Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/15/2003 * 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 July 15, 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; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. GLENDALE ONBOARD TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: GRAND AVENUE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager and Randall Beck, Project Consultant with URS. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on proposed Grand Avenue improvements including access control, beautification projects and potential property acquisition issues. In November 2001, Glendale voters approved roadway improvements to Grand Avenue as part of the city's transportation election. Major improvements by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are programmed for completion at major intersections, however, improvements are needed between these ADOT improvements to increase traffic flow, improve the appearance of Grand, and contribute to the economic well being of the city. The City of Glendale is studying additional improvements for access control and beautification along the segments of Grand Avenue located between the planned ADOT structures. These improvements will not have a direct physical impact on downtown businesses. Access control improvements include driveway closures and consolidation, reconfigured access to streets, right turn lanes and median closures. Beautification improvements include landscaping of adjacent railroad property, medians, and highway right-of-way, improved lighting, and removal of blighted conditions by acquiring specific properties. An additional grade separation at Bethany Home Road to enhance traffic flow is also under consideration for regional funding. As part of the Glendale Onboard (GO) Transportation Program, a design concept report is being completed to identify spot improvements along Grand Avenue. Over the next several years, the process for implementing improvements to Grand 1 Avenue will involve working with only those property owners who are willing to participate in this project. All property owners impacted by proposed improvements on Grand Avenue will be contacted by the city and negotiations with the property owners will occur during the final design stage for the proposed improvements. Further improvements to Grand Avenue between 1-17 and Northern, in combination with the planned Northern Parkway between Grand and Loop 303, could result in a new high capacity roadway to provide east-west mobility across the West Valley. This could serve as a partial replacement for the Paradise Parkway which was approved by voters in 1985 and was removed from freeway plans due to lack of funds. In November 2001, Glendale voters approved roadway improvements on Grand Avenue to enhance traffic flow and improve the aesthetics. Concept drawings for access controls and beautification improvements on Grand Avenue were presented at a series of public meetings on all aspects of the Glendale Onboard Transportation Program during the month of May 2003. A public meeting specifically for Grand Avenue improvements is scheduled as part of completing the Grand Avenue design concept report. Grand Avenue improvements are included in the West Valley Transportation Scenario, a proposal for specific transportation projects to be funded by new regional, state and federal sources. The West Valley Scenario has also been provided to MAG for their consideration in the update of the Regional Transportation Plan. Local funds for the proposed Grand Avenue improvements are programmed as part of the Glendale Onboard Transportation Program at an estimated total cost of$8.3 million. In 1985, voters of Maricopa County approved a half-cent sales tax to complete a regional freeway system including improvements to Grand Avenue. This tax ends in 2005 and an extension is being considered. City staff has been working with the cities of Phoenix, Peoria, and Surprise to secure additional regional funding for Grand Avenue improvements from extension of the half-cent regional transportation sales tax. Additional funds for Grand Avenue are currently part of the package of projects that could be presented to voters of Maricopa County next year. The recommendation was to request a discussion of proposed Grand Avenue improvements and Council direction on potential property acquisition concepts. Mr. Randall Beck, project consultant with URS, described the major design features of the project, specifically focusing on the access control features. Councilmember Martinez inquired about plans to close median access points. Mr. Beck explained that most of the median openings turn onto an adjacent side street to the east. The goal is to eliminate as much access as possible to improve its function as a limited expressway and improve safety. Councilmember Goulet asked about the closure criteria and whether access drives for businesses taking large deliveries would be closed. Mr. Beck acknowledged there are instances where the closure of an access point would cause a hardship on the business if it were eliminated. The study recognizes there are certain access points that cannot 2 be eliminated based on the hardship that it would cause the business. He is working with the business owners through the public process to identify their needs in terms of access. Part of the criteria would be based on discussions with the property and business owners; however, Grand Avenue is operated by ADOT, so any action to close medians would have to be approved by ADOT. Mayor Scruggs stated that the city is initiating contact with the business owners affected by potential access closures. Mr. Book confirmed this fact and noted that efforts to close access points would be based on a partnership with willing business and property owners. Councilmember Clark expressed her concern that for years Grand Avenue has been ignored and used as more of a local street. She noted additional concern that Grand Avenue and the railroad basically divide the city in half. The concept presented will leave only four basic ways to cross Grand Avenue, diminishing residents' ability to cross the barrier of Grand Avenue and the railroad. She asked how the concept would address the need for Glendale's residents to cross Grand Avenue. Mr. Book felt that the entire Grand Avenue plan speaks to the point made by the council member. He cited examples, including bridges at Maryland Avenue, 67th Avenue and 51st Avenue. Furthermore, a number of intersections will remain along Grand Avenue from 71St to 43rd Avenues. Councilmember Clark requested a list of intersections that would remain open. Mr. Book and Mr. Johnson listed the intersections that would remain open: Missouri, Orangewood, Myrtle, Northern and Bethany Home. Councilmember Goulet suggested the purpose of the improvements is to allow people to circulate east and west across the city, eliminating barriers. He felt Councilmember Clark was incorrectly characterizing the improvements as creating barriers. Councilmember Lieberman suggested that the improvements at 59th, Glendale and Grand Avenues might create an opportunity for the railroad to enhance their switching yard causing additional delays at the intersection. Mr. Book explained that the improvements would take four of the twelve traffic movements away from the intersection, creating significant savings in signal time. The railroad has said that the switching operations would be south of the intersection and that the Maryland Avenue overpass would help accommodate their switching yard. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the railroad would lengthen their trains, which would take more time at the intersection. Mr. Book confirmed the railroad could lengthen their trains. Mayor Scruggs noted that the eight overpasses and underpasses are not open for discussion, because they have been decided. She suggested the staff is focusing on what will happen in between those crossings. Councilmember Lieberman asked whether there was right-of-way available on the east side of Grand Avenue that could be used for landscaping improvements. Mr. Beck confirmed there is a small, varied amount of right-of-way along the east side of Grand 3 Avenue. However, there is not enough to create a nice visual corridor; therefore, additional right-of-way will be necessary in most areas—up to 15 feet. Councilmember Frate supported the project as proposed, based on the fact that they will work with willing property owners to improve the flow of traffic along Grand Avenue by closing access points. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated his support for the project and agreed with the closure of unnecessary medians and access points. Councilmember Clark asked staff to elaborate on their statement that the project would remove "blighted conditions by acquiring specific properties." Mr. Johnson continued his presentation, focusing on the beautification concepts for Grand Avenue. He discussed the landscape improvements along the railroad, in the medians along Grand Avenue, along the east side of Grand Avenue, in two retention basins between Missouri and Bethany Home, on the operations center property and, finally, the purchase of right-of-way and even entire parcels for beautification. Councilmember Clark highlighted the fact that this is an opportunity for willing property owners to work with the city. Mr. Johnson confirmed her statement. Councilmember Goulet asked what the policy would be in the case of a blighted property where a property owner refused to cooperate. Mr. Johnson explained that the improvements between the interchanges do not have to be made if there is not a willing partner. The city will focus its investment where willing sellers exist. At the interchanges the cooperation of a property owner is required. Mayor Scruggs noted that the policy is directed by the City Council, which has chosen not to pursue eminent domain. Councilmember Lieberman recalled the beautification project along Glendale Avenue between 43rd and 51St Avenues, noting an instance where a property owner did not donate right-of-way to the city for the project. Councilmember Martinez suggested that the city should acquire the southeast corner of 59th and Grand Avenues for its beautification efforts at what is the entryway to the city. Staff noted that the railroad and a private party own the referenced property. Mayor Scruggs asked staff if they would be looking at all properties within the scope of the project, if Council gives direction to proceed with the proposed project. Mr. Book answered affirmatively, adding that the properties would be first prioritized. The first priority property represents where the city can accomplish the elimination of unsafe access points and acquiring right-of-way for landscape improvements. He indicated he would report back to City Council with the results of their prioritization process and work with property owners. 4 Mr. Beck continued with his presentation on the beautification project's design features. Mayor Scruggs asked if the previously noted problems with beautifying Grand Avenue on the west because of the lack of water had been resolved. Mr. Johnson emphasized that the railroad has changed ownership and management attitude. They are now willing to work with the city to accomplish the beautification project. Councilmember Lieberman asked for a line drawing of the plans for the Bethany Home Road crossing. After additional explanation, Councilmember Lieberman stated his support for that intersection's plan. Councilmember Clark asked if staff would recommend similar grade separations at Northern Avenue. Mr. Johnson answered affirmatively. Mr. Beck presented an overview of preliminary cost estimates related to the three design features: access control and safety improvements--$39.6 Million, aesthetic enhancements--$8.4 Million, additional grade separation at Bethany Home Road--$20 Million. Implementation will be accomplished using local funds of $10 Million over the next five years. The remaining $58 Million will come from regional funds, if the half-cent sales tax is extended, and will occur within the 5 to 20 year horizon. Mayor Scruggs noted that the voters have to approve the extension of the half-cent sales tax. Mayor Scruggs conveyed the Council's consensus to direct staff to proceed in working with ADOT and the property owners along Grand Avenue to affect access control, beautification and grade separation. Mayor Scruggs asked that agenda item number 3 be moved forward. 3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT OVERVIEW CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Art Lynch, Chief Financial Officer and Mr. John Overdorff, Bond Counsel with Greenberg Traurig. Mr. Lynch introduced the guests present: Bret Cassegas, Dana Belkamp and Ed Zachary. He provided a brief review of the Community Facilities District concept, which was the subject of a previous workshop. This is a request for City Council to review the recommendations for moving forward to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) and provide direction. Staff will provide an update on recent acquisition of the stadium site, and an updated time line and steps that the new property owner must take to initiate formation of the CFD, and subsequent steps that need to be considered by the City Council. In 2002 the city proposed to the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (TSA) that the new home for the Arizona Cardinals be located in Glendale. The city's proposal included use of a CFD to finance the local contribution to the project. At the August 30, 2002 City Council meeting, the Chief Financial Officer explained that the CFD financing structure allows a city to proceed with projects without incurring any liability or using its bonding capacity. He recommended that a CFD be established at a future date, which 5 would have the ability to sell bonds to pay for parking and other infrastructure needs. The city is currently finalizing funding arrangements for public improvements surrounding the NFL Cardinals football stadium, such as land and construction improvements for parking. A CFD provides a method of financing infrastructure from revenues generated on-site. The Arizona Cardinals football team and the TSA are involved in the funding discussion due to the importance of public infrastructure being in place prior to the opening of their stadium. A CFD is a separate political subdivision from that of a city, but land in the district is still subject to all requirements of the community forming it, such as zoning laws. Within those constraints, the CFD has statutory authority to construct, acquire, operate, and maintain public infrastructure. The board of directors for the proposed size of CFD would by law be the City Council. However, the debts of the CFD are not debts of the city. Public infrastructure that may be financed with a CFD includes water, sewer and drainage projects; highways, streets, roadways and parking facilities; landscaping; street lights and traffic signals; civic buildings; pedestrian malls, parks, and recreational facilities; and lighting systems. A CFD may not be used to financing the construction of a stadium. However, it may be used for the infrastructure surrounding it. State statutes identify the steps for forming a CFD, which include a petition to the City Council by landowners within the proposed CFD. Like a city, the CFD can finance its capital projects through the issuance of general obligation, revenue, or special assessment bonds. On August 30, 2002 City Council adopted resolution no. 3603, which executed a development agreement with B&B Holdings, Inc. dba Arizona Cardinals. That agreement established rights and obligations regarding the development of a multi- purpose facility and related parking. On the same date, City Council adopted resolution no. 3604, which executed a development and disposition and intergovernmental agreement, an event staging license agreement, and a construction staging area license agreement with the TSA. The resolution provided direction that staff take all reasonable and necessary steps to acquire necessary lands. On the July 1, 2003 the City Council held a workshop on CFD formation, which included discussion of general concepts and potential time lines. On July 3, 2003 the Arizona Cardinals purchased the stadium site and land for surrounding parking areas. Arizona Cardinals, TSA, and their attorneys are aware of the city's proposal to form a CFD. Staff hold regular meetings with their representatives to coordinate the financing and construction. The city's financial advisor, bond counsel, and the underwriting community are aware of the project and the proposed CFD. 6 Arizona Cardinals' counsel is aware of the proposed time line, which would result in formation of the CFD in September 2003 or later, with issuance of related bonds after the CFD is created. Through its separate financial and legal structure, CFD would be self-funding. Existing city staff would administer CFD activities, in the same manner that city employees currently handle the City of Glendale Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) administrative functions. This approach is appropriate due to the public benefit provided by CFD and MPC. The recommendation was to review staff recommendations for moving forward to form CFD and provide direction. Mr. Overdorff explained the council members' role on the CFD board as ex-officio members. The city council members are members of the CFD board because of their city council office. However, they are not acting as city council members when convened as the CFD board. Mr. Lynch confirmed that staff's presentation of January 2002 was still accurate, although dates had been adjusted. It was agreed that staff would provide a copy of the updated document to the full council. Mr. Lynch also confirmed that staff would bring the Resolution of Intention and Petition to Request the Formation of the CFD before Council on July 22, 2003. Mr. Overdorff further explained that the Resolution to form the district would include, as an attachment, the Petition executed by the Cardinals and the TSA. Mr. Overdorff briefed the Council on two minor agreements, which would be presented to the City Council on July 22. They were the Amended and Restated Cardinals Stadium Development Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Development and Disposition Intergovernmental Agreement between the TSA and the city. The two agreements simply consolidate smaller agreements previously agreed upon, with no new items introduced. Councilmember Clark inquired about language in Section 7.8 of the agreement. Mr. Overdorff explained that the section acknowledges that the city's development is all government function and is saying that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to the government function. However, it is still reviewed for purposes of engineering, landscaping, etc. normally done in a pubic works project. He reviewed the level of input/review that would take place with respect to this project. For the benefit of the public's understanding, Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that this entity is being treated differently because it essentially belongs to a government not because it is a football stadium. She compared the project to the development of a high school. Councilmember Clark asked about the $6.6 Million designated for streets, noting that the City Project Budget Summary does not specifically list the streets covered. Mr. 7 Ernster stated that there is cocumentation within the agreement that lists all of the planned improvements to 95 Avenue, Maryland Avenue, Bethany Home Road, the Bethany Home Road interchange, the Maryland Avenue overpass, the park and ride lot, etc. It does not include 91st Avenue, which will be completed as part of the city's capital improvements program. Councilmember Clark noted the $1.5 Million included for contingency but asked where the amenities are funded. Mr. Ernster explained the landscaping amenities are included in the budget line item for the parking improvements. There is also a large line item in the CFD for the plaza area amenities. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to bring the item forward at its July 22, 2003 meeting. The workshop was recessed for a short break. 2. SUGGESTED CRITERIA TO EVALUATE GLENDALE'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Budget Director. This is a request for City Council to review suggested criteria to be used for an evaluation of Glendale's economic health in mid-FY03-04. Over the course of several FY03-04 budget development workshops in April and May 2003, City Council asked staff to bring forward suggested criteria at the start of FY03- 04. The purpose of the criteria is to provide City Council with information to evaluate whether the city's economic outlook has improved enough to take on additional financial responsibilities. In the fall, staff will present information to the city council about the FY02-03 actuals. We will address projected versus actual salary savings as well as general fund operating and capital expenditures and savings. The City Council workshops to discuss the FY03-04 budget were open to the public, and were televised numerous times on KGLN, Glendale's cable television station. Ms. Schurhammer presented the suggested criteria: The number of new housing starts, as measured by the number of new construction housing permits issued by the City of Glendale, and a comparison with the prior year's activity. New housing units represent additional residents who likely will spend at least a part of their disposable income in Glendale. City sales tax revenue actuals is another factor to analyze. The analysis would look at trends over several recent months, and in comparison to prior year quarterly results, to determine if sales tax revenues are holding steady, climbing, or declining. State shared revenue (state sales tax, state motor vehicle in lieu tax, and state income tax) actuals is an additional factor to evaluate. The analysis would look at trends over several recent months, and in comparison to prior year quarterly results, to determine if the revenue actuals are holding steady, climbing, or declining. 8 The revenue focus will be on city sales tax and state shared revenue because they comprise 76% of all general fund revenue expected in FY03-04. The status of new retail centers and stores that generate sales tax revenue (less any sales tax rebates) is another factor to evaluate. The key here is to look at whether the new stores opened earlier than expected and whether the expected sales tax revenue is being realized. The sooner the stores open, the sooner sales tax revenues are generated. Current year expenditures and savings versus budget estimates is another indicator that will be examined to determine if we are holding the line to only absolutely necessary expenditures. The final criterion is the status of organizational innovations to minimize expenditures and to work more efficiently and effectively. Staff will bring forward the actual measures of activity for the suggested criteria. There are no additional anticipated costs of collecting this data. The recommendation was to review staff recommendations for suggested criteria to be used for an evaluation of Glendale's economic outlook in mid-FY03-04 and provide direction. Councilmember Lieberman requested that when it makes its presentation in the fall the budget staff present actual expected revenues as well as projections. Councilmember Clark recommended that the budget staff also provide court revenues when it presents figures on general fund revenues. With regard to the status of new retail stores and the sales tax generated, she asked that this information be balanced with a look at where the city might be losing retail centers or experiencing major retail vacancies. Mayor Scruggs stated that the 2003/04 budget included $200,000 in increased fines collection, but the state will take 75% of that money as a result of the legislature's action. Councilmember Goulet asked if staff is considering the benefit/loss that may come from business relocations. Ms. Schurhammer explained that this was not included as a criteria because the City is not involved in the relocation of many businesses and therefore does not know about the whole universe of business relocations in Glendale. Consequently, any information on this issue that staff brought forward would be incomplete. Councilmember Frate commented that he was looking forward to the information the budget office would provide, believing it would be very helpful. Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired about the time frame for providing the information the Council has requested. Ms. Schurhammer expected to report to Council on the 2002/03 report in September or October. She explained that it takes a while to close out the year-end. For the current fiscal year, 2003/04, she planned to report quarterly with the first report being in early November. Mr. Lynch briefly reviewed the sales tax revenue reporting timelines and verified Ms. 9 Shurhammer's comment that city sales tax revenues are not due to the city until the end of the next month (e.g., December sales tax receipts are not due to the City until the end of January). Mayor Scruggs restated the goal of the Council to evaluate the city's performance to budget quarterly as opposed to once per year. Mr. Lynch confirmed they would be reporting the most accurate picture possible each quarter, with any differential noted. Mayor Scruggs recommended that the first quarter report be provided the third week of November with future quarter reports scheduled accordingly. She emphasized the importance of knowing about potential revenue gaps as the city proceeds through the budget year. She also asked for the quarterly reports to raise any significant and unanticipated expenses such as an increase in the City's contribution to the state retirement fund. Councilmember Martinez asked if the budget staff is aware of what criteria/indicators other cities use. Ms. Schurhammer answered that she made a request for information from other cities and only one city in Utah responded. Ms. Schurhammer verified that both ASU and U of A publish an economic indicators report and confidence index quarterly on a statewide basis. She suggested the information might be an indication of what is going on in Glendale. She did note that the state and university economic centers collect and present data by county and by metropolitan area only; specific economic information about Glendale is not available from these sources. Vice Mayor Eggleston reiterated the Council's interest in getting the information requested on a timely basis, realizing it is not audited information. Ms. Schurhammer stated her intent to work with Finance on revenue and expenditure actuals, Economic Development on retail issues and Building Safety and the Planning Department on new construction plans. Mayor Scruggs shared mixed feelings about what new housing construction means to the city's budget, there being both revenue and significant expenditures associated with new development. Councilmember Clark stated that working with those departments is important, because it provides advance notice of what new facilities need to be planned. She asked for information regarding the population trigger points for new public facilities related to public safety. A staff member reminded the Council members of a model presented to them in the past, which the city uses effectively to project the need for new equipment and facilities. Fire Chief Burdick explained the department's formula, which considers distance and density. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 10