Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/4/2003 * 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 March 4, 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 ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUD FEDERAL GRANTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Gloria Santiago, Community Housing & Revitalization Director, Mr. Gilbert Lopez, Revitalization Manager, Mr. John Turbridy, Community Development Advisory Committee Chairman and Ms. Sue Ferrell, Community Development Advisory Committee Vice Chair. This is a request for City Council to review the Community Development Advisory Committee's (CDAC) funding recommendation and to provide direction. The CDAC recently concluded an extensive public participation process for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). During a City Council Workshop on September 3, 2002, CDBG and HOME funding priorities for FY 2003-2004 were discussed with John Turbridy, CDAC Chairman. The Council requested that CDAC consider funding housing-related programs; projects for the removal of blight; essential services such as domestic violence assistance, employment services, and homelessness prevention; and programs for seniors and youth. The CDAC received 36 applications for CDBG funds and three applications for HOME funds, and have made funding recommendations for the City Council's review. CDBG CDBG funds are to be used for activities that meet one of the three national objectives: to benefit low- and moderate-income individuals, to eliminate slum and blight, and/or 1 activities that address an urgent community need. For FY 2003-2004, the city will receive between $1.9 and $2.6 million of CDBG funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The exact amount of funding will not be known until later this spring. In addition, $198,000 in unspent CDBG funds from activities completed in prior years will be available to fund Physical Improvement Activities. The CDAC formulated their funding recommendations on the anticipated CDBG funding entitlement of $1.9 million. The committee also formulated additional recommendations, based on the potential increase in funding. Fifteen percent of the FY 2003-2004 CDBG entitlement will be distributed to agencies for Public Service Activities and 32% will be distributed to agencies for Physical Improvement Activities. Thirty-five percent of the entitlement will be utilized for housing rehabilitation programs provided by the Community Revitalization Division. These programs include the Single- Family Housing Rehabilitation Program, Roof Repair/Replacement Program, Exterior Improvement Program, Voluntary Demolition Program, and related lead-based paint testing and hazard reduction activities. Eighteen percent of the entitlement will be utilized for program administration, in order to comply with all related CDBG program federal regulations. The following table provides a summary of the CDBG requests: Public Service Physical Improvement Activities Activities Number of Applications 25* 11 Total Amount of Funding Requests $569,266.00 $1,812,979.39 * 26 public service requests were received, but one applicant withdrew their application. HOME HOME funds are to be used for activities that will expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing. Maricopa County is the lead agency of the Consortium, which is comprised of the county and all the Valley's cities, with the exception of Phoenix. The purpose of the consortium is to oversee the administration and distribution of HOME funds. For FY 2003-2004, the city will receive between $500,000 and $750,000 of HOME funds from the Maricopa HOME Consortium. The exact amount of funding will not be known until later this spring. The CDAC formulated their funding recommendations on the anticipated HOME funding allocation of $500,000. The committee also formulated additional recommendations, based on the potential increase in funding. Of the HOME allocation, a minimum of $230,000 will be distributed to agencies for 2 housing-related activities. The Replacement Housing Program provided by the Community Revitalization Division will utilize $240,000 of the HOME allocation. Under this program, single-family homes that are beyond repair are demolished and a new single-family home is constructed in its place. Six percent of the HOME allocation will be utilized for program administration, in order to comply with all related HOME program federal regulations. The following table provides a summary of the HOME requests. Number of Applications 3 Total Amount of Funding Requests $550,000.00 Since Fiscal Year 1977-1978, the City of Glendale has received over $34,990,000 in CDBG funds. In addition, since 1992, the city has received over $5,605,904 in HOME funds. These funds have supported numerous activities that have benefited thousands of residents. The Community Revitalization Division staff met with grant applicants on September 20, 2002, to discuss the Council priorities, application process and evaluation criteria. Applicants were also informed of enhancements made to the process including an emphasis on project readiness, expedient use of federal funds, and financial viability of the organization. Agencies were also informed that prior performance with the federal funding would be used by the CDAC as part of the evaluation process. On December 11, 2002, the Committee received the grant applications for their review, keeping in mind Council's direction. At this meeting, the CDAC also recommended that CDBG and HOME funds be reserved for the city's housing programs and demolition activities. On January 8, 9, and 15, 2003, the CDAC held public hearings to receive verbal presentations by both CDBG and HOME applicants. On January 22, 2003, the CDAC met to formulate their recommendations for Council review. On September 6, 2002, notices of the upcoming grant cycle and orientation meeting were mailed to prospective CDBG and HOME applicants. In addition, a public notice was published in The Glendale Star on September 5, 2002, notifying interested parties of the availability of funds and the orientation meeting. On December 26, 2002 and January 2, 2003, public notices were published in The Glendale Star advertising the public hearings. CDBG and HOME programs are federally funded. The HOME program requires a 25% match from non-federal funds. For those HOME projects that are administered by the City, an annual match allocation of $25,000 is provided in the General Fund budget as a supplement for meeting the required 25% match. Outside agencies that apply for 3 HOME funds are required to provide their own match funds. The CDBG program does not have a match requirement. The recommendation was to review the funding recommendations from the Community Development Advisory Committee and provide direction. Councilmember Martinez stated his concern that nothing was recommended for the Maricopa County Human Services Department, Special Transportation Services. He said he personally knows people who have used those services in past years. Mr. Turbridy stated the committee was charged with making very difficult decisions, noting Special Transportation Services was listed as an alternative should federal funding be increased. Councilmember Martinez asked if any other program provides similar transportation services. Ms. Santiago said the city refers residents to the local Dial-A- Ride Services. Councilmember Goulet asked how the Committee ranked the alternative funding sources, pointing out the first alternative, Community Legal Services, was not a Council objective. Mr. Turbridy explained the Committee asked its members for a recommendation, which was then discussed and voted on by the Committee as a whole. He said the methodology used to decide the alternatives was not as precise as that used to determine funding. Mayor Scruggs said the biggest hurdle women who are victims of physical abuse face is their lack of access to the legal system. She stated, therefore, she believes Community Legal Services does fit within Council's objective to focus on domestic violence assistance. Ms. Santiago stated one of the factors considered when deciding on alternatives was whether the program was duplicated elsewhere. She said Community Legal Services is the only program of its kind in Glendale. She noted Legal Services will use the money to reestablish their office in Glendale. Councilmember Frate pointed out funding is based on need, not whether or not a program received funding in the past. He commended the Committee for following Council's direction and basing their decision on how many people the programs help and what kind of impact they have on the city. Councilmember Clark asked who established the percentage designated for physical improvements and public service requests. Mr. Lopez stated the formula was mandated by HUD. Councilmember Clark asked if CDBG and Home Funding account for $.9 million of the $1.9 million in total funding. Mr. Lopez explained the percentage will depend on the amount of Home funding that comes through the Maricopa County Consortium. Councilmember Martinez asked why the Westside Food Bank was listed as an alternative for $5,000, pointing out their request for $10,000 was approved. Mr. Turbridy explained the Westside Food Bank serves people who are experiencing temporary financial difficulties, allowing them to use the money they have to pay rent 4 and for other essential services. Ms. Santiago pointed out the Westside Food Bank also supplies food to many non-profit agencies. Councilmember Martinez asked about the additional reserve for Community Revitalization Division, Housing Related Activities. Mr. Lopez explained, if funding is increased to the full $2.6 million, a percentage of the increase would be directed toward Housing Related Activities. Councilmember Clark asked how the Committee came to its decision with regard to where additional funding should be directed. Mr. Turbridy explained the Committee looked at all of the projects and felt some were more deserving than others. Councilmember Clark asked if the Westside Food Bank will have to make out another application if it is granted the additional $5,000 since it was not part of their original request. Ms. Santiago said they would be asked to submit a revised budget once they sign the contract. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if it is almost certain the city will receive additional funding. Mr. Lopez said the Committee had to anticipate the possibility of cuts, however, it appears additional funds will be available. Ms. Santiago stated they will bring the item to a regular City Council meeting in April. 2. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernester, Deputy City Manager, Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer and Ms. Gloria Olaya, Senior Management Assistant. 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. Public Safety Mr. Broyles stated Public Safety projects are funded by a combination of Public Safety and General Obligation Bonds and Development Impact Fees. He stated $16.4 million is scheduled for the next five years, with $6.8 million scheduled in the next fiscal year. He listed the Police Department's digital communication system, the public safety multi- use facility and the Western Area Public Safety Building as representative projects in this category. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Chief Henderlite said the digital communication system will allow Glendale to communicate with other cities' Police and Fire Departments. Councilmember Clark asked if the money budgeted for the Public Safety Multi-Use Facility both this year and next is strictly for land acquisition. Chief Henderlite said the money in the first year is, however, the money in the second year is slated for a shooting range and driving track. Councilmember Clark asked if there is any operating and maintenance cost associated with the shooting range and driving track. Chief Henderlite responded no. Chief Henderlite confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that they would not have to purchase any maintenance contracts with regard to the digital communication system. He said they do not anticipate any increases in operations or maintenance on the system for at least five years. Transportation Mr. Broyles explained Transportation includes several funding sources, including Street Revenue Bonds, General Obligations Bonds, Highway User Revenue Funds, Development Impact Fees and the half-cent Transportation Sales Tax. He said the first five years total almost $189 million, with $58.4 million scheduled for next year. He listed a park and ride lot near the Loop 101, intersection improvement projects, Bethany Home Road improvements, bus pullout projects and the Smart Traffic Signals project as representative projects in this category. Councilmember Clark asked if the projects that were funded by grants last year continue to be funded under grants this year. Mr. Book responded yes, stating grant amounts will be indicated in the final CIP. Mr. Ernster noted the form will be modified in the future to separate grant funds. Councilmember Clark asked why the street widening project on 75th Avenue from Deer Valley to Hillcrest ended up under the Transportation Sales Tax funding source, expressing her opinion it should have been brought in under the Scallop Streets program. Mr. Johnson explained they looked at the CIP that was in place at the time to determine which projects in FY 2006-2010 could 6 be advanced and funded using the Transportation Sales Tax. Councilmember Clark asked if other unfunded projects could be moved forward as well. Mr. Book stated they have a balanced program and have funded those projects that were promised. He said, given the reduction in sales tax revenue projections, adding additional projects would be done so at the expense of already committed to projects. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the project went through the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission process. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the Bethany Home, 91St to 99th Avenues street construction project. Mr. Book explained the project did not have funding in the six to ten year time frame and was brought forward. Councilmember Goulet asked if a decision has been made with regard to left turn signals on a citywide basis. He also asked what criteria does the city use to determine where left turn signals should be located. Mr. Book stated a Capital Improvement funding program was done two years ago to install the backbone of the Smart Traffic Signal system. He stated they are currently addressing the gaps in the system that were identified at that time. He reported they are conducting a lag left study from Greenway Road to Northern Avenue on 67 Avenue. He said the test manager believes lag left signals allow through-traffic to progress more efficiently. He stated it has been proven that increased safety is achieved when a protective rather than permissive lag left signal system is utilized. With regard to the criteria used to determine the need for a left turn signal, Mr. Book stated they consider many factors, including an intersection's accident record and delays. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Book if there is a list of lights the city intends to retrofit with left turn signals. Mr. Book responded yes, noting, however, the number of modifications done each year has been reduced to two because of budget constraints. Mr. Book confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that, as part of the Development Agreement, Wal-Mart was required to install a conduit that connects the 83` and Union Hills intersection, the Wal-Mart signal, both signal ramps at the Loop 101 and the 79th Avenue signal. He said, as part of a Congestion Management Air Quality Grant, the city has a program that will connect all of the Loop 101 intersections, bringing them into the traffic management center. He said, while they would like to proceed with the program as soon as possible, there are a series of steps that have to be taken to obtain federal approval. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for a future presentation concerning the pros and cons of lead and lag left turn light systems. Mr. Book said he would bring,that information to Council in the future. He pointed out the lead protected cycle at 51't Avenue and Olive improved that intersection dramatically. Mayor Scruggs noted an informal survey of the Glendale Kiwanis group indicated their support of a lag-left system. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Book reported Scottsdale and Tucson have both utilized a lag-left system for a number of years. Councilmember Frate asked staff to look into the traffic backup during evening hours on 59" Avenue at Greenway. Landfill Sanitation 7 Mr. Broyles reported the Landfill Sanitation category includes $1.9 million in the Landfill fund and $4.4 million in the Sanitation fund for a total of $6.3 million in the first five years. He said the Sanitation Fund has funding in the amount of $538,610 for next fiscal year. He identified the Sanitation Replacement Trucks Program as the representative project. Councilmember Clark asked when they would move Sanitation vehicles into the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Mr. Reedy said, given the lifespan of the sanitation vehicles, acquiring them through a lease/purchase process actually provides more benefit to the city. Councilmember Clark asked how much does a side loader refuse truck cost. Mr. Reedy said one side loader truck costs approximately $130,000 to $185,000. He said front loader trucks are slightly less expensive. Water and Sewer Mr. Broyles stated the Water and Sewer category totals almost $181 million the first five years, with $103 million scheduled for next fiscal year. He said the current five year plan is a balanced plan and will not effect current rates. He identified additional water capacity, the 91st Avenue construction project, the West Area Water Reclamation Facility expansion project and the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant as representative projects. Councilmember Frate commented that water is becoming very expensive. Mr. Reedy agreed, noting increased regulatory requirements are a main factor in the cost increase. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the $1.1 million set aside for Project 9213. Mr. Reedy explained a small membrane process was put into the Cholla Water Treatment Plant as a pilot program. He said, while the pilot program was successful, the data indicated the process was not necessarily the most cost effective way to expand water treatment capacity. He said the fund still has money, in part, because of an ongoing lawsuit with the contractor. Vice Mayor Eggleston also asked about the additional water capacity for Project 8056. Mr. Reedy said the city at one time contemplated expanding the capacity of the Cholla Water Treatment Plant to provide service to undeveloped parts of western Glendale. He said a consultant has since done a Water Resources Master Plan and Feasibility Analysis and recommended a Western Area Water Treatment Plant. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Project 9286 requires any construction on the site. Mr. Reedy said, while some construction is necessary to meet regulatory requirements, it will not be as much as originally anticipated. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Mr. Reedy said regulatory requirements are stricter due, in part, to a dramatically improved ability to measure constituents. He noted the city's water supply is tested a number of times every day, whereas bottled water only has to meet Food and Drug regulations. Councilmember Martinez asked about the $1 million for Project 9286. Mr. Reedy explained the $1 million will be used to purchase replacement filters and new carbon, thereby allowing the city to meet regulatory requirements. Councilmember Goulet asked about the Downtown Irrigation System project. Mr. Reedy explained the project repairs the city owned flood irrigation system in the downtown area on an as needed basis. He noted the system has been abandoned in a couple neighborhoods and it is hoped that, eventually, the entire system will be abandoned. He stated they average $80,000 to $90,000 per year in repairs. Councilmember Goulet asked what it would take for the city to decide to abandon the 8 system. Mr. Reedy stated the city needs to establish a policy that prevents property owners from returning to the system once they elect to stop taking service. Mayor Scruggs pointed out approximately 500 properties were on the system 10 or 12 years ago. Mr. Reedy reported 430 properties are currently on the system. Mayor Scruggs asked if staff will bring the issue forward to Council in the future. Mr. Reedy responded yes. Councilmember Clark asked, to what extent does the Fire Hydrant Replacement project address the problem of out-dated hydrants that do not meet regulations. Mr. Reedy explained the goal of the project is to replace obsolete fire hydrants for which repair kits cannot be purchased. He estimated there to be 1,100 obsolete, although functional, fire hydrants in the system. He said they intend to replace approximately 200 of the hydrants each of the five years. He confirmed the city has an annual maintenance program for all fire hydrants. General Fund Mr. Broyles stated the General Fund category accounts for miscellaneous major capital projects and totals $10.3 million in the first five years, of which $3.2 million is programmed in next year's budget. He explained the Hickman Property Acquisition project provides funding to complete the purchase of the Hickman Ranch south of Northern Avenue. Mr. Lynch explained a specific purchase structure was set forth as part of the sale of the property. He said the restructuring allows the city to ensure the General Fund pays a proportionate, systematic payment rather than irregular payments. Mayor Scruggs asked about the Sensory Garden item. Mr. Smith explained the funds are for on-going maintenance. With regard to Projects 8983 and 8984, Councilmember Clark asked what would happen in the event of a major crisis. Mr. Kent explained there are two reserves, one that performs an emergency function and a second for scheduled building maintenance projects. He said they will be very judicious in how they use the $200,000 identified for projects and will look through the Facilities Management budget and work with Budget staff to find additional funds if necessary. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he would like to see the Civic Center lighting project accelerated, stating it will be difficult to market the center for outside evening events without outside lighting. Mr. Zapata clarified the project refers to internal lighting. Ms. Hamilton noted temporary outside lighting has been brought in and can be put in place for evening outdoor events. Councilmember Martinez asked about the zero balance for project costs on Project 8968-Neighborhood Improvement Grants. Mr. Strunk confirmed there is no money in the Grants Funds for FY 03/04. Mr. Strunk confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that there would be no operating or maintenance costs for Neighborhood Grants. Councilmember Clark said she would like to see at least a portion of any additional money found in the budget directed toward Neighborhood Improvement Grants, stating the program delivers a direct impact, especially to older neighborhoods. Councilmember Goulet agreed, suggesting they look for alternative funding sources. 9 He pointed out a number of neighborhoods were encouraged to do improvements in phases and are counting on future grants to proceed with subsequent phases. Mr. Beasley agreed it has been a fantastic project, stating, however, they are being challenged to provide that element of service in different ways. Mayor Scruggs stated she would be reluctant to move money into the grants until it is clear where the money would come from and what effect it would have on other programs. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested they wait and see where the city is in a year before making any decisions. Councilmember Clark said she would like staff to find resources to at least accommodate those neighborhoods who were led to believe funding would be available for subsequent phases of their project. She said, however, she would not be opposed to reviewing the program as a whole. Mr. Beasley reported Council will have the proposed budget by March 8 or 9. Councilmember Martinez asked if it is staff's recommendation to zero out the Neighborhood Grants program rather than modifying it into two smaller cycles. Mr. Strunk responded yes. 3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Duffy, Intergovernmental Relations Director and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Intergovernmental Relations Assistant. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Intergovernmental staff will discuss the most significant bills and their current status. This is the third legislative update for 2003. On January 21, 2003, the Glendale City Council adopted a legislative program that reflected an updated version of the 2002 legislative program and is consistent with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns' 2003 legislative agenda. Departmental legislative liaisons are being notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of city administration and are being asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations Department. Intergovernmental staff will highlight those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. For information, discussion and possible direction on legislative issues. Ms. Rudibaugh said JLBC reported no particular improvement in the economy in February and that the economy is on target with their predictions. She said sales tax collections were up for January, however, individual income taxes are down 8.6 percent compared to January of last year. She stated there appears to be an agreement between the Legislature and the Governor with respect to the FY 03 budget proposal, 10 explaining they are looking at a $300 million plan with an additional $29 million contingency. She explained $100 million will come out of a deficiency collection shortfall, $60 million will come from the Ladewig Settlement, $50 million will be generated through an asset sale to the State Compensation Fund, and $63 million in fund transfers. Mayor Scruggs asked how the money in the State Compensation Fund would be used if they were not using it to purchase buildings. Ms. Rudibaugh explained businesses are required to self-insure or have worker's compensation to protect themselves and their employees. She stated the Legislature is proposing that a portion of the fund be used to purchase state buildings, thereby putting more money into the General Fund. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Legislature intends to replace the money in the future. Mr. Paladini explained the State will sell the buildings to the State Compensation Fund and then lease them back from the fund. Ms. Rudibaugh said the State Compensation Fund will purchase the buildings as an investment, pointing out they hope the buildings will appreciate in value. In response to Councilmember Clark's comments, Ms. Rudibaugh stated, there is a difference of opinion on if an asset of the state fund is owned by the state or by the policyholders. Mayor Scruggs suggested the State Compensation Fund purchase buildings the state does not already own and collect rent from those tenants. She expressed her opinion that, while the sale and lease back of state buildings will provide an immediate infusion of cash to the state, it will create a new, ongoing cost. Mr. Rudibaugh continued her presentation, stating it is too soon to tell what FY 2005 will look like. She said there is still a $1.5 billion structural deficit which could increase to as much as $2 billion. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Rudibaugh explained $63.5 million of the plan would come from fund transfers, Ms. Rudibaugh referred to a memo from Councilmember Clark in her role as the Chairperson of the Maricopa Western Enterprise Zone and the accompanying draft of the Enterprise Zone Resolution. She said they have historically supported the Enterprise Zone at the Legislature and recommend Council approve the resolution. Councilmember Clark said the Enterprise Zones' impacts on the state economy have been impressive. She noted the average wage last year and this year for a job created through the Enterprise Zone was $13.00 an hour and $17.00 an hour, respectively. She stated a $5 million investment of tax credits for the state generated almost $29 million in new capital investments. She said one of the action strategies they adopted at their last meeting was to ask all municipalities that participate in Enterprise Zones to adopt a resolution in support of the Enterprise Zones and their administrative agency, the Department of Commerce. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Rudibaugh stated there are 24 Enterprise Zones in the state. Councilmember Clark said it appears the Commissioners' communities will pass resolutions in support. 11 Mayor Scruggs asked where the resolution will be sent. Councilmember Clark stated it will be sent to Westmarc and the Department of Commerce to be used in a rebuttal to the final State Auditor General's findings. Mayor Scruggs asked if West Maricopa County Enterprise Zone is being considered for renewal or elimination. Councilmember Clark explained the Department of Revenue has indicated it does not have resources to take on the administration of additional programs and would not do anything with the program if it were to move to that department. Mayor Scruggs said she will support the resolution out of respect for Councilmember Clark's position as chairman of the Western Maricopa County Enterprise Zone, however, she would prefer that it be more about the Enterprise Zone and less of an endorsement of the Department of Commerce. Councilmember Clark reiterated that all of the Enterprise Zones are working on the same issue and asking their municipalities to pass the same resolution. She clarified that their support of the Department of Commerce is in regard to its relationship to the Enterprise Zones. Mayor Scruggs suggested the resolution could have been written in a way so as to encourage the Legislature to keep the program intact and funded. Councilmember Martinez said, based on Councilmember Clark's comments, he will support the resolution. Vice Mayor Eggleston said, while he believes it is a good program, he thinks it will be dead on arrival. Councilmember Clark said, regardless of whether it survives the process, she believes the program deserves Council's support. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Rudibaugh to determine the status of a piece of legislation that would establish the elimination of certain taxes for manufacturers, resulting in $5 million to $100 million in less revenue to the state. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to offer the resolution to the Department of Commerce. HB2411 Ms. Tranberg explained HB2411 would establish a process for private property owners to recover damages as just compensation against governmental entities if a governmental action adversely effects the value or limits the use of their property by 25 percent of the market value. Council agreed with staffs recommendation not to support HB 2411. County Islands Annexations Ms. Tranberg explained the County Islands Annexations bill, as originally drafted, would allow the County Board of Supervisors to initiate annexation of small county islands of 10 acres or less in size. She said an amendment was added to the bill that would allow a municipality to stop the annexation process by passing a resolution. Council agreed with staff's recommendation to conceptually support the bill. HB2383 Ms. Tranberg stated HB2383 stemmed from a league resolution that called for the adjusting of the annexation requirements placed on municipalities when annexing areas in close proximity by allowing municipalities to initiate an annexation process when a county island is of 80 acres or less. Ms. Tranberg confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the bill is not mandatory. Mayor 12 Scruggs said, while a number of municipalities strongly support the idea, she would not support Glendale doing annexations in this manner. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the assessed valuation requirement would be eliminated. Ms. Tranberg responded yes. Council agreed with staffs recommendation to support the concept, while recognizing the need for additional refinement to address some of the private property rights issues. SB1216 Ms. Rudibaugh explained SB1216 would change the seatbelt law to a primary law. Council agreed with staff's recommendation to support the bill. SB1057 Ms. Tranberg said, according to the Arizona Automobile Theft Authority, Arizona has become the number one state for auto theft per person. She explained SB1057 would add manipulation keys to a list of burglary tools that are illegal to buy, sell, transfer or possess. Council agreed with staffs recommendation to support the bill. SB1187 Ms. Tranberg explained SB1187 adds peace officers assigned to specific hazardous duties to a previously approved bill that provides worker's compensation coverage for specific cancers contracted by firefighters while on duty. Council agreed with staffs recommendation to support the bill. HB2472 Ms. Rudibaugh explained HB2472 would provide an unworkable mechanism for judges to determine if defendants should be released from custody and requires defendants to be reordered to counseling to the detriment of others in the program. Council agreed with staffs recommendation to oppose the bill. SB1209 Ms. Tranberg stated current statute requires the distribution of state shared revenues be based on the most recent U.S. decennial or special census. She said, with Arizona's rapid growth, many cities, including those in Maricopa County, are discussing the need for recalculating population in 2005. She said, however, due to the high costs of a special census, cities are seeking legislation to provide additional options for obtaining population estimates, including DES projections, conducting a sample survey or continue using the 2000 census numbers. She noted the bill does not select or prioritize any of the options. Council agreed with staff's recommendation to support the bill. SB1341 Ms. Tranberg reported SB1341 has been amended and no longer affects cities. SCR1012 Ms. Rudibaugh explained SCR1012 went to the voters as Proposition 101 last 13 November. She said the bill is important for two reasons, it helps with military base preservation and helps maximize the state trust land that is a benefit for education purposes. Council agreed with staff's recommendation to continue to support the bill. Senate Memorial 1001 Ms. Rudibaugh stated members of the military are concerned about this bill, explaining it asks for a National Peace Park to occur in an area that encompasses the Capaza Prieta where the military performs low level over-flights and next to an area where the air force does practice bombing runs. She said it is her understanding the bill is being removed by its sponsor. SB1359 Ms. Tranberg said SB1359, a strike everything amendment, is identical to HB2308. She reported the strike everything amendment was held by Senator Weirs in his committee, therefore only the House version is proceeding. HB2308 Ms. Tranberg reported HB2308 is ready for Committee. She said, while, to date, the bill has not been amended, several floor amendments could be offered. She stated cities and towns are currently working on a more comprehensive amendment, which they hope will be offered in the Senate. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the capital gains clause was taken into consideration. Ms. Tranberg said the issue was discussed, but some legislators feel there is an abuse of the eminent domain statutes. Ms. Tranberg stated some of the proposed amendments will tighten up the eminent domain statute, but leave it as a viable option to cities who use it for economic development. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion the bill is a very bad idea. Mayor Scruggs asked if any municipalities are actively lobbying the bill. Ms. Tranberg responded yes. Council agreed with staff's recommendation not to support the bill. HB2292 Ms. Rudibaugh said, while HB 2292 was not originally written in a form they liked, it has since been rewritten into a workable form. Council agreed with staff's recommendation to support the bill. Councilmember Martinez asked about HOA's. Mr. Tranberg stated HB2307 would require seven years of delinquent fees before an HOA could foreclose on a home. Mayor Scruggs said everyone who lives in an HOA entered into a private contract. She asked if the legislation would, in effect, change those private contracts and, if so, what authority does the state have to make such changes. Mr. Flaaen said he would anticipate a challenge to the legislation based on that issue. Mayor Scruggs stated she feels strongly about the governments ability to change a contract that private individuals 14 willingly entered into and allowed to be recorded with the deed to their property. She expressed her opinion the government is overstepping its bounds, suggesting it could extend into other types of private contracts. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. 15