Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/15/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP October 15, 2002 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk Agenda Items Nos. 1 and 2 were heard in reverse order. 2. DRAFT ANNEXATION POLICY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Jon Froke, Planning Director; Kate Langford, Senior Planner The purpose of this workshop item is to present a draft disclosure statement and revised pre-annexation agreement text to be included in the annexation policy as directed by the City Council at its last workshop on this item. This workshop is the third in a series of workshops used to draft an annexation policy for the City of Glendale. On September 17' 2002, the second workshop on the draft policy was held. Discussion centered around specific elements contained in the draft annexation policy, especially the inclusion of a disclosure statement and use of pre-annexation agreements. The first workshop was conducted on July 16, 2002. During the initial workshop, background information was presented on annexation in general and Glendale's annexation activity since incorporation in 1910. Since the July 2002, four annexation requests have been submitted to the City. All four requests are for undeveloped properties. Phase I of the implementation process for the annexation policy will be to pursue the annexation of undeveloped areas. Processing the four annexation requests that have been submitted would be the first step toward the execution of the annexation policy. The basic framework for this discussion about an annexation policy was taken from Council comments offered during the last two years regarding specific annexations or annexation requests. 1 After the conclusion of the annexation policy workshops, staff will conduct a public meeting to gather citizen input on the Council's draft annexation policy. This public meeting will be conducted prior to Council adoption of an annexation policy. The Council's draft annexation policy will also be placed on the City's website for easy access by citizens. There are no direct costs associated with the development of the annexation policy. The recommendation was to provide direction to staff to bring the annexation policy forward for adoption and proceed with the processing of the four annexation requests that have been submitted. Ms. Langford reviewed revisions made to the Annexation Policy subsequent to the September 17 Council meeting. She explained they developed an Annexation Disclosure Statement, clarifying the scope of city services to be provided to newly annexed areas and identifying improvement programs available to residents of the city. She stated they revised language regarding the use of Pre-Annexation or Development Agreements providing for the use of such agreements when Council deems necessary. She said they also revised the process steps to incorporate the use of Pre-Annexation and/or Development Agreements. Ms. Langford explained there will be three phases: Phase I - the proactive annexation of undeveloped areas east of 115`" Avenue; Phase II — provide a status report on annexation activity of undeveloped areas and gauge the level of interest in annexation expressed by developed areas; and Phase III - re-evaluate annexation potential west of 115th Avenue at a future date determined by Council. With regard to Phase I, she said property owners and developers continue to approach the city with annexation requests, noting four active requests, representing approximately 366 acres, have been submitted. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if staff is recommending the city enter Pre-Annexation Agreements on the four active requests. Ms. Langford said the properties are currently being farmed and it would be up to Council to determine if Pre-Annexation Agreements are warranted. Councilmember Clark asked about the property located at 91st Avenue and Northern. Ms. Langford said the 135 acres was formerly owned by Glendale Media and has been purchased by another group of developers. She stated they have submitted all of their partnership agreement papers. Councilmember Clark asked if the city has been negotiating a development agreement. Ms. Langford said she is not aware of any kind of development agreement, outside the annexation request. She confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the land in the General Plan designation is Corporate Commerce Center. Mayor Scruggs said Council will not make a decision concerning the Disclosure Statement without first having a chance to review its contents. Councilmember Lieberman asked if a broadband annexation up to 115`h Avenue would include all four of the active annexation requests. Ms. Langford responded yes. She said the active requests are askingtobe annexed as quickly as possible, with the exception of the city property at 99 Avenue and Camelback which has no specific timeframe. She said, while the policy proposes proactive annexation east of 115 th2 Avenue, it does not suggest a blanket approval. Councilmember Lieberman stated he would support the blanket annexation of the remaining 1,599 acres east of 115`" Avenue and asked why the city does not move in that direction. He stated he is not against a reasonable disclosure statement, however, he is concerned about the number of hoops people will have to jump through in order to get annexed. He asked if blanket annexation would be cheaper for the city. Ms. Langford stated it is often best to consider annexations on an individual basis, explaining it prevents one property owner's decision from affecting another property's annexation. Councilmember Lieberman stated there would be no cost to the city if a blanket annexation was done because the areas would then only go through zoning changes. Ms. Langford agreed, explaining the developer would pay the application fees. Councilmember Lieberman said, therefore, it would be advantageous for the city to do a blanket annexation. Councilmember Clark asked how they intend to proactively implement the annexation of all undeveloped land. Ms. Langford said they currently respond to individuals who come to the city and request annexation, whereas, under the new policy, the city would approach property owners upon direction from Management or City Council. Councilmember Clark asked how the city would determine which parcels are appropriate for annexation. Ms. Langford said that decision would lie with Management and City Council. Councilmember Clark asked if staff will seek Council's direction in terms of what properties should be approached for annexation. Mr. Beasley said staff does not initiate annexations, explaining they will forward annexation requests to City Council for analysis. Councilmember Clark asked if Council will be asked to ratify or deny the concept of doing blanket annexations. Mr. Beasley said staff is only seeking direction on the Disclosure Statement and the policy as a whole. He stated Council will decide whether or not to proceed with blanket annexations of areas that have not specifically requested annexation during Phase II. Mayor Scruggs asked if staff will, on its own, identify undeveloped land and present them to Council for possible annexation or if Council will direct staff to approach land owners about annexation. She pointed out proactively annexing developed land is not part of the policy. Mr. Ernster explained staff would provide a map showing all undeveloped properties currently in the county east of 115 Avenue and present them to Council as candidates for annexation. Mayor Scruggs suggested the language be modified to state that the intent will be to proactively annex all undeveloped land subject to City Council direction with regard to each parcel. Councilmember Clark asked if the intent in Phase II would be to identify properties that are eligible for annexation and to notify the property owners of the city's interest. She also asked if the city will at least notify developed areas of the city's revised annexation policy. Ms. Langford said that is one option, noting a number of contacts in developed areas have requested status updates on the annexation policy. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion it would be inappropriate for staff to approach property owners about annexation prior to coming to Council. He asked where the four active requests are in the process. Ms. Langford said they are currently in Step 7, explaining they have been presented to the Property Management Team and are in the process of preparing the Petition for Recordation, subject to direction by the Council. Vice Mayor Eggleston said, until recently, the city has waited for vast areas to submit annexation requests. He stated the city now has the potential for very serious development and is trying to develop a policy that will benefit the residents of Glendale in the long run. He said, while the city welcomes new residents, it wants those 3 residents to be responsible citizens. He expressed his opinion staff should wait to recommend a large area for annexation until a suitable development plan has been identified. Councilmember Clark said Council has not seen an annexation analysis that would help them make a decision concerning the four active requests. Ms. Langford stated an annexation analysis for vacant land is very different from one for developed land. She explained the developer is responsible for infrastructure, streets and other improvements when undeveloped land is annexed into the city. Councilmember Clark said she has not heard a recommendation in terms of the necessity of a Pre- Annexation or Development Agreement. Ms. Langford said those issues have not been brought up by the city or the property owners. Councilmember Clark asked if it would be safe to assume then that there would be no Pre-Annexation Agreements with regard to those parcels. Ms. Langford responded yes. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the city has already annexed a small piece of land between the western edge of the property on 91st Avenue and the freeway, as well as several parcels to the east. He said they have also processed the annexation of the Hickman property and have discussed annexing additional land for the Peoria School District. He reiterated his position that the city should do blanket annexations rather than waste time and money on piecemeal annexations. Mayor Scruggs clarified step four of the annexation process, the analysis of all potential short term and long term costs and benefits and the necessity of a Pre-Annexation or Development Agreement, was not done with regard to the four active requests. Councilmember Clark said she has always been concerned about the county pockets located between the freeway and 751h Avenue and believes they should be addressed first. She said, once the policy is adopted, she would expect to see information on proposed annexations resulting from the city's proactive efforts. Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark is bringing developed areas into the discussion, pointing out developed properties fall under a different policy and have not been identified for proactive annexation. Councilmember Goulet agreed the city should have a policy for annexation, stating, however, he is not prepared to approve a blanket annexation. He said he would prefer to have property owners approach the city about annexation, rather than the city approaching the property owners. Councilmember Martinez suggested Item 4 be modified to say annexation analyses for undeveloped areas will be done only upon Council's request. Councilmember Clark said she has no problem with Councilmember Martinez's suggestion. She asked if there are state statutes with regard to the creation of county islands. Ms. Langford responded yes. Councilmember Clark asked if the city would be creating a county island by annexing the properties north of Bethany Home Road, leaving the Pendergast neighborhood behind. Mr. Flaaen stated no, explaining the city would actually be reducing the size of an existing county island. Mayor Scruggs suggested they set aside the developed area annexation process and concentrate on finalizing the annexation process for undeveloped areas. Council agreed. She said the question has been raised as to whether annexation analyses should be performed on the four active annexation requests. She clarified it has also 4 been suggested that the annexation analysis portion of the process be modified to state an analysis would only be performed when Council deems one necessary. Councilmember Clark stated she supports the concept of proactively seeking annexation of all properties. Councilmember Lieberman stated he, too, supports the proactive annexation of undeveloped lands. He said Luke Air Force Base is the only time he can recall that the city performed a comprehensive annexation analysis. He said in all other cases, the city spoke with the developer. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the city asked for an annexation analysis for Pendergast Estates as well. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that proactive annexation should remain part of the policy. He suggested they proceed to the next step with regard to the four active annexation requests. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he sees nothing wrong with proactively looking for properties. He said he does not see the need for an analysis on the four properties currently seeking annexation unless someone has specific concerns. Councilmember Frate agreed an analysis is not warranted. He pointed out any lands identified through staff's proactive search for properties would come before Council for approval. Mayor Scruggs asked for Council's direction on whether staff should identify areas to be annexed, but come to Council for approval prior to contacting landowners, or if they should speak with the landowners first to determine their level of interest. Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, Councilmember Frate and Councilmember Martinez felt staff should come to Council prior to approaching any landowners. Council members Clark, Goulet and Lieberman disagreed, stating they would prefer staff contact landowners so Council knows that they are interested, before Council considers annexing an area. Mayor Scruggs asked Council for direction concerning Councilmember Martinez's suggestion to modify Item 4 to read: "An analysis of all potential short term and long term costs and long term benefits of any annexation request will be performed at Council's request." Council agreed the language should be modified. Mayor Scruggs asked Council for direction on whether or not to proceed with the four active annexation requests. The majority of Council agreed to proceed to Step 8, however, Councilmember Lieberman disagreed, stating an annexation analysis has not been performed on those parcels. 1. THUNDERBIRD PASEO PARK IRRIGATION STUDY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director; Glen Compton, Senior Civil Engineer. Councilmember Clark left the meeting at 2:55 p.m. and was not present for the discussion on this agenda item. During meetings held in Fall 2000, the City Council established the "greening up" of 5 Thunderbird Paseo Park as a goal and budgeted $50,000 to fund a study to investigate alternative sources of irrigation water for the park. The purpose of this report is to go over the study's findings with Council. The Thunderbird Paseo Park, located along the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel (ACDC), runs from approximately 51st to 72nd Avenues. The park was developed in the mid-1980's in conjunction with construction of the ACDC project. At the time of its inception, the intended source of irrigation water for Thunderbird Paseo Park was to be reclaimed water obtained from a wastewater reclamation facility that was to be constructed on the west side of 67th Avenue, south of the ACDC. Due to concerns about the reclamation facility, it was never built. As a result, the park is irrigated from the City's domestic (potable) water supply, and it has not received a sufficient amount of irrigation water to create an aesthetically pleasing landscape. David Evans and Associates was selected by the City to identify options for providing irrigation water to the park, including continuation of the current domestic water supply with no improvements. They also evaluated continued use of domestic water with the irrigation system upgraded. The study determined the most viable options were either the rehabilitation of City Well No. 8 (by drilling a replacement well) to utilize recharged water or groundwater rights or the use of the Arizona Canal for direct delivery of Central Arizona Project water to a new irrigation pumping station (Arizona Canal Pump). City staff determined the Arizona Canal Pump option to be more favorable since its initial implementation cost is lower, and it is more flexible in the event that increased irrigation pumping is needed in the future. David Evans and Associates, along with City staff made a presentation on the project to the City's Parks and Recreation Commission on December 10, 2001. The Parks and Recreation Commission agrees with City staff that the Arizona Canal Pump is the best option. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that City staff take this option forward to City Council. David Evans and Associates met with City staff from several departments including Parks & Recreation, Utilities, Environmental Resources and Engineering, in order to establish the existing and probable future irrigation needs of the park. A public meeting was held on June 25, 2001, in order to obtain public input on the park, its current amenities and ideas for improvement, as well as existing and possible future irrigation water concepts. The meeting was attended by 3 citizens. In order to help determine which option(s) would be most cost effective, David Evans and Associates estimated how much each option would cost over a 20-year "life" of operation. The following are summaries of the most viable options: 6 • The 20-year "life cycle cost" of continuing to use the existing system is estimated at $3,638,928. • If the domestic water system use is continued for irrigation, but the irrigation system is upgraded, the 20-year "life cycle cost" is estimated to be $11,158,271. • For new irrigation water source options, the lowest 20-year "life cycle cost" was estimated to be $8,076,732, if City Well No. 8 is rehabilitated and redrilled, and used to recover reclaimed water underground storage credits. • The next lowest 20-year "life cycle cost" for a new irrigation water source option was estimated to be $8,383,851 if the Arizona Canal were used for direct delivery of Central Arizona Project water to a new irrigation pumping station (Arizona Canal Pump). The Well No. 8 option is more expensive in the early years (at an estimated cost of $3,140,678 over the first 5 years for the lowest 20-year cost option), compared to the Arizona Canal Pump option (at an estimated $2,717,525 over the first five years). The irrigation system improvements are not currently budgeted, although $500,000 in funding is available for landscape improvements this fiscal year in Thunderbird Paseo Park Development, account number 35-8521-8300. One additional fulltime irrigation specialist will be required to operate and maintain the pump and irrigation system. Maintenance on additional landscape could probably best be managed with additional contract labor. Total costs for the irrigation specialist and contract labor is estimated at $108,160 per year. Additional operations and maintenance costs for the pump and electrical power is estimated at $52,355 per year. The recommendation was to provide staff direction. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Compton explained they would not be able to receive any water through the Arizona Canal for one month each year when SRP drains it to perform maintenance. He confirmed CAP water can be delivered through the SRP canal. Councilmember Martinez asked if money has been set aside to implement an option. Mr. Smith said, as of July 1, the city will have approximately $1 million, with the remaining $1 million in the out years. He stated additional funding would have to be identified if Council gave direction to move forward with the lowest cost option. Mr. Compton stated David Evans and Associate's projected timeline assumes 17 months from the start of consultant selection to the completion of the project, including additional turf improvements. He said the benefits of implementing the recommended option include improved landscaping, the addition of soccer fields, a greener look to the area, and conservation of the city's potable water supply. 7 Councilmember Frate asked if it would be more practical to use well water than potable or canal water, given the fact the city is suffering through a drought and is facing reduced tax revenues. He also asked if the city would have to redrill the wells anyway if the city continues to suffer through an extended drought. Mr. Compton said, while the 20-year life cycle cost showed well options to be more cost effective over the long term, the capital cost of drilling a new well is not feasible given the city's current resources. He said, therefore, the Arizona Canal pump option appears to be the most viable. Councilmember Frate said it is unfortunate that the city is faced with both a downturn in the economy and a severe drought at the same time. He spoke about the significance of Paseo Park, noting the soccer field will be one of the few, if not the only field in the city that will be lit. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Councilmember Frate's comments. He asked if any consideration was given to re-drilling the wells for emergency use should the drought continue. Mr. Compton said Black & Veatch will look at that issue as part of the study they are performing with regard to the city's Water Resources Master Plan. He said it is more than likely the city will re-drill existing wells because of the complications in getting the rights to use groundwater in areas that have a heavy concentration of wells. Councilmember Goulet asked if the department sees Thunderbird Paseo as a passive or active recreation area. He asked if staff has considered how the park will impact neighborhoods, what it will mean in terms of additional staff, the impact it will have on police and so forth. Mr. Smith said Thunderbird Paseo is both an active and passive recreation area. He said handicapped facilities and a tactile garden for visually impaired visitors are examples of the passive uses, while the two soccer fields and the multi-purpose trail are more active uses. He said they continually try to respond to the public's requests for lighted ball fields. Councilmember Lieberman said it is a worthwhile project, however, he believes it should be delayed until the city knows better what the State Legislature will do. He pointed out three cities and the county have already laid employees off due to concerns about the budget. He suggested staff bring this item back to Council in April. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Lieberman, stating there are too many uncertainties at this time. He said he was disappointed that only three residents attended the public hearing, asking if notices were sent out to all residents in the area. Mr. Compton explained they did not do direct mailings or door hangers because of budget constraints, but they published the notice in the Glendale Star, passed flyers out in the neighborhood and posted flyers in the recreation rooms at area parks. Councilmember Frate pointed out parking east of 59`h Avenue is never used because that part of the park is not considered user friendly. He said Sahuaro Ranch Park and neighborhood parks in the city are being overused and will have to be rehabilitated in the future. He stated residents want to be assured Thunderbird Paseo has not been forgotten and that what was set forth in the Parks Master Plan will happen. Councilmember Goulet stated people will look for alternative entries into the park and expressed concern about the impact that could have on other neighborhoods. Councilmember Martinez asked if the park at 67th Avenue and Paseo is getting used. Mr. Smith responded yes, stating the multipurpose paths and trails get used most. He pointed out Skunk Creek Linear Park now connects with Thunderbird Paseo. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much of the land does the city own. Mr. Smith S explained Flood Control owns the entire link and has provided the city an easement for the recreational facilities. He said, conversely, the land at Skunk Creek will be deeded to the city. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the city made public commitments to green up Thunderbird Paseo Park and spent $50,000 on the study. She shared information she received from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, explaining the state's economy is likely much worse than most people perceive it to be. She said, starting two years ago, there was an extraordinarily steep decline in income taxes paid and the city will begin to feel the effects of those declines July 1, 2003. She pointed out that, had the city's percentage of state shared revenues remained at 15 percent, the city would have received $3,818,884 less on July 1, 2003. She noted the city's percentage has already been reduced to 14.8 percent and could be reduced further before everything is finalized. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 9