HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/18/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
June 18, 2002
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager;
Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk
1. PARKS AND RECREATON FEE PHILOSOPHY
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager;
Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Richard J. Cardin, Jr., Parks
and Recreation Central District Superintendent.
OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Leon Younger, President of Leon Younger & Pros,
consultant.
On December 21, 2001, the Glendale Parks and Recreation Department entered into a
professional services agreement with Leon Younger and Pros, Inc. to conduct a
revenue enhancement and fee philosophy study. The purpose of the study was to
develop a comprehensive review of facilities, services, and programs to determine their
direct and indirect costs. Another component of the study was to formulate a policy to
serve as a guide in suggesting recreation fees and charges for current and future
programs.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in February of
2002, contained 24 strategies required to develop a sound recreation business plan.
One of the strategies recommended the development of a pricing policy and philosophy
for recreational programs and facilities. As identified in the benchmarking of
comparable cities, during the master plan process, it was determined that the City of
Glendale subsidizes the direct cost for recreation programs and facilities at a higher
level than other cities.
The current pricing philosophy adopted by the City Council in 1988 recommends
recovering 15% of the direct cost of programs for the physically challenged, 25% of the
direct cost for youth, 50% of the direct cost for seniors, and 100% of the direct cost for
adults. The policy does not address indirect cost, not-for-profit users, non-resident
users or commercial users.
1
The draft pricing model is designed to bring the City of Glendale's pricing to the same
level with other Valley cities through a pricing strategy which determines fees based on
the benefit that the program or service adds to the participant.
Staff and the consultant discussed the draft pricing model. The model contains five
pricing categories. Each pricing category incorporates the underlying principle of the
program model, as well as the recommended tax subsidy level. The five strategies are:
• Fixed Recreation Program Parks and Facilities - what the Glendale community
expects the City to provide.
• Core programs - for parks and facilities (a baseline level of service that adds to
the quality of life).
• Tiered services for programs, parks and facilities (tiered services are
incorporated into core programs to expand demographic appeal).
• Revenue centers - and programs (services and facilities that recover up to 100%
of direct and indirect costs).
• Partnership - development for Public/Public, Public/Not-For-Profit, Private/Private
pricing.
This item was discussed at the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings held on
February 19, 2002, March 11, 2002, April 8, 2002, and June 3, 2002. On June 3, 2002,
the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of
the pricing model by the City Council.
Staff has worked with management and budget on the methodology for the pricing
model. There are no budgetary impacts at this time.
The recommendation was to review the draft pricing model and provide staff with
direction to implement the pricing strategies.
Mr. Cardin identified the following fee philosophy goals: (1) to establish a policy that the
community could understand, embrace and support; (2) to establish a working model
that clearly describes how each product will be managed; and (3) to establish a
communication and implementation strategy.
Mr. Younger explained the pricing model. He said it evaluates a series of benefits
received at different levels of services provided. He stated that all citizen survey
comments and focus group comments were evaluated to help define and create the
model. He stated that Strategy 1 includes basic elements that the entire community
has access to on a relatively free basis, including such programs as recreational swim,
the Community Center, open gyms and weight rooms, and the Glendale Recreation
After School Program (GRASP). He said the prices for Strategy 1 programs would
range from no cost up to 25% of a program's direct cost.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that many indirect costs are included in the budget
and paid for by the taxpayers. Mr. Younger stated that Council would determine the
level of indirect cost it would like a given program to recover. He explained that indirect
costs are costs that are not attributable to one specific program and would continue to
2
be incurred if the program was no longer offered. Councilmember Lieberman stated
that they reimburse the funds obtained through Parks and Recreation into the General
Fund. He asked how they would go about identifying indirect costs. Mr. Younger
explained that they looked at recovering the indirect costs associated with programs in
Strategy 4 because of their high level of benefit. He pointed out that, by collecting
those dollars, the Council can redirect the dollars usually spent on the program to other
departments or to enhance another component of the system.
Councilmember Clark said she shared Councilmember Lieberman's concern about
charging residents for the indirect costs associated with a particular program because
the indirect costs would be incurred whether the program was offered or not. She
expressed her opinion, however, that it would be appropriate to charge non-residents
and commercial users an additional fee to cover the indirect costs. Mr. McClendon
stated that the City is not charging its residents twice for a program. He explained that
cost recovery through fees allows the City to use tax dollars that would have been spent
on a program for other programs or services.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the vast majority of funds in the General Fund come
from non-residents. Mr. McClendon agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He explained that
anyone who shops at a Glendale store contributes to the City's General Fund.
Councilmember Clark stated that she was still opposed to charging indirect costs back
to the residents. She expressed concern about agency and City overhead. She stated
that it adds an additional 24% to the indirect cost of every program. Mr. McClendon
stressed that the cost of a program and the pricing decision are two different things.
Councilmember Martinez stated that he liked the tiered approach, wherein basic
programs are offered at no cost to the participant and the programs in Strategies 2, 3
and 4 pass a percentage of the cost on to the participant.
Mayor Scruggs said the public will determine the value of a program if a fee is charged.
She stated that, while Strategy 4 programs might improve a participant's quality of life,
they cannot be placed on the same level as basic programs that benefit everyone. She
said the fees associated with Strategy 4 programs will free up money to provide core
services at a higher level.
Councilmember Goulet asked if there was anything unusual about the recommendation
for Strategy 4 programs. Mr. Younger responded that there was not Councilmember
Goulet pointed out that the fees charged would be up to 100% of the indirect cost and it
is up to the Council to determine the appropriate level. He said, personally, he did not
believe they should recover the full cost of the program, but the tiered approach is
appropriate. Mr. Younger stated that the model provides the maximum level of flexibility
and grows with the level of benefit. Councilmember Goulet pointed out that the City
might need to hire specialized people to offer higher level programs. He expressed his
opinion that it would be reasonable to recover those costs.
Councilmember Frate noted that the City offers over 400 programs. He stated that he
also supported the tiered approach because of the flexibility it provides.
Councilmember Clark clarified that she supported the five strategies, except in regard to
the recovery of up to 100% of indirect costs for Strategy 4 programs. She expressed
her opinion that fees to recover indirect costs should be charged to non-residents only.
3
Mayor Scruggs stated that it is the government's responsibility to offer basic services
and programs, not high-level programs. She expressed her opinion that the City should
recover its costs with regard to higher level programs to prevent them from draining
funds needed to offer basic services and programs and to keep the parks in the best
possible condition. She stated that the public will not pay for a class if it does not
believe it is worth the price. She noted that some people would object to the City
offering programs that are offered commercially because it puts the City in competition
with the private sector. She stated that the model is very fiscally sound.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that they would defeat the purpose of offering a
program if it becomes so expensive that it precludes citizens from participating. Mr.
Younger explained that services are priced according to the current market.
Councilmember Clark said it appears that 88% of maintenance costs are covered under
direct costs, with the only indirect maintenance cost being custodial services. She
reiterated her position that the fees should be charged, but only to non-residents.
Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's support of recouping indirect costs with regard to
Strategy 4 programs.
Councilmember Clark said she would like to look at program staffing and other aspects
of the Parks and Recreation Department that are supported by the revenue recovery
strategy.
Mr. Cardin reviewed their implementation strategy. He explained that they will: (1)
develop appropriate prices based on the five strategies;( 2) benchmark with other cities
and, possibly, the private sector; and (3) recommend resident, non-resident and
commercial category prices to the City Council for adoption.
Mayor Scruggs stated that benchmarking would only be appropriate if done with cities
that utilize a cost recovery strategy.
Councilmember Clark asked if partnerships would be negotiated on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Cardin answered in the affirmative.
Mayor Scruggs asked about non-resident pricing. Mr. Cardin stated that the pricing
policy indicates a level of 20% - 50% higher than resident pricing. Mayor Scruggs
spoke about the City of Surprise aquatics center. She said it was the source of a lot of
anger because it was unrealistically priced and residents were unable to utilize the
facility because of the high number of non-residents that used it. She stated that the
more attractive offerings in Glendale will draw a number of non-residents and the City
should learn from the City of Surprise's experience. She said she would not be
uncomfortable with a 50% surcharge on non-residents.
Councilmember Martinez agreed that the City should charge at least a 50% surcharge.
He suggested that very popular attractions charge an even higher percentage.
Councilmember Goulet said he would accept a minimum 50% surcharge. He
suggested that they look at what other cities charge non-residents to use their facilities.
He acknowledged the fact that citizens are often frustrated by non-residents
monopolizing a City facility.
4
Councilmember Clark stated that she would also accept a surcharge that would
encourage resident use and discourage use by non-residents. She noted, however,
that non-residents pay sales taxes that help defray costs.
Mayor Scruggs agreed that the surcharge would be an additional burden on non-
residents. She acknowledged that they have already contributed through state-shared
revenues and sales taxes paid in the City. She explained that there would be no
incentive for other cities to provide recreational services for their residents if the City of
Glendale does not build in some type of disincentive for non-residents. She stated that
it is their first responsibility to serve the residents of the City of Glendale.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the City's libraries already charge a
surcharge to non-residents.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the skateboard park was open. Mr. Smith said the park
was scheduled to open in late August or early September. Vice Mayor Eggleston
stated that residents of other cities will want to use that facility. He asked how the City
will ensure that Glendale residents have the chance to use it. Mr. Smith explained that
the park would be free of charge and operate in a manner similar to the basketball and
volleyball courts. He stated that the facility would be covered under the Recreational
User's Law and would not be supervised.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Cardin stated that an ABC costing form
would be done up front on all new programs to determine the City's final cost and what
it should charge participants. Mayor Scruggs asked how they would communicate to
the public the true cost of a program and the subsidy level used to determine its price.
Mr. Younger explained that participants would be told about the percentage of the true
cost their fee covers when the program is introduced for the first time.
Mayor Scruggs asked about additional income opportunities. Mr. Younger stated that
the intent is to identify earned income opportunities, such as partnerships or
sponsorships, as a way to buy down costs. He noted that a number of cities impose a
car rental fee as a means to fund their programs. Mr. Smith said they had made initial
efforts, but need to continue to focus on identifying additional income opportunities.
Councilmember Martinez asked about the scholarship program. Mr. Smith explained
that the City has had a scholarship program for many years, primarily funded through
individual and private sector donations. He said the funds are available for anyone who
cannot afford to pay for a recreational program. He stated that the consultant proposed
a "Workreation" program, wherein individuals volunteer hours in return for credits that
can be used to pay program registration fees. With regard to the demographic report,
Councilmember Martinez asked if residents in certain parts of the City would pay less
for a program than residents in another part of the City. Mr. Smith responded that they
would not. He explained that they have identified lower income areas where they will
do more outreach to educate residents about scholarships and the Workreation
program.
Councilmember Clark stated that many residents are unaware of the scholarship
program. She noted, however, that the City has given more attention to available
scholarships in its recent editions of the Glendale Parks and Recreation Bulletin. She
said further general publicity should be done, specifically targeted to the identified low-
income demographic areas.
5
Mayor Scruggs suggested that the Councilmembers invite new or existing businesses in
their districts to participate in the scholarship program.
2. COUNCIL RESDISTRICTING
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Duffy, Director of Intergovernmental
Relations.
OTHER PRESENTERS: Dr. Florence Adams and Dr. Alan Heslop of National
Demographics Corporation, redistricting consultants; and Mr. Greg Jernigan, legal
redistricting advisor.
On February 9, 1988, Glendale voters approved the creation of six election districts for
the City of Glendale. The City must redistrict its boundaries at least every ten years
according to the Code of the City of Glendale Section 15-2 Redistricting. The City has
updated its six council boundaries in 1992 and in 1996.
Council district boundaries need to be adjusted to bring them into accord with the 2000
Census. An analysis of the current Council districts, in terms of the 2000 Census, were
presented. In addition, the Council was presented with standard redistricting criteria for
consideration, together with recommendations for contents of citizen kits. Redistricting
timeline was discussed.
National Demographics Corporation (NDC) has been retained by the City to be the
consultant in adjusting district boundaries, along with legal advice by Mr. Greg Jernigan.
A presentation was made to the Mayor and Council on April 17, 2001, asking for their
direction to fund NDC's proposal, retain legal services by Mr. Greg Jernigan, and fund a
marketing campaign to ensure that the public is included in the redistricting process and
provided adequate notice of the new boundaries.
During the redistricting process, there will be six meetings throughout the City of
Glendale to provide opportunities for citizen input and for discussions with groups and
individuals that may be especially interested in the process. The marketing campaign
will include newspaper advertising, mailings, newsletters, notice on the City website,
inserts in water bills, and other mediums.
This item is budgeted for a one-time appropriation of $94,500 to cover the costs of
hiring professional consultants to complete this task.
The recommendation was to review the timeline and proposal of National
Demographics Corporation to assist in the City of Glendale's redistricting and provide
staff with direction.
Dr. Adams stated that they had met with the Councilmembers individually over the past
two days and today's meeting was the first public presentation of the information.
Dr. Heslop stated that the City of Glendale's past redistricting processes have been
successful because the City has always: (1) had full citizen participation; (2) complied
fully with federal law; and (3) set forth clearly stated government guidelines.
6
Dr. Adams reviewed the City's growth between 1990 and 2000. She stated that the
population of the City of Glendale grew from 148,134 to 218,812. She stated that the
Cholla District represents the largest population with 50,924 persons, and the Barrel
District has the smallest population with 32,310 persons. She stated that the target
district population is 36,469 persons. She said the court-allowed deviation is under
10% overall. She pointed out that the City of Glendale's deviation is currently 51%.
She reviewed the redistricting process and stated that they were currently conducting
redistricting workshops and hoped the Council would adopt and direct them to use the
presented criteria. She said citizen kits would be distributed at the public meetings to
provide citizens an opportunity to draw and submit plans for analysis. She said they
would come back to the Council to share the citizen plans and present a recommended
plan and two possible alternative plans. She said the Council could then make
changes to the plan, which would be brought back to the Council for adoption and
forwarded to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance.
Councilmember Clark asked if they were building in enough time to allow for possible
modifications to the plan. Dr. Adams responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Dr. Adams explained that the overall
10% deviation is a Justice Department guideline and is calculated by adding the
percent over-population of the largest district to the percent under-population of the
smallest district.
Dr. Heslop stated that court decisions running back to 1964 have required that districts
be equal in population. He explained that the term "population" refers to the count of
the last official census. He stated that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, passed in
1965, requires that minority communities not be improperly divided and Section 5
requires the city to pre-clear any changes it makes, including changes in district lines,
with the Department of Justice. He noted that the Arizona Revised Statutes require that
districts be compact and contiguous. He reviewed other traditional criteria, including:
(1) that districts not improperly divide communities of interest; (2) that district lines
follow natural and man-made boundaries; (3) that the city take clear account of citizen
input; (4) that the city do its best to anticipate future population growth for each area of
the city; and (5) that existing district boundaries not be dramatically changed. He
recommended that all of the above criteria be adopted to govern the current
redistricting process.
Dr. Adams reviewed current demographic statistics. She stated that 4.88% of the total
population is African American, 3.06% is Asian, 1.45% is Native American, and 24.84%
is Hispanic. She noted that 21.27% of the Hispanic population is of voting age and the
Ocotillo District is now the majority district in terms of minority population.
Councilmember Clark asked if the total or voting age population takes precedence. Dr.
Heslop stated that the City needs to look at both. He explained that the voting
population is important in terms of effective representation. He confirmed that, while
the minority population percentages can grow, they must not get smaller because it
7
would diminish their effective representation. Councilmember Clark asked if the State
had created districts with greater numbers of Hispanics when it went through its
redistricting process. Dr. Heslop explained that the Commission failed to accept their
recommendation with regard to the creation of a minority district that would have
resulted in better representation of minorities in the area. He stated that the Justice
Department, when making its critique of the Commission's plan, looked specifically at
voting age population to determine if it was possible to assure the election of a minority
member. He clarified that it is not an issue in districts where there is no real possibility
of creating a majority minority district. He noted that an influence district, one where the
minority population is sufficient to have an influence in the political process, is also of
concern to the Justice Department. He stated that the Yucca District would be the only
district that could be counted as an influence district. He stated that, while it is crucial
that the Ocotillo District's minority population percentage not be reduced, he would also
advise that the Yucca District 's minority population percentage not be reduced.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that an increase in the number of minority babies
born in a given district would effect the voting age percentage.
Dr. Adams pointed out that people who identified themselves on the census as being
both Native American and Hispanic would only show up in the Hispanic category. She
said the voting age population refers to those persons who are 18 years of age or older.
She said 54,343 of the 218,812 people in the City are self-identified as Hispanic and
32,533 of the 152,950 people of voting age are self-identified as Hispanic.
Dr. Adams confirmed for Councilmember Clark that Hispanic could refer to people from
various Spanish speaking countries and would not necessarily identify a person as
being from Mexico.
Mayor Scruggs stated that it is unrealistic to expect the City to control the voting age
population. Dr. Heslop agreed in general terms. He stated, however, that he believed
the City of Glendale could meet the Department of Justice and Voting Act requirements
easily by paying careful attention to the total and voting age populations in the Ocotillo
and Yucca Districts. He said, fortunately, neither district is significantly deviant from
equality in terms of population.
Councilmember Clark stated that the Cholla District is vastly overpopulated and the
Sahuaro, Cactus, and Barrel Districts will have to absorb some of its population. She
said she could not envision a lot of changes to Ocotillo or Yucca Districts.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that dramatic shifts are required to bring the Cholla District
into equality. She expressed concern that it would impact the benchmark percentages
in other districts. Dr. Heslop noted that the Justice Department is located on the east
coast and is primarily attentive to problems in the southern states. He said they are
wholly unused to, and need to be educated on, the concept of dramatic suburban
growth with extensive and rapid assimilation of a Hispanic population.
8
Councilmember Martinez suggested that the Council embrace the recommended
criteria for redistricting.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Hispanics ever fall away from identifying themselves as
Hispanic. Dr. Heslop answered that they do not. He explained that additional groups
have found an interest in seeking coverage in each successive renewal of the Voting
Rights Act. He noted, however, that many people do not self-identify themselves as
Hispanic on the census.
Mayor Scruggs, on behalf of the Council, directed Ms. Duffy to follow the criteria for the
rest of the redistricting process. Ms. Duffy said they wanted to maximize constituent
involvement and, therefore, they recommended that the six public meetings be held
during the first two weeks of September. She stated that NDC would make a
presentation at the public meetings to ensure that citizens understand the process and
have the opportunity to provide input. She said any proposed plan made by the public
would go to NDC and NDC would then provide input and feedback to the constituents
and come back to the Council in the fall for policy input and direction on the three
proposed boundary concepts. She stated that, once the City of Glendale formally
adopts the new Council district boundaries, NDC and Mr. Jernigan will work together to
ensure that the appropriate information goes to the Department of Justice to seek pre-
clearance approval. She said the timeframe will allow for sufficient time to work with the
Department of Justice and have Glendale's new district boundaries determined
approximately one year prior to the next election.
Mayor Scruggs suggested that they allow the first three weeks of September for public
hearings. She pointed out that Labor Day falls within the first week and Council is
unavailable on Tuesday's.
In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Dr. Adams stated that they hoped to
submit the final plan to the Justice Department by the end of November. She said they
would allow at least three weeks after the last of the six public meetings for citizens to
return their citizen kits. Councilmember Clark asked if the citizen kit could be posted on
the Internet. Ms. Duffy said the maps are complicated and would be difficult to
download. She said, however, the City's website could provide citizens with the
opportunity to request that the information be mailed to them. Councilmember Clark
asked if the State's maps could be downloaded. Dr. Heslop said the State citizen kits
were not available on the website and the maps were handed out at the public
meetings.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that people could choose to obtain a citizen kit without
attending a meeting.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what information was included in the citizen kits. Dr.
Adams stated that the kits will include schematic maps that show the distribution of the
minority population, a map of the current district boundaries, and a large map indicating
census block group numbers. She stated that the materials would be presented to
9
Council for review at the beginning of July.
Councilmember Clark suggested that they update the maps. She pointed out that they
do not reflect the south side of Glendale Avenue which was annexed for the Ellman
project. Dr. Adams stated that Planning Department staff would be providing additional
detailed maps.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the kits would be available only to those who request
one. Dr. Adams responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Scruggs asked if they would show draft scenarios when they come back in July.
Dr. Adams said they could, but she would prefer to have more time to prepare the
drafts. Mayor Scruggs and the Council asked to have the draft scenarios presented at
the July 16 Council Workshop. Dr. Adams confirmed that the plans they would present
would be balanced.
Dr. Adams confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that they would provide the population
numbers on the maps.
3. CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FINANCING FOR THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr.
Charlie McClendon, Management and Budget Director; Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director;
and Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director.
Funding for the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan is provided by the half-cent
safes tax increase, which was approved by Glendale voters in November of 2001.
Funding for water & sewer projects is provided by the current utility rate structure. No
water rate increase is necessary through 2005 under the current rate structure;
however a 4% sewer rate increase in 2002 and 2003 is necessary.
The need exists to determine the best debt financing mechanism(s) for various
transportation improvements resulting from the successful 2001 Transportation Election
and the related Capital Improvement Plan.
A need exists to determine the best debt financing mechanism(s) for water & sewer
improvements due to the growth of Glendale and an increasingly expensive regulatory
climate and system maintenance.
Previous action on this issue included the fact that (1) the City Council reviewed the
ten-year Capital Improvement Plan, which identified water and sewer and transportation
projects at its Council Workshop held on February 19, 2002; (2) a successful
Transportation Election was held in November of 2001; (3) Tischler and Associates,
Inc. completed a Glendale Development Impact Fees Report in April of 2001; and (4)
Black & Veatch prepared water & sewer rate analysis in June of 2001.
10
The recommendation was to appoint a citizens advisory committee to review and make
recommendations concerning the best debt financing mechanism(s) to use in financing
the water & sewer and transportation categories of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Mr. McClendon explained that the issue is that the bond sales required to support the
capital improvement plans for water and sewer and transportation exceed the remaining
voter authorization in those categories. He said a water and sewer planned bond sale
of $32.6 million is required to support the capital plan in Fiscal Year 2002/03; however,
only $27.7 million will remain in voter authorization at the end of the current year. He
stated that an $8 million transportation bond sale is necessary in Fiscal Year 2003/04,
which exceeds the $6.75 million remaining at the end of Fiscal Year 2002/03.
Mr. McClendon explained that the 1998-99 Water & Sewer capital plan totaled
approximately $104 million and included 23 major projects. He said the remaining voter
authorization at that time totaled $86 million which, when combined with impact fee
revenue and cash financing, was adequate to support the plan as it existed.
Mayor Scruggs asked why they did not look beyond the five-year time frame on water
and sewer. Mr. Reedy stated that the water distribution system and sewer system
evaluations were being conducted at the time, the first phases of which were completed
in 2001 and 2000 respectively. He noted that the Western Area Sewer Depth study
was completed in December of 2000 and the City Water Treatment Needs study was
completed in May of 2001. Mr. McClendon stated that there was a higher level of
uncertainty concerning the Water and Sewer Capital Plan than in other areas.
Mr. McClendon explained that the funded years of the Fiscal Year 2002/03 Water and
Sewer Plan totals $201 million and includes 46 major projects. He reported that City of
Glendale voters approved the transportation tax in November of 2001, resulting in
funding for $339 million in transportation projects. He explained that the Transportation
voter bond authorization was not included on the November 2001 Transportation
Election ballot because the committee felt two companion measures on the same ballot
would create confusion for voters.
Mr. McClendon reviewed major changes to the Water and Sewer Capital Plan.
Councilmember Clark asked why the West Area Water Treatment Plant expansion was
necessary because of the Coyote's Arena. Mr. Reedy said the expansion would be
necessary regardless of development in the area. He said the flow at 91st Avenue is
the reason behind the timing of the expansion. He explained that they have to
demonstrate that the flow from the City's sewer system does not exceed 90% of the
capacity of the available sewer system. He said a dramatic increase in flow was found
when the meters at 99`h Avenue were recalibrated. He assured the Council that the
expansion is not directly related to the arena development.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why they could not send more flow to the Subregional
Operating Group (SROG). Mr. Reedy stated that the Project Waters Team evaluated a
variety of scenarios in 1992 and found various reasons not to increase the flow,
including long-range cost and the ability to retain the necessary resources in the
community. He said, by treating the water in the community, the City is able to reuse
the water, thereby minimizing the amount of water resources they have to treat to
potable standards. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that the Project Waters
Committee was inadvertently working off incorrect data. He asked if purchasing more
11
SROG was still all option. Mr. Reedy explained that it would take three to five years to
make the necessary arrangements to buy an additional piece of 91St Avenue. Vice
Mayor Eggleston asked if they would still be 4 million gallons short once they build to
the 15 million gallon capacity. Mr. Reedy said he believed the 15 million gallon capacity
will serve the City's needs to 115th Avenue.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that the Committee's original decision to size the
facility for 15 milliion gallons per day was based on the assumption that the City was
processing 4 million gallons per day less than it actually was. Mr. Reedy explained that
they planned the facility on the basis of geographic area, and not flow.
Councilmember Clark said the City would do itself a disservice if it decided to purchase
additional capacity because the City would lose the ability to build future credits. Mr.
Reedy agreed with Councilmember Clark. He noted that their estimate of needing 10 to
15 million gallons of additional water treatment capacity in the western area assumes
they will be able to use 10 million gallons per day of reuse water.
Vice Mayor Eggleston explained that his concern was that the 15 million gallon capacity
would be inadequate in the future. Mr. Reedy stated that the consultant team evaluated
the situation three months ago and the team believed 15 million gallons per day
capacity would meet the City's needs to 115th Avenue.
Mr. McClendon stated that the plan could be financed without voter authorization
bonds; however, alternative financing methods may not be the most cost effective. He
noted that the Government Finance Officers Association lists General Obligation and
Revenue bonds as the most advantageous for municipalities, both of which require
voter authorization. He pointed out the fact that voter authorization also demonstrates
to the bond holders and other interested parties that there is community buy-in for the
project.
Mayor Scruggs asked what type of alternative financing methods were available. Mr.
Lynch stated that Certificates of Participation could be used, although higher costs are
associated with this method. Mayor Scruggs noted that legislation was passed which
allowed the use of Certificates of Participation to enable communities to accelerate
projects.
Mr. McClendon reviewed the effects of the bond requirements. He stated that there
would be no increase in fees, taxes, or charges required beyond the rate structures
reviewed and proposed in 2001 as a result of the required bonds. He noted that the
comprehensive financial analyses done to develop the water and sewer rates and the
transportation plan approved by the voters included bond sales as a source of revenue.
Should the authorization not be granted, Mr. McClendon said the cost of financing the
capital plan would be greater and higher debt costs or increased pay-as-you-go
financing could result in rate increases, capital plan delays, or severe draws on
reserves. He stated that, in his opinion, bond financing was the best way to finance the
projects.
Mr. McClendon discussed their strategy to address the issue. He stated that they
would appoint a Citizen Advisory Committee by the end of July. He explained that the
committee will work with staff during the months of August, September, and October to
develop recommendations for Council's review in November. He said the Committee's
objectives would be to review and validate the existing capital improvement and
financing plans, to determine the appropriate amount and timing for the bond questions,
12
make recommendations to the City Council, and help generate community support for
any possible bond questions.
Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired as to the size of the request. Mr. McClendon stated that
the size would depend on how far out the Committee would recommend they go. He
said the capital plan for the ten-year period in water and sewer is approximately $243
million. He noted, however, that impact fees would pay a substantial portion.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the City already approved water and sewer rate
increases that were included in the bond election. She clarified that they were asking
the public to approve a bond election to sell the bonds that were built into the rates.
She stressed the importance of obtaining citizen input on the subject of a special
election.
Councilmember Goulet stated that they had a short time frame to meet a March 2003
election. He asked how they intended to get the information out to the public to help
them understand why the election was necessary. He also asked if other items would
be placed on the ballot. Mr. McClendon noted that a committee already exists, which is
well versed on the transportation component. He said it has been recommended that
this committee handle the transportation issue and that they add people to it who have
expertise in the water and sewer area. Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion
that 10 years is too far out to forecast because the nature of the community will change
dramatically. He suggested that the time limit be reduced to five years.
Councilmember Clark said she was not under the impression that the rates they
approved were based on a bond election. She expressed her opinion that it would be
confusing to go to the voters for a bond authorization on the transportation election that
was just held. She suggested that they separate the two issues and hold a limited
issue election on the water and sewer authorization.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the City has always held proposition and bond elections
in May. She stated that she was uncomfortable with a March election date because of
the precedent it would set. She said she would not likely vote to approve a March
election. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mr. McClendon stated
that a May election date would be workable.
Mr. McClendon clarified that the capital plan, not the issuance of bonds, drives rates.
He stated that bonds are a way to finance the capital plan in a manner that actually
minimizes rate increases. He explained that the capital projects required to provide
service to the community was the reason they recommended the rate increase last
year. He stated that the rate recommendations would have been significantly higher
had they not been able to finance the projects through bonds. Mayor Scruggs stated
that everything for the Transportation plan has already been approved and bond
authorization is a way to maximize the dollars that are collected. Mr. Book said the
voters indicated they were willing to pay for a capital improvement program and they
are now determining the best funding mechanism.
Councilmember Martinez said he understood the Transportation bond authorization, but
would like to know more about what would happen if the water and sewer bond
authorization was not approved by the voters. Mr. McClendon stated that they would
either have to use an alternative financing method, increase rates, or delay projects.
He pointed out that delaying projects would not be a very viable option.
13
Councilmember Goulet asked if they had approached the members of the
Transportation Committee to see if they were willing to serve on the new committee.
Mr. Book stated that the chairperson of the committee was very supportive.
Mayor Scruggs stated that it would seem strange to the public to have the
Transportation Committee making recommendations concerning the water and sewer
bond authorization. She said she would prefer that the committee be open to the public
at large.
Councilmember Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that he would like to
see representation from each district.
Councilmember Clark said she envisioned drawing the majority of members of the
committee from the community.
Mayor Scruggs directed staff to look at establishing a 21-member Citizens Advisory
Committee that would handle both the Transportation and Water and Sewer bond
issues. She stated that she had not as yet embraced the idea of a 2003 special
election and hoped the committee would be presented with the option of a 2004
election.
Mr. Reedy stated that they would like the committee members identified before the
Council vacates in August.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
14