Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/18/2003 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 February 18, 2003 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 ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. DRAFT ANNEXATION POLICY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director and Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner. The purpose of this workshop item is to resume discussion on the draft annexation policy and disclosure statement that began last year. This will be the fourth workshop conducted on this topic. The first workshop was conducted on July 16, 2002. During the initial workshop, background information was presented on annexation in general and Glendale's annexation activity since incorporation in 1910. On September 17, 2002, the second workshop on the draft policy was held. Discussion centered on specific elements contained in the draft annexation policy, especially the inclusion of a disclosure statement and use of pre-annexation agreements. The City Council last discussed the draft policy at its workshop on October 15, 2002. A general consensus on the evaluation process for the consideration of undeveloped land for annexation was reached during this workshop. Staff was directed to bring the draft policy and disclosure statement back to workshop in 2003 to continue the discussion on the evaluation process for developed properties. The basic framework for this discussion about an annexation policy was taken from Council comments offered during the last two years regarding specific annexations or annexation requests received from property owners. After the conclusion of the annexation policy workshops, staff will conduct a public meeting to gather citizen input on the Council's draft annexation policy. This public 1 meeting will be conducted prior to Council adoption of an annexation policy. The Council's draft annexation policy will also be placed on the City's website for easy access by citizens. There are no direct costs associated with the development of the annexation policy. The recommendation was to provide direction to staff to bring the annexation policy forward for adoption. Ms. Langford explained language in the policy regarding the use of Pre-Annexation or Development Agreements was revised as were process steps. She said they also inserted Disclosure Statement language, clarified the scope of city services a newly annexed area can expect and identified improvement programs available to residents. She said the city currently has six active annexation requests, three of which will become effective by February 2003 and three in which the annexation process is underway. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Ms. Langford explained there were close to 445 acres of developed and 1,300 acres of undeveloped acres east of 115 Avenue that were unannexed at the time the draft Annexation Policy was developed, stating, however, the active annexations have significantly reduced the number of undeveloped ares. She estimated there to be roughly 1,000 acres in county islands east of 115 Avenue. She assured Council that, if given direction to proceed, the report would be updated to reflect the current annexation acreage. She reported no annexation requests have been received for developed areas. Ms. Langford explained for Vice Mayor Eggleston that developed areas include existing subdivisions or parcels developed with residential homes. She said there are a few commercial or semi-commercial parcels as well. Councilmember Goulet asked if staff has quantified the cost for annexing developed acreage. He also asked if newly annexed areas would be allowed to maintain lax county standards or required to modify or change conditions to meet city standards. He further asked if staff is receiving the required percentage of support from those areas proposed for annexation. Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager Community Development Group, stated the cost impact to the city will depend on what already exists in the county, explaining some areas in the county have and wish to maintain a very rural lifestyle while other areas have facilities which the city would be required to maintain. He said, should Council direct staff to bring the policy forward for approval, they would determine the Council's interest in annexing an area before proceeding with a cost analysis. He confirmed for Councilmember Goulet that 70 percent of area residents would have to express interest in annexation for the request to be brought forward for Council consideration. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Langford stated the Disclosure Statement is intended to be presented as soon as a community has expressed interest in annexation. She explained that, in addition to citizen interest, the Mayor, levels of city management and City Council review the request before an extensive outlay of staff time is committed. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Impact Fees will be assessed on existing subdivisions. Ms. Langford said, while that was one of many suggestions from Council, it was ultimately left out of the policy because of the different developmental levels in each 2 residential and developed area. She said Impact Fees could be included as part of the Pre-Annexation or Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested the policy specifically address the possible use of Impact Fees. Councilmember Martinez asked if developed areas have been annexed in the past. Ms. Langford said not in the past 10 to 15 years. Councilmember Martinez asked if other cities assess Impact Fees when annexing developed areas. Ms. Langford stated none of the six jurisdictions surveyed assessed an Impact fee or a fee for processing an annexation request. Mayor Scruggs stated Council previously asked staff to research the applicability of Impact Fees for the more general services, such as libraries, parks and so forth. She said it would be difficult to present such fees to a neighborhood interested in annexing into the city if the policy does not address that issue. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion assessing Impact Fees would ensure no annexations occur. She said the policy, as written, melds a lot of different points of view and the Disclosure Statement, as written, is very good. She stated Item 5 of the draft policy addresses Councilmember Goulet's questions regarding costs. She asked if the Scallop Street Program would fit under Improvement Programs Administered by the City in the Disclosure Statement. Ms. Langford said the list of programs can be expanded or reduced to whatever degree Council likes. Mayor Scruggs agreed as many programs as possible should be identified in the Disclosure Statement. She pointed out there is also no mention of how newly annexed areas would have to comply with city codes, ordinances and zoning. She suggested the Sewer Connection Assistance Program indicate how much funding is available for use throughout the city. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated the intent of Impact Fees would not be to dissuade areas interested in annexation. With regard to a comment in the newspaper by Councilmember Clark, Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he never said he did not want to annex the 80 Avenue property because he did not want to spend the money. Councilmember Clark said the major obstacle in annexing developed areas has been that the city does not want to bear the costs associated with maintaining or cleaning up the areas. She said, while Vice Mayor Eggleston may not have personally made remarks to that effect, it has been the Council's general intent for a number of years. Vice Mayor Eggleston disagreed. Councilmember Goulet said residents in his district have expressed concern that newly annexed areas will not be held to the same standards as existing neighborhoods. He expressed his opinion forcing existing neighborhoods to bear the cost of improving newly annexed areas would inflict a level of inequity. He stated residents want to be assured the city's quality of life will be maintained in a fair and equitable manner. Councilmember Lieberman asked if target zones have a reduced impact fee. Mr. Froke explained the Residential Impact Fee Program Policy identifies parcels that are eligible for reduced Impact Fees. He said the program reduces the normal Impact fee which totals approximately $7-8,000 by $2,500. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Impact Fees are waived for Los Vocinos or Habitat for Community. Mr. Froke said no, unless the development resides within the boundaries eligible for reduced Impact Fees. Councilmember Lieberman asked if infill developments would also have to be located in a target area to receive an Impact Fee rebate. Mr. Froke responded yes, noting city staff is currently reviewing the Infill Rebate Program. Councilmember Lieberman asked 3 how many cities were surveyed with regard to Impact Fees for new annexations. Ms. Langford stated six or seven jurisdictions were surveyed. Councilmember Lieberman said, while the city does not want to discourage the annexation of new areas, Impact Fees are standard on new developments within the city's boundaries. He suggested staff research the viability of assessing reduced Impact Fees for newly annexed areas. Mayor Scruggs suggested, if staff proceeds with Councilmember Lieberman's suggestion, that their research also look at whether the assessment of Impact Fees would deter people from annexing. She understood the annual cost per resident for fire protection in a county island is $5,000. What portion of that cost do the residents pay? Councilmember Clark said the six areas east of 115th Avenue are all problematic and the Council will have to decide whether or not it wants to be aggressive in its attempts to encourage them to enter the city. She stated, should an area decide to move forward with annexation, the policy clearly says each area will be considered on an individual basis. She asked how much the residents' property taxes will increase when annexed into the city, offsetting any savings they might achieve in terms of fire protection. She said the city would provide eight basic services, pointing out sanitation, sewer and water are paid for by user fees. She stated the city already provides emergency services to county islands. She said libraries, parks and general government services are offset by property taxes, sales taxes and state shared revenues, to which residents annexed into the city would contribute. She reiterated her position Impact Fees would deter areas from annexing into the city. Councilmember Frate stated growth has to pay for itself and he would support Councilmember Lieberman's suggestion. He disagreed with Councilmember Clark's argument that Impact Fees would deter areas from annexing. Councilmember Martinez agreed an analysis should be done to determine what, if any, offsets exist. Mayor Scruggs suggested the Disclosure Statement also disclose the city's property tax rate, noting it currently totals $1.72 per $100 of assessed valuation per year. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the Impact Fees should only be charged on the primary residents, even though personal property tax will be assessed for barns, outbuildings and other structures located on the property. He agreed that, once established, water and sewer will pay for itself, stating, however, the city might have to run sewer or water to given streets. Mayor Scruggs asked if there are any private water companies east of 115th Avenue. Ms. Langford responded no, explaining the area is contained within the city's service area. She noted emergency response has always been formulated to 115 Avenue as well. Mayor Scruggs explained that services are calculated per 1,000 residents, therefore, services must increase for every 1,000 residents that enter the city. Councilmember Lieberman asked if existing water and sewer lines will be adequate or need to be enlarged. Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager Public Works, pointed out many areas do not have sewer lines and are on a septic system. He said the city will also need to construct additional water and sewer treatment capacity. He stated, therefore, a detailed evaluation will have to be conducted to verify each area's impact on the city's systems. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to: 1) proceed with the study suggested by 4 Councilmember Lieberman; 2) address Impact Fees in the Annexation Policy; and 3) reference Impact Fees, code compliance, the city's property tax rate and the Scallop Street program in the Disclosure Statement. Councilmember Clark asked if Impact Fees will be assessed. Mayor Scruggs said a majority of the Council has indicated they would like a reduced Impact fee assessed on newly annexed areas. Councilmember Clark asked if every member, except for herself, has indicated a consensus to assess an impact fee. Councilmember Lieberman said, given that a recently approved subdivision will pay more than $1.3 million in Impact Fees, it is only fair that a newly annexed area pay a fair and reasonable fee as well. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion the policy should state an Impact fee may be assessed, keeping the option open should staff's research support such a move. Mayor Scruggs stated she believes they will have to wait until the analysis has been completed before deciding if Impact Fees may or will be charged. She asked staff to return to Council after they have performed the analysis. The meeting recessed for a short break. 2. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer and Ms. Pilar Aguilar, Acting Budget Director. As part of the annual budget process, the City Council adopts a capital improvement budget consisting of improvements such as city buildings, streets, parks and water and sewer lines. The purpose of today's workshop is to discuss projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and to receive Council priorities for projects in the FY 2004- 2013 plan. Staff will also review the improvements made to the CIP process during the last year and discuss changes planned for the future. A Capital Improvement Division was incorporated within the Engineering Department to add an administrative/quality control function to the CIP budget process. This division assists each department in developing their project costs, schedules, and cash flow projections. A CIP Management Team was formed to insure that an accurate and complete list of projects is included in the overall plan. This team considers the feasibility of all the projects submitted in regard to their necessity, priority, how well they meet the Council's goals, and what their impact will be on the present and future operating budget. The CIP Division and Budget Department staff members have held several meetings with the CIP Management team over the past few months to discuss projects within the plan. The plan being presented is a result of these meetings and input from the CIP Management team members. 5 Throughout the CIP public hearing process, public notices will be posted in accordance with the open meeting laws and city policies. The total FY 2002-03 CIP budget is $350,181,009. The FY 2003-04 CIP budget is currently in development. The recommendation was to review the available capacity and priorities for CIP projects and provide staff direction. Mr. Ed Beasley explained staff looked at the CIP in a different way, considering the economics the city currently faces, expected growth patterns, service needs and possible business opportunities. He noted staff could return to Council in the future to discuss the possibility of privatizing certain areas. He stated no new money was added to the CIP and projects were assessed for their operating impact before being allowed to go forward. He pointed out the only new projects are those passed by the voters within the Transportation Plan. Mr. Tim Ernster explained the changes staff made to the CIP process, stating all project requests now go through the Engineering Department first to ensure consistency in cost calculations and are then sent to the Budget Office. He said the new process has resulted in improvements in the quality of information that is sent on to the Council. He stated, in response to the city's budget situation, the Pay-As-You-Go capital in the General Fund is being recommended for deferral for next fiscal year. He said projects have also been reassessed in terms of their operating impact and some were deferred. Mr. Larry Broyles described the process improvements made to this year's CIP. He explained a recommendation was made last year to add an administrative and quality control function to the Capital Improvement Budget process. He said that recommendation was accomplished by adding a Capital Improvement Division within the Engineering Department. He explained the division will direct the city's Capital Improvement Projects from scoping to consultant selection as well as design and construction. He said the division will assist departments in developing a preliminary budget, with supporting documentation for each project. He stated the division will review each budget to ensure all costs associated with a budget are accounted for. He reported a CIP Management Team was also formed to ensure an accurate and complete list of projects are included in the Capital program. He explained the team will review the policies and procedures of the capital process and recommend changes or improvements. He said they will evaluate the feasibility of all capital projects submitted with regard to their necessity, priority, how well they meet the Council goals, and their impact on present and future operating budgets. He stated the team makes the final recommendation as to the list of projects to be included in the 10-year Capital Improvement Program, which is then presented to the City's Management Team. He explained the CIP Management Team consists of the Assistant City Manager, the Deputies, Department Directors and their budget liaisons. He said a new project request form has been developed through a joint effort with the Budget, Engineering and Information Technology Departments. He stated the form is available to departments through the Intranet and allows them to input information electronically. He stated each department was required to resubmit costs for all projects in the 10-year Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Aguilar explained they used a zero-based approach and departments were asked to place emphasis on the operating impacts of each project. She said they identified 6 and assessed all funding options and departments were required to balance to existing funding sources. She said if a project was added to the program, another project had to be removed, therefore priority was given to projects in the first few years of the plan that had to be adjusted for additional money. She stated they worked closely with the Financial Department and the Financial Consultant. She noted a constitutional limit prohibits the city from issuing more debt than 6 percent of the assessed valuation for certain projects and 20 percent for other projects. She said they also need to ensure there is sufficient voter authorization to allow the city to proceed with projects in the plan. She stated the property tax limit affects how much can be put into the plan, noting the current rate equals $1.3652. She said they also made sure the Citizen Oversight Committees reviewed all of the projects under their responsibility. She stated they also need to ensure the city meets its revenue/bond debt coverage requirement. Ms. Aguilar reviewed the General Bond debt categories, stating Cultural/Historic, Economic Development, Government Facilities, Libraries, Public Safety, Streets/Parking and Transit are the only projects that fall within the six percent of assessed valuation category. She said Parks and Recreation, Open Space and Trails, Flood Control and Water and Sewer fall within the 20 percent of assessed valuation category. She explained moving, accelerating or increasing the cost of a six percent project requires that an adjustment be made to another project in the six percent category. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what is the city's assessed valuation. Ms. Aguilar stated the secondary assessed valuation, which is slightly higher than the primary assessed valuation, totals $1,080,016,547. Mr. Broyles pointed out six percent of the assessed valuation would total $64,800,993. Ms. Aguilar stated the FY 2002/03 growth rate of 3.64 percent was lowest the city has seen in a while. She said, however, based on new numbers, there is a 9.19 percent growth in secondary assessed valuation and 7.7 percent in the primary assessed valuation. She explained the assessed valuation takes into account increases in property values and new construction. She identified other financing mechanisms used for the Capital Plan, including Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Highway User Revenue Bonds, Enterprise Revenue Fund, Lease Revenue Financing, Development Impact Fees, Transportation Sales Tax, state loans, grants, and intergovernmental agreements. Ms. Aguilar reviewed the total 10-year plan, totaling $1.3 billion. She said FY 2003/04 totals $325 million, of which, $194 million is carryover and subject to change throughout the year. She noted $93 million of the carryover is for the arena project, $38 million is related to Water and Sewer and $15 million is for the Transportation Plan. Ms. Aguilar discussed the plan by funding source, pointing out the first five years total $602.9 million. She said the arena accounts for 15 percent of that amount and Development Impact Fees, GO Bonds and Water and Sewer comprise six percent, 14 percent and 31 percent, respectively. She stated HURF Bonds make up five percent and the Transportation Plan accounts for 23 percent of the total. In response to Councilmember Clark's request, Ms. Aguilar offered to provide a breakdown of the amounts for the current fiscal year. Councilmember Clark noted the arena actually consumes 28 percent of the CIP this coming fiscal year as opposed to the 15 percent it consumes over the first five years of the program. She pointed out other sectors were reduced a total of 30 percent to make room for the arena. Ms. Aguilar agreed, noting, however, the arena funding comes from MPC Bonds, not 7 General Obligation bonds. She said, therefore, there were no decreases in the six percent or 20 percent General Obligation Bond category projects to make room for the arena project. Councilmember Clark asked from what source are MPC bonds repaid. Mr. Lynch explained MPC bonds will be repaid through general excise taxes and arena project revenues. Councilmember Clark asked if the bonds have been structured in a manner that allows ancillary developments to be completed before repayment begins. Mr. Lynch pointed out the bonds have not yet been sold, stating, however, the sale will be structured to allow development to occur prior to repayment. In order to clarify the issue for citizens, Councilmember Clark suggested staff further explain in the information disseminated to the public that the arena is funded with MPC bonds and that a delay mechanism will be built into the sale of those bonds. Councilmember Lieberman agreed, pointing out more than $93 million in the Capital Improvement Plan will go into the arena's development, but will not effect the city's operating budget because it will be funded with MPC bonds. He asked if the $28 million in the first five years will drop significantly by next year. Mr. Lynch responded yes, clarifying that the $28 million in General Obligation Bonds were for infrastructure projects the city knew it would have to do anyway. He said those bonds have already been sold and a lot of the construction and improvements have been started or are already in place. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to find a way to present the information so that it is clear to everyone that the arena is not preventing the city from doing other projects. Councilmember Clark asked that they also clarify that projects being delayed are not being delayed as a result of the 28 percent going to the arena, but as a direct result of the economy. Ms. Aguilar stated the Tentative Budget document will provide a full disclosure of information regarding the arena, its funding source and how it does not effect the city's General Obligation. Ms. Aguilar reviewed bond sales planned for the first five years of the plan in both the six and 20 percent categories. She noted the six percent category is down to $9.5 million in remaining capacity, while $138 million of the 20 percent category's $216 million remains. She said they have ensured all of the bond sales and projects fall within the remaining capacity and that the city is in no danger of exceeding its limits. Ms. Aguilar pointed out the Debt Service Fund balance, which has to be sufficient to meet debt service payments, will be drawn down to within $1,000 in the fourth year. She expressed her opinion that Mr. Lynch would likely change the amortization on the loans or modify the terms to ensure the balance is significantly higher. Airport Proiects Councilmember Clark asked if the airport projects reflect their true costs, including money spent prior to FY 2003/04. Mr. Broyles stated the project totals reflect the carryover for the current five year program, not the total cost of the projects. Councilmember Lieberman asked where is the land located that the city has identified for purchase. Mr. Ripley stated the city is not purchasing land, explaining it is a state grant for a navigation easement north of the airport and a pavement preservation project. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the item description is misleading. Mr. Ernster assured Councilmember Lieberman they will correct the description. 8 Grants and Other Capital Projects Mr. Broyles reported the Grants and Other Projects category totals $9.7 million for the first five years with $5.6 million in projects during the next fiscal year. He explained Arts Commission projects promote the creative use of art in public places, with one percent of every public construction project set aside for the purchase of artwork. He noted the Housing Capital project anticipates receiving $720,000 in Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Grants. He stated the Catlin Court Alley. Beautification Project will provide for the undergrounding of power lines, installation of pedestrian lights and landscaping and seating walls throughout the Catlin Court area. Councilmember Clark referred to the Skunk Creek Bike and Pedestrian project, pointing out last year's budget allocated $45,000 in FY 04/05. She asked why the project has been increased to $47,000 and moved up to FY 03/04. Mr. Ernster stated, because departments were told to recalculate the costs of each project, there will be minor differences in the numbers between last year's and this year's budgets. Mr. Johnson explained it takes a long time to get through the ADOT process, therefore, the project was moved into FY 03/04 so that they can start the engineering right away. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the 9584 Catlin Court Alley Beautification project could be deferred until FY 05/06 or 06/07 if the funds were needed elsewhere. Mr. Broyles explained the project is being funded primarily through a federal transportation grant. Councilmember Lieberman suggested staff identify items funded with federal grants in next year's documentation. He asked where does the $2,108,000 for the Arts Commission come from. Mr. Lynch stated the Art Commission receives one percent of the capital projects being built in the city, therefore, as major projects, such as the arena are built, funding to the Arts Commission increases. Mr. Zapata clarified that staff anticipates the $1.8 million derived from construction of the arena will go toward arts projects at the arena itself. Councilmember Martinez asked if the water feature will be paid for out of the $1.8 million. Mr. Beasley stated, while the $1.8 could provide some seed money for the water feature, they are looking into partnership possibilities and revenue generating opportunities. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the CIP includes $2 million for the water feature. Mr. Broyles clarified the $2 million item in the CIP is for construction of the lake, not the water feature. Councilmember Goulet stated he would not support deferring the Catlin Court project, expressing his opinion the city needs to maintain its vigilance in improving the downtown area. Cultural/Historic Projects Mr. Broyles stated this category does not have any funding in the first five years, but has $13.2 million in the second five years. He said Cultural Arts is estimated at $13.2 million for the construction of a Performing Arts Center and the acquisition, restoration and resale of historic properties to act as a catalyst for historic preservation. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Smith clarified the bonding authority was for the acquisition and restoration of historic places, not for their resale. 9 Economic Development Mr. Broyles stated the Economic Development category has $941,133 in carryover for next fiscal year. He said $481,133 is allocated to land acquisition to promote quality development and redevelopment in the city. He stated $260,000 has been slated for economic development infrastructure funding to be used for improvements. Councilmember Goulet asked if funds could be transferred from Project 9600 if an opportunity arose to purchase land downtown. Mr. Colson responded yes. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Project 9600 could be delayed for a couple years to free that $500,000 up for other vital services. Mr. Lynch explained the $500,000 is General Obligation bond money issued for a specific purpose and for a specific project. He noted the IRS imposes a time limit on spending the funds. Councilmember Clark asked if they are approaching the time limit regarding the carryover on Project 9606. Mr. Lynch said there are plans to use the money before the time limit expires at the end of June. Councilmember Clark asked if any of the 481 or 460 funds could go toward land acquisition for the City Court. Mr. Lynch explained it is best to adhere to the purposes and general projects set forth when the bonds were sold. He said, if the city had not stated a purpose when selling the project, the funds could be used to acquire land for the city court. Councilmember Clark asked if Council has been made aware of the specific projects for which the bonds were sold. Mr. Colson stated they are finalizing the plans for the use of those funds and will bring the item back to Council in Executive Session. Flood Control Mr. Broyles stated Flood Control has just over $17 million in the first five years, including the Bethany Home Outfall Channel project, a joint Flood Control project with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and City of Phoenix. He explained the collector drains and local drainage projects provide funding for the maintenance and repair of storm drains and to resolve small drainage problems. He said the total shown for next year includes carryover money. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what is the city's share of the Bethany Home Outfall Channel. Mr. Broyles said 50 percent of the funding comes from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, while the City of Phoenix and the City of Glendale will contribute 25 percent of the funding each. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the amount referenced reflects the total amount spent. Mr. Broyles responded no, explaining money was spent on the project's design during the last fiscal year. Councilmember Martinez referenced an incident where a young boy almost drowned at Skunk Creek, asking if there is any way to cover the pipes to prevent a similar incident from occurring. Mr. Broyles said grates can be placed over the inlets to the culverts. Chief Burdett explained a grate would block debris and prevent it from draining appropriately. He said the bottom line is that the 13 year old boy was somewhere he did not belong. Mayor Scruggs noted blocked drains in Arrowhead Ranch caused water to flood a number of homes in 1990 or 1991. Government Facilities Mr. Broyles reported the Government Facilities category has $18.2 million in the first five years, with $12.9 million in the next fiscal year. He said the totals include funds 10 from the General Government Development Impact Fees and the Government Facilities Bonds. He stated the Field Operations Center includes the construction of a new equipment maintenance facility, a new warehouse and tenant improvements to the existing space. He explained funding is provided by the Government Facilities bonds. He stated $2.8 million has been earmarked in the General Government DIF Funds and Government Impact Fees for the purchase of land for a new municipal court building. Mayor Scruggs asked how the Council can participate in selecting the site or at least the general area where the city court will be located. Mr. Beasley explained staff will identify vacant parcels that meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court and bring them forward for Council's consideration and direction. Mayor Scruggs asked if Council could suggest areas for consideration. Mr. Beasley responded yes. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Aguilar explained Development Impact Fees are collected with each permit and can be used to fund the expansion of Government Facilities. Councilmember Lieberman noted the Impact Fees are not zoned and can be used in any area of the city. Ms. Aguilar agreed. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out Project 8566 does not mention the purchase of any land for the building, adding he would like to see the project accelerated three or four years. Mr. Ernster reminded Councilmember Lieberman accelerating one project would delay another. Mr. Lynch explained bonds that have already been sold cannot be moved back. Councilmember Lieberman suggested Council and staff discuss possible substitutions at a later date, expressing his opinion City Hall desperately needs to be expanded. Mayor Scruggs stated she does not see $10 million in General Obligation bonds in FY 05/06 that could be used to accelerate the City Hall building project. Mr. Ernster said departments were directed to work with the same dollars as last year, therefore, a number of projects could not be submitted. Mayor Scruggs suggested staff research the issue and inform the Council of the viability of Councilmember Lieberman's suggestion in a memo. Councilmember Lieberman suggested the cost be scheduled out over a number of years. Councilmember Clark said, while she does not necessarily believe the building should be accelerated, she would like to see the land acquisition accelerated. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the project does not include money for land acquisition. She asked Mr. Lynch if money could be found to purchase land in FY 05/06 for a future City Hall building and, if so, what other projects would not happen as a result. Mr. Lynch said the cost of acquiring land would have to be financed in a manner that would push other projects out of the plan. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. Lynch confirmed land can be acquired with General Obligation bonds. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to compile a list of all General Obligation bond uses for FY 2005/06 to determine if funds could be redirected toward the acquisition of land for a City Hall building. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he does not see a desperate need for a City Hall building within the next five years. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the number of employees has increased from 861 to 1,800 over the past twelve years. He said the city will need another 400 to 500 employees if the city continues to grow at the current rate. 11 Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion there would be no harm in determining if funds could be made available. Mayor Scruggs asked if the CIP would come back to Council to give people whose projects might be moved an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Ernster stated they will reschedule the item for a workshop. Library Mr. Broyles stated the Library category has $11.3 million in the first five years, with $1.2 million for the next fiscal year. He explained totals include funds from Library Bonds and Development Impact Fees. He said the West Branch Library uses Development Impact Fees through FY 2005/06 for the design, construction and purchase of books for a new branch library. He stated Development Impact Fees are also used for the purchase of new library books at branch libraries, allowing them to keep pace with projected population growth. He said the Foothills Branch Library has $251,993 available in Library Bond carryover funds for the purchase of new books. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if everything in the Western Branch Library was paid for by Development Impact Fees. Ms. Aguilar explained, because Development Impact Fees may not be sufficient to cover the construction and purchase of all the books, they are planning on issuing bonds and using Impact Fees to retire the debt. Councilmember Goulet pointed out the new Velma Teague Library has not been assigned a project number and asked if one will be assigned. Mr. Ernster noted a number of projects have not been assigned project numbers, explaining numbers will be assigned once staff is given final direction on the CIP. Ms. Aguilar stated they will have to come up with a new numbering system because they are running short of project numbers within the city's financial system. Councilmember Clark noted some of the projects have been on the books for two years and still have not been assigned a project number. She clarified that, due to budget constraints, the West Branch Library, originally scheduled to begin construction in FY 2004, has been postponed to FY 2005/06. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city overestimated the amount of residential development in the western area, resulting in a shortage of Library bonds. Mr. Lynch agreed there is a shortage of Library bonds, noting they intend to leverage all bond fund sources with other funding sources as they became available to make bond dollars go further. Open Space and Trails Mr. Broyles stated the Open Space and Trails category enables the city to acquire land for the preservation of open space and construct multi-use trails and linear parks. He reported the category has $1.7 million for the first five years, consisting of carry over funds for completion of the Grand Canal Linear Park in conjunction with the Flood Control Bethany Home Outfall project. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what falls under Open Space and Trails. Mr. Smith explained most of the parks and other open space, including citywide trail systems, have been moved into Open Space and Trails. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the funds could be used to purchase county property for conversion into open space. Mr. Lynch said fairly broad categories were approved by the voters, therefore, the funds 12 could be used for any park type application. He noted the property would have to be a public amenity within the boundaries of the city. Councilmember Martinez suggested Vice Mayor Eggleston's question be forwarded to Mr. Flaaen for his opinion. Councilmember Goulet asked if the boulevard enhancements referenced in Project 9609 - Downtown Greenbelt are contradictory to a greenbelt. He expressed his opinion the funding for the boulevard enhancements should be re-designated to the Downtown Pedestrian Circulation project or the Old Roma Alleyway. Mr. Ernster stated the Downtown Greenbelt Project was part of the 1999 bond election, explaining the vision was for a greenbelt that meandered through the downtown area. He agreed the project included some improvements to streets. He stated Transportation staff is working closely with Economic Development staff to determine if the Greenbelt Project and Downtown Circulation Project can be combined. The meeting recessed for a short break. Parks and Recreation Mr. Broyles explained the Parks and Recreation category is funded with a combination of Park General Obligation Funds and Development Impact Fees. He reported $39 million is budgeted in the first five years, with $24.6 million in the next fiscal year. He stated the Park Redevelopment Project provides for the renovation of five older parks per year over the next ten years. He said the Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center Project will construct a recreation center with an adjoining aquatics center and the Rose Lane Pool construction project consists of the renovation of the existing Rose Lane Pool into an aquatics facility with a zero depth recreational pool, a lap and fitness pool and an eight lane competitive pool. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Warren Smith what Project 8505 — Murphy Park Improvements entails. Mr. Smith stated the consultant has completed final adjustments to the plan, which includes the widening of several paths to enhance its ability to handle large crowds. He said conceptual plans should be brought before Council within the next month. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the improvements will tie in with those planned for Catlin Court. Mr. Smith responded no, explaining the improvements will be contained within the Murphy Park area. He said, however, the consultant is familiar with Catlin Court and is in tune with the Center City Master Plan. Councilmember Lieberman noted a lot of construction is scheduled for FY 2003/04 and 2004/05, while very little is scheduled for FY 2005/06, 2006/07, or 2007/08. He asked if the city will be paying for the projects during the off years. Mr. Lynch answered yes. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the funds for those years are already allocated. Mr. Lynch responded yes. Mayor Scruggs referred to Projects 8924 and 8028, asking if they are both the same project. Mr. Smith stated the descriptions are wrong, clarifying Project 8924 is the BMX track and 8028 is the 40 acre soccer complex. Mayor Scruggs asked why Projects 8964 and 8929 do not list operating impacts. Mr. Smith confirmed both projects will have operating impacts. Mr. Ernster will make the necessary corrections. Mayor Scruggs suggested they look at privatizing the Foothills Aquatic's Center given its unique features and the cost of staffing the center. Mr. Beasley confirmed staff has started looking into privatization, stating they will return to Council prior to the budget process to discuss this and other potential business opportunities. Mayor Scruggs noted Park Enhancements and Renovations makes no mention of operating impacts. Mr. Smith explained they hope the operating impact will actually decrease as a result of 13 the improvements. Councilmember Martinez asked if any other cities have privatized or considered privatizing their multi-generational centers. Mr. Smith said Tempe and the Tempe Boys and Girls Club jointly operate their facility. Councilmember Goulet asked about the possibility of adding a dog park, noting a number of people have voiced interest in having one. Mr. Smith said they hope to be able to keep the Heritage Fund Grant and will research the feasibility of a dog park once the planning process starts. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Smith explained the state could take back the Heritage Fund grant money previously awarded. Councilmember Frate noted the YMCA operates a lot of aquatic centers in the east. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the lack of water in the retention area at 63rd Avenue and Northern during last week's storm, asking if there was a problem with the water flow. Mr. Broyles explained the drainage basin that Councilmember Lieberman referred to has an outfall. He said rising water will only occur when water flows exceed the outfall's capacity. Councilmember Lieberman said residents are being chased out of the park. He asked if it is available for use. Mr. Smith stated the park has not yet been developed, however, some individuals have used the area to fly model planes. He said the park is not signed, noting the city has not yet received the deed from the Flood Control District. Councilmember Clark asked if any other parks that rely on Heritage Fund Grant monies as a revenue source will be affected. Mr. Smith said the 71st Avenue pedestrian grid, the bicycle pathway and Manistee Ranch were the only grants awarded this year. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Smith said they are proposing combining Projects 8509 and 8945 into a new project called Foothills Recreation Aquatics Center. He stated the carryover money for both projects, $3.5 million in new money this year and $2 million in new money next year results in a combined total of $14 million. He said it will be nine months before they bring the architect's plan and cost estimates back for Council's consideration. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned whether the $2 million per year includes the operational cost of the aquatics center. He agreed the city should consider privatizing the operation of the center. He asked if the operating costs would occur in FY 04/05. Mr. Smith responded no. Ms. Kavanaugh clarified Council directed staff to bring the entire project back, at which time Council will consider the operating costs and fee recovery for each component and decide when each component should be constructed. Councilmember Martinez pointed out the project has been in the CIP for a long time and is very important to residents in the north and north-central parts of the city. Mr. Smith confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the actual operating impact would not be seen until FY 2005/06. Mr. Broyles asked if there is Council direction to combine the projects into one. Mr. Ernster explained Council authorization is required to move the remaining funds in two of the projects into the new account. Councilmember Lieberman agreed it would be easier to track the projects if they were 14 combined into one. Councilmember Clark asked if the Glendale Elementary School District is still interested in purchasing the property west of the Brown property subdivision. Mr. Smith reported the land has been acquired, however, they will not build a school for another two years. He said they also entered into an agreement with Shelly LLC to do offsite improvements. He noted the project is listed in the out-years as Project 8928. Mayor Scruggs pointed out Projects 8957 and 8913 do not have any funding in either the first or second five years. Mr. Smith clarified Project 8957 will not be done and should be removed from the CIP. He said Project 8913 had to be moved back and, while they want to keep the project in the plan, funding is not available at this time. Mayor Scruggs suggested staff look at what can be done to fund the project. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to modify the information to include the project description, project status, percent complete and amount expended to date. She also asked staff to clarify the source of funding. Councilmember Clark asked to have the city match on grants and true project costs identified. Mr. Ernster stated they will attempt to incorporate as many of Council's suggestions as possible this year. Councilmember Lieberman suggested the page number for each project be referenced as well. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. 15