Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/18/2003 * 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 March 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 ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. GLENDALE ONBOARD TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: 2002 ANNUAL REPORT AND 25-YEAR PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernester, Deputy City Manager, Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager and Mr. Erman Fisher, Citizen Oversight Committee Chairman This is a request for City Council to review the 2002 Annual report and to provide direction on the 25-Year Transportation Program for the Glendale Onboard Transportation Program (GO Program). On November 6, 2001, the voters of Glendale approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation purposes. In order to help ensure the delivery of projects as presented to voters, commitments were made to establish a Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC), issue an annual report, approve a 25-Year Long Range Transportation Program of projects, and conduct an audit every three years. This is the first annual report of the GO Program and it includes program costs and revenues as well as major accomplishments. The GO Program will be updated each year and includes projects and completion dates for all projects that are funded by the transportation sales tax. The annual report provides the list of projects in the 25-Year Transportation Program. The GO Program is now fully operational. Sales tax revenue is being collected and maintained in a separate transportation fund. In spite of lower than anticipated revenue, due to the weakened economy, all commitments to voters are being met in accordance with the priorities as approved by voters. Significant GO Program accomplishments include: Transit: Evening and weekend transit service has been fully implemented during the first year of the GO Program. Transit ridership has increased by 27% during the first year. The City of Glendale has also joined Valley Metro Rail as a first step to bring light 1 rail transit service to downtown Glendale. Streets: All street projects in the first five years of the Program are underway with most projects now in preliminary engineering. The design concept report for the Northern Super Street is in the process of being completed. A bus pullout has been completed on 59th Avenue north of Union Hills. Construction is underway to widen 75th Avenue between Rose Garden Lane and Deer Valley Road. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Two of the 10 committed bicycle projects approved by voters have been completed largely due to previous funding commitments. A Bicycle Coordinator has been hired and a bicycle program has been implemented to support bicycle programs throughout the city. Other Programs and Projects: Ongoing programs, including neighborhood traffic mitigation, traffic education, work-at-home incentives, and management of the GO Program have been established and funds have been programmed to continue them over the next 25 years. At their meeting of February 6, 2003, the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC) unanimously endorsed the 2002 Annual Report for the GO Program and unanimously recommended approval of the 25-Year Transportation Program for the GO Program. Council discussed transportation projects as part of their regular CIP discussion at their workshop on March 4, 2003. Over the 25-year period, revenues are projected to be lower than originally estimated because of the downturn of the economy and because of new lower population projections for the city by the Maricopa Association of Governments. Lower revenue projections have been balanced by across-the-board reductions in costs. Principal reductions were achieved by reducing the growth rate for transit operating costs to be consistent with inflation rates for construction and by slowing the implementation of new transit service. All transportation sales tax revenues are accounted for in a separate transportation program fund that can only be used for transportation improvements as approved by voters on November 6, 2001. The recommendation was to review and provide staff direction to bring forward the 2002 Annual Report and the 25-Year Transportation Program for the GO Program for formal Council approval. Mr. Frate asked how often the Commission meets. Mr. Fisher said they meet every month from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Martinez asked if the city has an agreement with Peoria with regard to the Northern super street. Mr. Johnson said an agreement and regional funds will be required to complete the project. He explained they are part of the design team and have had discussions with Peoria's engineering staff. He noted El Mirage, Luke Air Force Base, MAG and ADOT have also participated in the discussions. Mayor Scruggs pointed out a Peoria Council member has advised he will begin 2 activities to assure the concept does not happen. She said the same thing that has happened to north Glendale will happen in the western part of the city if they do not plan for quality, effective and efficient transportation. She stated some of Peoria's solutions to the problem are unacceptable to Glendale because of their negative impacts on Glendale neighborhoods. She said the issue has to be resolved within the next two to three weeks, noting the west valley cities will meet next week to develop the west valley priorities. She questioned whether Peoria's elected officials have been made aware of their city management's involvement in the issue over the past two years. She said the proposed concept represents the best hope for efficient and effective transportation in western Maricopa County. She directed staff to address the issue immediately. Mr. Johnson pointed out Peoria and Glendale are involved in several projects, including the connection at Beardsley, the expansion to Lake Pleasant, an expansion in bus service and Grand Avenue improvements. He said, without a common voice, Glendale and Peoria both risk losing funding. Councilmember Clark noted three park and ride lots are planned in the 25 year plan, with one coming online in FY03/04 and FY 04/05. She said programming for express bus service does not occur until FY 2011/12. She expressed concern that the express bus service and the Loop 101 park and ride lot do not occur close enough to each other to be effective. Mr. Johnson pointed out those involved in carpooling could also utilize the park and ride lot. He explained the city wants to take advantage of the regional funds it was awarded, even though express bus service will not be available right away. Councilmember Clark asked if using General Obligation bonds for the GO Program would diminish the city's ability to issue General Obligation bonds for other projects. Mr. Book explained the Committee recommended the use of GO bonds for the transportation program, but they would be underwritten by the half-cent sales tax. Councilmember Clark asked how Municipal Property Corporation funding differs from GO funding. Mr. Book said GO bonds would afford the city a lower interest rate. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the connection between the Loop 303 and 1-10 has been funded. Mr. Johnson explained the funding for the Loop 303 relates to the half- cent sales tax extension and construction is a number of years out. Councilmember Lieberman said, should the Loop 303 be completed within ten years, they should consider completing the Northern super street before 2025. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mayor Scruggs stated an election could not be called unless HB2292 is passed, resulting in no money for the Loop 303. She said she proposed the idea at the last MAG TPC meeting of allowing the remaining items in the 85 election, the Loop 303 and the South Mountain expressway, to go first. She stated her proposal was met with majority approval. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Johnson to explain how they could have a 27 percent increase in overall transit, given the 16 percent deficiency in funding. He also asked if the Commission has discussed future revenue streams. Mr. Johnson explained, to date, they have been able to maintain a balanced program without having to eliminate any projects. He said, while revenue has been lower than anticipated, they have been able to reduce costs over the 25 year period by delaying the implementation of new bus service and removing the very conservative two percent real growth factor. Councilmember Clark asked where the 16 percent shortage in revenue is reflected in the program. Mr. Johnson explained the revenue shortage has been balanced in the first five years with a higher level bonding. He stated, however, if revenues continue to decline and they were no longer able to identify cost reductions to maintain a balanced 3 program, the Northern super street and bus routes scheduled toward the end of the program would ultimately slip out of the program. Councilmember Clark asked if programs that slip out of the program could be reintroduced next year if revenue increases. Mr. Johnson responded yes. Councilmember Frate asked who determines which bus routes will be implemented. Mr. Johnson explained the Committee reviews the program every year and can make recommendations for adjustments, which are then forwarded to the Council for approval. Councilmember Frate asked what intangible impacts the 27 percent increase in transit has had for the city. Mr. Johnson said evening and weekend service provides riders with more flexibility and the increase in ridership results in air quality benefits. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked when the bus bays and street improvements will be completed. Mr. Johnson said one bus bay on 59 Avenue and Union Hills had been completed. He stated the bulk of the projects will start within the next three years and be completed within five years. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for an explanation of the Traffic Operations Center. Mr. Book stated they applied for a federal grant to assist in building a transportation management center. He said the center will ultimately tie the city's traffic signal system and intelligent transportation system to a central point. Hq noted the center will be collocated with the emergency operation center at the 59t Avenue and Mountain View fire station. He confirmed the traffic management center will be linked to the ADOT center. Mayor Scruggs asked why light rail is listed as a reason to use the sale of General Obligation bonds, noting the ballot language said light rail would not come until after the first ten years. She pointed out Glendale will note build any light rail unless Phoenix agrees to allocate some of its miles to get from 1gh Avenue to 43`d Avenue. She said Phoenix has very little interest in getting to 59 Avenue and Glendale and wants Glendale to move the LRT closer to the Loop 101. She stated the city has no assurance of federal funds, cannot craft correctly worded legislation that would enable a vote for the extension of the half-cent sales tax and a large sector of the businesses community and a number of legislators do not want light rail to be part of the half-cent sales tax. She said she wants assurances that money for the starter system is available before the city uses GO bonds to accelerate its LRT system. Mr. Johnson explained the general bonding needed for the light rail system occurs in three pieces. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Johnson when an appropriate time would be for the city to start selling bonds for light rail, given the existing issues surrounding light rail. Mr. Johnson said, based on the proposed program, the bonds would be sold in FY 2011/12. Mayor Scruggs asked how the money programmed for light rail in fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 will be used. She also asked when they will secure Phoenix's agreement to allocate the miles from 19th Avenue to 43`d Avenue. Mr. Johnson said that will be largely determined by September when priorities for the regional funds are established. Mr. Johnson explained the city is required to pay $50,000 per year to participate, however, additional expenditures would be slowed down in next year's program while they wait to see how Phoenix proceeds. Councilmember Martinez asked if bus ridership also increased 27 percent. Mr. Johnson responded yes. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much of the 27 percent increase is attributable to the newly established routes. Mr. Johnson stated the increase is tied directly to the expanded hours of Dial-a-Ride and bus service. Councilmember Lieberman asked if ridership has increased on fixed routes that existed prior to the expansion. Mr. Johnson offered to provide that statistic to Councilmember Lieberman at a later date. 4 Mayor Scruggs clarified the public was told expanded service would occur between years one and five, while additional routes would be established between years five and 25. She noted it costs $68,000 for every mile of new service. Councilmember Frate expressed his appreciation for the Committee's effort and dedication. Mr. Fisher thanked staff for compiling such an extensive report. 2. 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. On March 5, 2003, the Glendale City Council provided policy direction on several bills that may impact the City of Glendale. 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. HB2292 Ms. Duffy said HB2292, the half-cent sales tax bill, is one of their highest priorities. She explained the current half-cent sales tax ends in December 2005 and has provided the necessary revenue for the backbone of the freeway system in Maricopa County. She said it was determined an extension of the current half-cent sales tax was critical in order to continue providing the necessary infrastructure and to meet quality of life issues. She explained members of the business community unified to support a half- cent sales tax extension and agreed that East Valley Partnership, Valley Business Council and Westmarc would take the co-lead in this effort. She identified the remaining members of the business community as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Greater Phoenix Leadership, the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Association of Industries. She explained HB2292 was 5 originally very problematic, elevating the county to a much higher role and providing the county with veto power over the transportation plan. Meetings were held both with the county and the business community. She explained the meetings resulted in the west valley becoming unified in their position to support the half-cent sales tax and oppose the county having an elevated position that would jeopardize the success of the plan. She said, ultimately, the provision of changing the county's role was removed. Ms. Duffy said the bill passed the House by a vote of 60 to 0 on February 24. Ms. Tranberg stated the bill was assigned in the Senate to the National Resources and Transportation Committee and the Senate Finance Committee and was scheduled for hearing on March 11. She reported the MAG Executive Director received a call on March 10 from the Business Coalition stating they chose to support HB2292 in its original form and would oppose any amendments until the bill reached the Governor's desk. She said the cities were unsuccessful in their attempts to have the bill held in committee and the MAG Executive Director testified that MAG was neutral, that additional safeguards needed to be added and that the timing issue had to be addressed. She said the Business Coalition members testified in support of the bill and the bill passed the committee by a vote of 6 to 0. She stated a meeting was held March 12 between intergovernmental representatives from the cities and several Business Coalition representatives, during which the necessary safeguards and timing concerns were discussed. She said the Business Coalition representatives agreed to discuss the issues with their members on March 17. Ms. Tranberg reviewed the safeguard provisions, explaining they are best practice measures that provide assurances to the public. She said the measures also provide assurances that the funds can be used for multi-level projects and that the plan will be well-rounded. She said the first safeguard is a Material Cost Change Requirement. She explained material cost changes to the freeway program currently have to be approved by MAG Regional Council. She said, while HB 2292 calls for a multi-modal plan, there are no cost overrun protections for other modal projects. She stated they have recommended the same material cost change provision be applied to the other modal projects. She identified the Enhancement Requirement as the second safeguard provision. She explained, currently, the local jurisdiction must pay when a local community wants enhancements on a freeway project. She said, in order to be consistent, they are recommending the same enhancement policy apply for other modes included in the plan. Ms. Tranberg stated the third provision is the Annual Report to the Public and Public Hearing. She explained current law requires an annual report on the freeway program to be published and presented at a public hearing. She stated they recommend other modal projects be included in the annual report requirement. She listed the fourth provision as "Citizens Oversight." She stated the freeway program has a statutorily created Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee and they believe the bill should include a provision for citizen oversight of the sales tax funds used for other modes as well. She stated the fifth provision is Funding Mechanisms for Streets. She explained the current sales tax fund provides funding for projects on the state highway system, however, within the next 20 years, the needs of many areas of the valley are for high-capacity arterial improvements, not necessarily 6 freeways. She said they believe it is important that the Transportation Policy Committee be allowed to evaluate high-capacity arterial projects that have a regional impact for potential funding. She said the Public Transportation Fund is the sixth and final safeguard. She said, through the TPC process, a multi-modal regional transportation plan will be created. She stated, at this point, they do not know what the allocation will be for freeways versus arterials and other modes. She explained current state law requires approximately two percent of the regional sales tax fund to be allocated to the public transportation fund for transit services. She said, if the regional transportation plan allocates more than two percent of the funds to transit, there is currently no statutory mechanism in place to allocate those additional funds to those projects. She stated, therefore, they recommend the bill include a revision to the public transportation fund definition, making it consistent with the plan. Mayor Scruggs noted the two percent cap on funds authorized to go to transit has been interpreted by an RPTA attorney to mean HB2292 was written to exclude transit. She said, without the proposed safeguard, there is no guarantee transit can be part of what they are calling a multi-modal plan. Ms. Tranberg agreed. Councilmember Clark said it appears the plan is morphing into a multi-modal transportation plan and, if so, she hopes it will be presented as such to the general population. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Ms. Duffy said it is her understanding that the Business Coalition is receptive to the six safeguard provisions, however, we have not received anything in writing and they have not reached an agreement in terms of the timing issue. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much of Proposition 300 went to transit. Ms. Duffy responded two percent. Mayor Scruggs pointed out Proposition 300 only included money for planning a multi- modal system and that the ValTrans election, which failed, was a means of implementing a system. She said another attempt in the 1990's also failed. She explained the two percent tax, which has been in place since 1985, is used by the RPTA to establish bus service between cities. She noted, after 18 years, the tax totals $7 million per year. Mr. Beasley stressed that, until an agreement with the Business Coalition has been put into writing, there essentially is no agreement. He pointed out Glendale could end up grid locked by cities that do not have a mechanism to address their street problems if the amendments are not added. Ms. Duffy said the Business Coalition was supposed to provide something in writing to the MAG Executive Director, indicating their support of the six provisions. With regard to the timing issue, Ms. Duffy stated the next regular session begins January 1, giving the Legislature seven to 23 days to pass the bill in time for a May 7 election. She questioned the Legislature's ability to pass the bill in such a short timeframe. She recommended Glendale work with the other cities in terms of the six safeguard provisions and the timing issue. She said if no plans are put in place to address the provisions, Glendale could be forced to oppose the bill. Councilmember Lieberman asked why the business community supports the county as the lead authority in disbursement of funds from the half-cent sales tax. Ms. Duffy said the business community's position took them by surprise, pointing out their original document indicates their support of the half-cent sales tax. She suggested the business community believes the county's leadership will help address the parochial issues cities are perceived to have. Mayor Scruggs stated, in attempt to satisfy the county's desire for a higher level of review, the draft plan will be submitted to the State Board of Transportation, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the RPTA for two 30-day review periods. She said, given the two reviews, the significant amount of citizen participation over the past two years and an air quality conformity analysis, the plan will already have met extraordinarily stringent scrutiny. She said, however, the business community group has convinced the Legislature that a second review is necessary. Councilmember Clark asked if they have a back up plan for a 2005 election if the plan fails to pass the legislature in seven to 21 days. Mayor Scruggs stated the legislation calls for an election in 2004. She explained they chose a May election over the November election because the November ballot is expected to include 30 to 40 initiatives. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out a vast majority of the money collected today is used to pay off bonds issued for previous projects. Mayor Scruggs disagreed, stating new work is also being done. Councilmember Clark asked what is the business community's position on light rail. Ms. Duffy said a lot of members of the Maricopa 2020 strongly support freeway over transit. Councilmember Clark questioned whether there would be more support for the bill if it did not include light rail. Mayor Scruggs said, while there would be more support in the Legislature, there would not be more support in Phoenix or Tempe. Mayor Scruggs pointed out Westmarc is the lead organization for the Regional Transportation Strategy, suggesting they encourage the president of Westmarc to take a more flexible view with regard to the amendments and timing issue. Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced his support of the six safeguard provisions and agreed the Board of Supervisors should not have veto power over plans approved by the cities. Councilmember Martinez stated he supports staff's recommendation. Councilmember Clark asked staff to identify a backup date in the Spring of 2005. 8 Mayor Scruggs said the Council does not have the authority to hold an election and, unfortunately, the Legislature is being told by those who support the bill not to listen to the cities. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion it is a blatant attempt to teach municipalities a lesson. She stated cities know best what their communities need. Mayor Scruggs suggested Councilmember Clark contact the president of Westmarc and ask her to consider an alternative date. Luke Air Force Base Ms. Duffy reported the cargo airport located near the Barry M. Goldwater Range is still moving forward, noting it would have 24,000 operation per year by year five. She stated the airport would have a huge impact on Luke's mission, therefore, staff recommends Council draft a letter asking that they not proceed. Councilmember Clark asked if other communities will join Glendale in writing a letter. Ms. Duffy said the intent is to do a joint letter from Glendale, Yuma, Tucson, and Sierra Vista as well as Luke, West Valley Council, Fighter Country Partnership, Fighter Country Coalition and other groups that indicate support for the military bases. Councilmember Clark asked if the cargo airport would impact Sky Harbor. Ms. Duffy explained Sky Harbor tries hard to avoid the military's access routes, which would change if the cargo airport is approved. Councilmember Frate pointed out the resulting route changes for commercial aircraft would impact homeowners along those routes. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to proceed with the letter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. 9