride and fixed-route bus service and incorporates a transportation education component that will play a key role in educating the City's current and future commuters. The development of the new Coyotes arena and surrounding mixed-use development at Glendale Avenue and Highway 101 - a project considered one of the most exciting in Glendale's history - will significantly impact the workload of several departments in Fiscal Year 2002-03. Consequently, a number of temporary positions have been added in the Building Safety, Fire and Finance Departments in order to keep this important economic development project on schedule. The costs of these positions will be recovered through permit and plan check fees generated by the project and related development. The Ellman Companies will also soon begin redevelopment of the former Manistee Town Center at 59th and Northern avenues. The new development - Northern Crossing - will re-introduce some much-needed retail and dining opportunities to the central area of the City. As can be seen, some exciting projects lie on the horizon. The anticipation surrounding them has awakened a fresh enthusiasm throughout Glendale, from its citizens to its employees. And this passion extends directly into what the City does best - creating an excellent quality of life for every Glendale citizen. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing, waive reading beyond the title, and adopt a resolution accepting the preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Ms. Pilar Aguilar, Budget and Rate Manager, said the City's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 totals $635 million, which includes an Operating budget of $227 million; a contingency appropriation in the various funds of $17.8 million; a Capital Improvement budget of $350.2 million, including the Arena Construction Project; and Debt Service payments totaling $40 million. She pointed out that the Capital Improvement Program accounts for 55.1% of the 11 total budget. She compared the City of Glendale's budget with the budget of other local cities. She said it was not out of line for a city of Glendale's size and complexity. She noted that Glendale's budget compares more closely with cities smaller in size. She reported that the City of Glendale spends approximately $2,050 per capita, excluding the arena project, which is relatively low when compared to neighboring cities. Ms. Aguilar stated that Public Works, at 33%, makes up the largest portion of the Operating budget. She said Police and Fire services account for 23% of the Operating budget, with the Community Services Group representing 14% and the Community Development Group accounting for 9%. She stated that the City Manager's Group is 8% of the total Operating budget; Administrative Services represents 7%; and the Appointed Officials Group makes up 3%. She said the Non-Departmental budget makes up the remaining 3%. She reported that the proposed base budget totals $220.8 million. She explained that $727,000 in one-time additions from the current year did not increase the base budget. She said total ongoing or continuous additions to the budget total $5.5 million, $4.7 million of which will be dedicated to transportation programs which were approved by the voters in November of 2001. She stated that the remaining ongoing funding will be needed to meet inflationary and growth-related expenses. Ms. Aguilar stated that positions added to the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget through the supplemental process total 11.75 FTE (full-time employees), including 6 for the Transportation Department, 1.75 for the Community Action Program (CAP) and the Building Safety Department, 2 converted positions in the Fire Department, and 2 for Field Operations. She said the General Fund is a primary focus of the budget process and is made up of Community Services, representing 18%; Community Development and Administrative Services, accounting for 7% each; and the remaining five groups, which account for 29% combined. She reported that State Shared Revenue is the largest source of revenue, with the City's share of state sales tax, income tax, and motor vehicles taxes accounting for 40%. She stated that the next largest source, local sales tax, represents 35% of the total revenue, with property tax accounting for only 3%. She said miscellaneous revenues accounted for 13% of this year's total revenue, a majority of which was a reimbursement for the Manistee Town Center. Ms. Aguilar reviewed the Glendale sales tax history. She pointed out the fact that growth has slowed since 2000. She said Fiscal Year 2003 sales tax revenue amounts to $42.9 million, which should compare to collections for the current year. She stated that the Council's efforts to bring financial stability through adherence to financial policies and long-range projections have proven to be very prudent this year. With regard to State Shared Revenues, she said they were looking at an income tax increase of $1.5 million due to strong growth in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. She said, however, the Legislature decided to reduce the City's percentage from 15% to 14.8% in Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04, resulting in a reduction of approximately $700,000 over the two-year period. 12 Ms. Aguilar reviewed the Capital Improvement Program, exclusive of carryover projects. She said it reflects the Council's continued direction to maintain the total property tax rate at the current level. She stated that $150 million of the Capital Improvement Program relates to construction of the Coyotes arena. She identified other construction costs included in the budget as being: $38.5 million for water and sewer; $19.2 million for streets projects; $16.5 million for parks projects; and $14 million for new transportation improvement projects. Ms. Aguilar reported that the Debt Service budget totals approximately $40 million, including $4 million for a special improvement district bond call. Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 6. As there were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing. Resolution No. 3584 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC EXPENSE FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003; ADOPTING A TENTATIVE BUDGET; SETTING FORTH THE REVENUE, THE AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY DIRECT PROPERTY TAXATION FOR THE VARIOUS PURPOSES; AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE TIME FOR HEARING TAXPAYERS FOR FIXING THE TAX LEVIES. It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 3584 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez , to hold a City Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S.38-431.03. The motion carried unanimously. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments at this meeting. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Councilmember Clark welcomed Councilmember Lieberman back. She stated that Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Martinez and Goulet would be inducted at tonight's meeting. She offered each of them her personal congratulations. 13 Councilmember Lieberman thanked City staff and friends for the outpouring of affection and for the cards and flowers he received while he was out for surgery. Councilmember Martinez welcomed Councilmember Lieberman. back. Councilmember Frate thanked the citizens and City employees who helped with the water safety walk in the Sahuaro District last Thursday. He noted that more than 100 people worked to distribute literature. He urged people to watch children around water. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. i Pamela Oliveira - City Clerk 14