Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/21/2003 * 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 October 21, 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, Deputy City Attorney, and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Dana Tranberg, Intergovernmental Programs Coordinator; Mr. James Book, Transportation Director and Mr. Eric Anderson, Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Manager. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on the new Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Final Draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is the most comprehensive planning effort in the region over the last 40 years and it provides a blueprint for transportation investments for the next 20 years. The successful creation of a RTP is critical to the successful implementation of the Glendale Transportation Plan and for creating vital transportation options for Glendale and the entire West Valley. An effective transportation system is important to enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents. In 1985, the voters of Maricopa County approved a 20-year; one-half cent sales tax to fund new freeways in the region. The tax has helped to fund nearly 150 new freeway miles in the region. The half-cent sales tax for transportation is set to expire on December 31 , 2005. In July of 2002, MAG established the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC). This 22- member committee includes elected officials and private sector representatives from the region appointed by the MAG Regional Council. The TPC was charged with making recommendations to the Regional Council regarding the Regional 1 Transportation Plan. Mayor Elaine Scruggs serves as Vice Chair of the Transportation Policy Committee. It has taken nearly three years to bring the RTP to this point. MAG has spent several years conducting sub-regional transportation studies prior to the establishment of the TPC. In addition, the RTP has been under review by the Regional Public Transportation Authority, the State Board of Transportation, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Indian Communities and cities and towns in Maricopa County as required by House Bill 2292, passed during the 2003 legislative session. Comments received from these entities, as well as input from the public, have been considered and have helped shape the plan that will guide transportation investments for the next 20 years. Most of the revenue generated by the county transportation tax over the last 20 years went to building new freeways. The new 20 year, $15.7 billion RTP is a comprehensive, performance based, multi-modal plan. It identifies and prioritizes specific transportation facilities needed to keep pace with the increasing travel demands in the region. Transportation modes receiving funding in the RTP include freeways, arterial streets and intersections, bus transit and light rail. Some funding will also be provided for bicycle and pedestrian projects, noise mitigation, traffic safety, rideshare and planning. The Regional Transportation Plan was unanimously approved by the MAG Transportation Policy Committee at its September 17, 2003 meeting. On September 24, 2003, the MAG Regional Council gave its unanimous approval to the Regional Transportation Plan and subsequently forwarded the plan for air quality conformity analysis. Since that time, the State Transportation Board and other business groups have also endorsed the plan. The Regional Council is expected to approve the plan for air quality conformity by November 30, 2003. The next step is to obtain legislative approval in 2004 to call for an election to extend the current half-cent county transportation excise tax for another 20 years. The targeted election date is May 18, 2004. On March 3, 2003, the Glendale City Council was provided with an update on the progress of HB 2292, the legislation that established the framework for the development of a Regional Transportation Plan. On October 23, 2002, City Councilmembers were asked to provide input on a list of Glendale projects to be submitted to the TPC for consideration in the RTP. The projects were derived from the city Transportation Plan and MAG sub-area studies. The Glendale project list was then forwarded to MAG on November 1, 2002. The Glendale Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) received updates on the development of the RTP on November 7, 2002, February 6, 2003, June 5, 2003, September 4, 2003 and October 2, 2003. 2 Through September 2003, monthly TPC update summaries were provided to Council through electronic mail. The RTP is a regional, balanced plan whose purpose is to provide an efficient multi- modal transportation system for the region. The RTP includes important projects specific to the City of Glendale, the West Valley and the region at large. The plan includes regional funding for projects included in the Go Glendale Transportation Package approved by Glendale voters in 2000. RTP projects important to Glendale and the West Valley include the Northern Parkway, Grand Avenue Improvements, new transit routes, completion of the Loop 303 as a full freeway from 1-10 to 1-17, and an 1-10 Reliever Freeway running parallel to and south of the existing 1-10. Please see attached maps depicting these and other projects included in the RTP. Development of the RTP involved extensive public input through the MAG process. From August 2002 through September 2003, public input was received at a number of meetings and venues. On May 29, 2003, a MAG Workshop on the RTP was held at the Thunderbird Graduate School which involved residents in an exercise to allocate available funds for specific projects and programs throughout the Valley. On August 21, 2003, the final draft stage of the RTP was presented for comments at the public meeting held at Midwestern University. These public meetings were advertised throughout the Valley by a variety of mechanisms including newspaper advertisements and radio announcements. Approximately 60 people attended the meeting at Midwestern University. If passed by the voters, the RTP would provide funding for street and transit projects in Glendale. However, it is not clear at this time if funds from these projects will flow directly into the Glendale budget or if services will be provided by regional agencies. For example, ADOT could build Grand Avenue projects Valley Metro could provide transit service, and Maricopa County could build the Northern Parkway. Mr. Eric Anderson stated the region continues to see a high rate of growth, noting the population has increased by 45 percent each decade since 1960. He said the projections on which the Transportation Plan is based indicate the region will double its population, to over 6.2 million, by 2030. He stated, historically, miles of travel increase faster than population. He displayed a map showing the changes in population and employment cores between 2000 and 2025. He showed slides depicting what service levels and intersections will be like in 2025 if steps are not taken to handle the projected increases. He explained approximately 140 centerline miles of freeway will be completed by 2007, stating they believe it is important to continue to build new freeways and do substantial improvements to existing freeways. He said they also believe it is necessary to make a substantial commitment to regional bus service. 3 Mr. Anderson stated approximately 10 percent of the plan is directed toward arterial street improvements, including new construction. He explained street improvements are a relatively small portion of the program because most of the new arterial street construction is paid for by City or County Highway User Revenue Funds, Gas Tax funds or as part of private development. He stated safety and technology improvements are helping secure additional capacity and improvements in the bicycle and pedestrian systems will help ensure continuity throughout the valley. Mr. Anderson discussed the public involvement process, stating MAG has conducted a number of community events and a series of six meetings concerning the draft Regional Transportation Plan. He said a number of business meetings, small group presentations, and MAG at the Mall events have also been conducted. He reported a scientific survey, based on a telephone survey of 600 registered voters in August 2003, found 69 percent of respondents identified freeways as the region's highest spending priority, 68 percent felt streets and roads were the higher priority and 58 percent identified transit as the priority, whereas 45 percent supported light rail and 39 percent favored Dial-A-Ride. He said respondents were asked if they would support the extension of the half-cent sales tax, both at the front and back ends of the survey. He said 73 to 75 percent of respondents indicated they would support the extension, which is consistent with a previous survey conducted in December. He said the challenge from this point forward will be to maintain the high level of support valleywide. Mr. Anderson explained the Regional Transportation Plan considers $17.5 billion in financial resources and, after off the top adjustments for interest expense and ADOT commitments, plans approximately $16 billion in projects. He pointed out $9 billion is tied to the half-cent sales tax extension. He reported 57 percent of the $16 billion in projects are in the highway/freeway component, including $279 million for litter and landscape control and a $75 million lump sum allocation for freeway mitigation. He stated the rail component makes up approximately 15 percent of the plan, while regional and express bus service, including operations, maintenance and capital, accounts for approximately 17 percent. He said the street component makes up about 9 percent of the plan. Councilmember Martinez asked how they arrived at the stated percentages. Mr. Anderson explained the percentages were based on responses to the survey of 600 registered voters, in which respondents were asked to rank transportation priorities. Councilmember Clark asked if a back up plan has been established in case the half- cent sales tax extension is not passed. Mr. Anderson said they are confident the extension will pass, however, there have been internal discussions about what will occur if it fails. He noted they are under Federal requirements to have a long range plan that is tied to reasonably available revenues. He explained they are pushing for a May 2004 election because it would provide an opportunity for another vote the following year should the measure fail. He said, upon defeat of the extension, another plan would have to be developed. Councilmember Goulet asked how they will come up with the money necessary to patrol the added highway and freeway miles. Mr. Anderson said, unfortunately, the highway enforcement issue was not well addressed in the 1985 vote and was not within their purview in the original transportation plan. He said, however, they will work with the Department of Public Safety to ensure they understand the number of miles being added and that sufficient resources will be available. He noted the Legislature has allocated some Highway User Revenue funds for DPS enforcement, which now totals $60 to $70 million. 4 Councilmember Lieberman asked why rail makes up only 15 percent of the plan, pointing out rail is an important component of other countries' transportation systems. Mr. Anderson explained the rail percentage relates, for the most part, to light rail extensions. He said the sales tax funded component equals about 14.4 percent and they have a $5 million allocation to look at commuter rail implementation. He said, however, they do not have the capital dollars necessary to implement a commuter rail system. He stated the plan substantially increases the commitment for regional bus service and the next evolution is expected to move more towards fixed guided systems such as rail. Councilmember Goulet asked if the voters polled were asked if they would use alternate transportation. Mr. Anderson responded yes, reporting 55 percent indicated they would occasionally or regularly use light rail. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Anderson if he was surprised by the low ranking light rail received and if he believes light rail will ever be a preferred means of transportation. He also asked if the plan calls for the creation of denser employment corridors to enhance the success of light rail. Mr. Anderson said light rail has been discussed and analyzed extensively over the past year and many major metro areas in the west have successful light rail systems. He noted they had an opportunity to take the Transportation Policy Committee and Legislators to Dallas, which has an overall lower development density than metro Phoenix and a greater population. He said the Dallas light rail system has been in operation since 1996 and has proved to be very successful. Councilmember Martinez said Glendale's Transportation Committee visited Dallas and Denver. He said both cities found that demand for inclusion on the system increased once the system was implemented. Mr. Anderson noted light rail also offers reliable travel times. Councilmember Lieberman said another group traveled to Portland where the light rail system travels out into the countryside. He stated they also went to San Diego and the only time they found light rail competing with traffic was when it had to stop at cross streets coming into La Mesa. He expressed concern about light rail running along major streets, stating it will conflict with street lights. He pointed out the number of cars in Maricopa County is increasing at a rate of 56,000 per year. Councilmember Clark asked if the plan addresses urban sprawl. Mr. Anderson said they attempted to time transportation improvements when they believe growth will actually occur. He stated, while there are a lot of developments planned west of the White Tank Mountains, many of them have been planned for 50 or more years. He said they believe a growth spurt west of the White Tanks will not occur for quite some time. He stated transportation investments have to serve current residents and those expected to arrive in the near future. Councilmember Clark pointed out growth is already occurring west of the White Tanks, especially in the Buckeye area. She said they also need to look at the fact that, eventually, the outskirts of Maricopa County will blend with the outskirts of Pinal County. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Anderson to elaborate on last minute right-of-way preservation projects and the 1-10 reliever. Mr. Anderson said they have clearly indicated that state highway improvements in Pinal County have to be handled at the state level, noting the State Transportation Board passed a resolution in support of the Regional Transportation Plan and acknowledged the need for state highway improvements in Pinal County paid for out of state funds. He said there were some additions at the September 17 Transportation Policy Committee meeting which will 5 significantly benefit transportation routes in the west valley, including right-of-way preservation along SR 74 to allow a fully controlled access facility in the future. Councilmember Clark asked if the development community is aware that the state has preserved the right-of-way and that a freeway could be built in that area. Mr. Anderson responded yes, explaining the Red Letter Notification Process requires counties and cities to notify the Department of Transportation when someone is considering development within a right-of-way corridor. Mr. Anderson stated they have also preserved right-of-way on the Loop 303 south of Maricopa 85. With regard to the 1-10 reliever, he stated $18 million was set aside to purchase right-of-way for a six lane parkway facility in the area of Jomax Road. He also reviewed a phasing map of arterial improvements for the Northern Avenue Parkway project. Councilmember Frate said it makes sense for all communities to create employment cores, explaining it would reduce the need for their citizens to travel to other cities and increase the viability of alternate transportation methods, including bicycles. Mr. Anderson agreed, stating they expect people to be more conscientious about living in areas where they expect to work. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if a poll has ever been conducted to determine what percentage of people travel to another city for work. Mr. Anderson responded yes, stating a Household Travel Survey was completed earlier this year. He noted about 1 ,000 households keep travel diaries. He offered to provide the Council with the results of the survey. Mr. James Book noted the west valley scenario is much stronger on freeways and streets than on light rail or transit. He stated Glendale has two major focuses in the plan with regard to streets, adding the Northern Avenue Parkway and enhancing Grand Avenue. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion Glendale is in a position of great strength because it has its own transportation funding. She said, unlike other communities, Glendale has been able to add new fixed route service and increase frequency of service. Mr. Anderson agreed, pointing out a majority of communities had to reduce their bus service. Mayor Scruggs clarified the enabling legislation requires that the election occur in 2004 and they would have to start over with new enabling legislation if the extension fails. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the amount of money being raised by the Transportation Tax will be used to leverage other funds. Mr. Anderson responded yes, stating $5.3 billion in ADOT funds also flow into the region and MAG receives about $1.3 billion in Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality and Surface Transportation Funds. He pointed out a lot of federal transportation funding will be lost if the extension fails. Councilmember Clark asked if the state has given any consideration to reducing the ADOT Discretionary or 15 Percent Funds. Mr. Anderson said they discussed transferring $128 million in Highway User Revenue Funds into the State General Fund in an attempt to meet the state's budget deficit, however, it was not included in the 2004 budget plan. He stated the majority of transportation money on the highway side relates to the Gas Tax, which is constitutionally limited to streets and roadways. He said, however, they have been successful in diverting some of the money to DPS for traffic enforcement. 6 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION POLICY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director and Ms. Kate Langford, Acting Planning Manager. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on the Proposed Annexation Policy, specifically the section dealing with developed properties. The Council reached agreement on the first half of the policy addressing annexation of undeveloped properties at the workshop of October 15, 2002. One of the goals of Glendale 2025, the city's General Plan is to manage growth to achieve reasonable, responsible urban development. This goal is also reflected in the City Council strategic priorities as well as being one of the key issues addressed in the State of Arizona's 1998 and 2000 Growing Smarter Legislation. Council requested follow-up on three specific items in its February 2003 workshop on the annexation policy. The items include a property tax example showing the differences of property taxes paid between a property located in Maricopa County, and one located in the City of Glendale, inclusion of the notification and process by which properties would be brought into compliance with city codes, and a fee structure for developed properties that may be annexed. The property tax example has been prepared using the 2003 tax rates. The only difference between a property under county jurisdiction and one in the city is the primary and secondary property taxes levied by the city. All other taxes would go to the County, school districts, improvement districts, Education Equalization, Maricopa County Flood Control, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Community College, County Library District and Fire District Assistance. Code compliance issues are a main area of concern when considering the annexation of developed properties into the city. Upon annexation into the City of Glendale, all properties must comply with the adopted codes and ordinances of the city. As part of the annexation analysis for a developed area an evaluation of existing code violations would be completed by the city's Code Compliance Department. Once the initial evaluation has been completed, the property owners within the proposed annexation area are informed of the specific violations that exist on their respective properties. All properties within the proposed annexation area must be brought into compliance within one year of the effective date of the annexation. An initial six-month "grace period" will be allotted to all property owners to voluntarily address the code violations that were identified during the annexation analysis. At the end of the "grace period", the properties will be re-inspected, and property owners will be cited for any code violation(s) that exist. The property owners will have until the one-year anniversary of the annexation to correct all violations. After that anniversary date, the Code Compliance Department will take the appropriate corrective action. 7 The third issue is a fee structure for developed areas that are newly annexed into the city. After much research into the issue, it became apparent that establishing a justifiable fee formula is extremely difficult. So an alternative is being recommended. The alternative is to require all developed areas requesting annexation, to upgrade the proposed annexation area's existing infrastructure to comply with the current City of Glendale standards before the adoption of the annexation ordinance, and pay a fee equal to one year of the city's current primary and secondary property tax calculated from the assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. The intent of the fee, based on the Glendale property tax rates, is to try to address the "lag time" encountered between the time an annexation is effective and the first property tax levy that the city receives. This "lag time" can range from a number of months to perhaps more than one year. It is also recommended that the Council have the ability to waive the fee, or improvements that may be accomplished through improvement programs administered by the city if the annexation is in the best interest of the city. By allowing the Council some flexibility, each developed area requesting annexation can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The annexation policy has also been reviewed and updated to reflect current acreages of undeveloped land yet to be annexed into the city. The first workshop was conducted on July 16, 2002. During the initial workshop, background information was presented on annexation in general and Glendale's annexation activity since incorporation in 1910. On September 17, 2002, the second workshop on the proposed policy was held. Discussion centered on specific elements contained in the proposed annexation policy, especially the inclusion of a disclosure statement and use of pre-annexation agreements. During the October 15, 2002 workshop, a general consensus on the evaluation process for the consideration of undeveloped land for annexation was reached. Staff was directed to bring the proposed policy and disclosure statement back to workshop in early 2003 to continue the discussion on the evaluation process for developed properties. At the City Council Workshop on February 18, 2003, the disclosure statement and proposed annexation policy were discussed further. Council requested information on code compliance, a fee structure, and property tax impact. The development of an annexation policy provides a tool to be used by the city to aid in directing and managing growth. Outlining an annexation process helps to ensure all issues and impacts of a proposed annexation are considered. The result is a well-informed decision being made by the affected property owners and the city. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Kate Langford clarified residents 8 will be given a six month grace period to correct existing code violations once annexation is finalized, after which time Code Compliance will begin issuing citations. She said a complex analysis of existing conditions in the area is conducted during the annexation analysis, during which they determine which potential violations could be legal non-conforming and which have to be corrected. Councilmember Clark asked what criteria or guidelines are used to determine whether a use is legal non-conforming. Ms. Langford explained, generally, a use or structure that was legal under the County's guidelines at the time of establishment or onset, would be legally non-conforming once annexed. Councilmember Clark asked if a property with animals would be legal non-conforming, once annexed. Ms. Langford explained state law requires the city to apply the closest zoning designation. She said the city is able to track non-conforming animal privileges, however it is difficult. Councilmember Clark asked if a property owner would be required to remove an accessory building if they found out during the annexation analysis that it was constructed illegally. Ms. Langford said, in some situations, existing uses or structures can be grandfathered until such time as the use is interrupted or the structure is altered. Councilmember Frate asked if a non-conforming structure damaged in a storm or other event would have to be rebuilt to city standards. Ms. Langford explained the owner would typically be allowed to repair a structure if the cost of repair is less than 50 percent of the cost of replacing the structure. She said, in situations where the cost of repair is more than 75 percent of the cost of replacing the structure, the property owner would be required to demolish and rebuild the structure in accordance with city standards. Councilmember Clark asked if streets would be required to hook up to the city sewer. Ms. Langford responded no. Mr. Ernster explained, in situations where a neighborhood is rural in character and wants to retain that character, the city would look at issues involving the spacing of fire hydrants, drainage, and condition of the streets. Councilmember Clark asked who would bear the cost of improving neighborhoods that do not meet city standards in terms of the spacing of fire hydrants, drainage or street conditions. Mr. Ernster said the intent of the policy is that the cost would be born by the properties in the area to be annexed. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if an area proposed for annexation could choose to remain in the county if the cost of infrastructure improvements is deemed too high. Mr. Ernster responded yes. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Ernster was unable to identify any neighborhoods between 75th Avenue and the Loop 101 which could be annexed with the need for few infrastructure improvements. Mayor Scruggs asked if developments in the city's strip annex area are built to city standards. Mr. Ernster responded yes. Councilmember Clark explained she is primarily concerned about neighborhoods between 75th Avenue and the Loop 101 which are admittedly older neighborhoods built under County standards that existed 30 years ago. Councilmember Martinez asked if the cost of bringing the county island at the 80th Avenue area up to city standards would be born by the property owners. Mr. Froke 9 answered yes. Councilmember Goulet asked what percentage of the homes in a given area have to agree before a property will be considered for annexation. Ms. Langford explained the policy proposes at least 70 percent of property owners in a residential area have to support annexation to justify the staff time necessary to perform the analysis. She said the state statute requires the petition be signed by a minimum of 50 percent plus one of the property owners and at least 51 percent of the assessed valuation of the area before bringing an annexation request before Council for consideration. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out property owners would be eligible for city services once annexed, including the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and other residential improvement programs. Ms. Langford agreed. She explained property owners are informed of the costs and benefits associated with annexation through pre- annexation meetings and a self inventory packet. She said the city also suggests an area enter into a pre-annexation agreement if they choose to proceed after all costs, requirements and benefits have been analyzed. She explained the agreement outlines the necessary improvements, clarifies the community's responsibility with regard to those improvements, locks in the fee, and provides for full disclosure. Councilmember Clark said, regardless of the name given to the Municipal Services Fee, it is an annexation fee. She asked if the fee will be pro-rated depending on the time of the year annexation occurs. Ms. Langford said pro-rated fees are an option for Council's consideration, however, they are not being proposed at this time. Mr. Ernster explained they did not include pro-rating as part of the policy because there will be situations where it takes more than a year to get a property onto the tax rolls. Councilmember Clark asked if the City of Glendale currently provides water service to the county islands. Ms. Langford said a few of the county islands receive water from the city, but most are on their own wells or a small system. Mayor Scruggs asked how properties that receive water service from a private water company would be addressed when annexed into the city. Ms. Langford explained a small system is basically one well that serves three or four homes, not a private water company. She said most of the larger lots have their own wells and some of the older apartments and subdivisions have had city water service for a number of years. She confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that properties who currently receive water from their own wells can continue to do so, assuming no overriding state requirements mandating they connect to the city's water system. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion allowing property owners to remain on their own wells contradicts the policy's mandate to improve the area's infrastructure to city standards. Ms. Langford explained, based on the analysis and self inventory of a given area, staff would come forward with a recommendation for infrastructure improvements, taking into consideration all ordinances, requirements and state 10 statutes. She said the details of those improvements would be clearly outlined in the pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Ernster confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the policy does not require any neighborhood to convert from a septic system to a sewer system unless a failure occurs and the property owner is unable to obtain a permit from the County for a new septic system. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out, in some cases, a house-by-house inspection will have to occur to identify compliance issues. Ms. Langford agreed. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if an impact fee would be assessed to each home if someone purchased the 10 acre county island on 83'd Avenue and developed it as a gated community. Mr. Jon Paladini responded yes. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out the proposed annexation fee does not begin to cover the cost of services and asked why impact fees could not be identified. Mr. Paladini explained the areas are too diverse, with some properties being very close to city standards and other's having very deficient infrastructures. He said the statute allows impact fees to be collected on new development. He stated impact fees are typically collected at the time a building permit is pulled, therefore, it would be difficult to collect the fees on existing structures. Councilmembers Lieberman and Martinez expressed their opinion staff should move forward with the policy. Vice Mayor Eggleston disagreed, stating he would like to ask more questions. Councilmember Frate asked how is the per house cost of libraries, garbage cans and so forth calculated. Ms. Langford said they have gone through numerous scenarios, explaining full cost recovery would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per property. She said, conversely, the Municipal Services Fee is reasonably simple, based on a tax structure determined in a public forum on an annual basis. She stated they also looked at estimating a cost per dwelling unit or cost per population added based on the operating budget for any given year, but found it to be very cumbersome. Mayor Scruggs noted the Council was informed at their last meeting that impact fees are legal charge. She said, during that meeting, no one wanted to charge impact fees for water or sewer and discussions centered around using the impact fee to recover the costs incurred as a result of annexation. Councilmember Lieberman recalled that, although they did not agree on the specific amount, they agreed annexed areas would be charged a lower impact fee than new subdivisions. Ms. Langford stated there is a tiered breakdown for development impact fees. Councilmember Goulet asked if the impact fee would be part of the equation for 11 determining the overall cost of annexation. He said, given the different conditions in each area, it will not be possible to create a standard that is even for everyone. Councilmember Martinez asked if impact fees can be charged in developed areas with pre-existing subdivisions. Mr. Paladini clarified the city could collect an impact fee if the property owners agree to pay one as part of the pre-annexation agreement. He said the issue becomes much more difficult if a pre-annexation agreement is not signed. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Langford explained the lag time between the time a property is annexed and when the city receives its first property tax payment can be narrowed down once an application is filed. Mayor Scruggs referenced a property that has one inch PVC pipes, asking if the city could offer to bear the cost of correcting the problem. Mr. Ernster responded yes, explaining the policy states the city reserves the right to waive fees and assessments if it is in the city's best interest. Councilmember Clark stated she hates the proposed policy, but thanks staff for bringing it forward for public consideration. She said her primary concern has always been the county islands between 75th Avenue and the Loop 101. She expressed her opinion the policy is fraught with disincentives. She said the City of Glendale has annexed all kinds of areas into the city under the current policy and the proposed policy leaves the remaining county islands to pay their way into the city. She said, rather than the proposed punitive policy, the city should create a policy that encourages the remaining county islands to annex into the city and bring their properties up to code. She stated the annexation fee is a symbolic gesture guaranteed to drive people away. She said an area, once annexed, will contribute to the General Fund through property and sales taxes, just like other areas annexed into the city over the years. Mayor Scruggs clarified the remaining neighborhoods will not be treated any differently than those annexed previously. She said their intent is to avoid some of the misunderstandings that occurred in previous annexations. Councilmember Martinez spoke about a previous situation wherein residents of an annexed neighborhood claimed the city promised it would provide certain infrastructure improvements, however, nothing was found in writing. He stated a lot of work has gone into the policy and he supports its intent. He disagreed with Councilmember Clark's opinion that the policy is punitive, stating it will ensure all parties understand what the neighborhoods will and will not get and what the actual cost of annexation will be. Vice Mayor Eggleston said, while he would like to see if the policy could be modified to address some of Councilmember Clark's concerns, he is willing to move forward with the policy. 12 Councilmember Goulet disagreed that the policy is punitive. He questioned whether any policy could ever appease everyone, stating the city can only do its best to let neighborhoods know the cost and ramifications of annexation. He pointed out annexation provides positive benefits for the annexed communities, including possibly increased property values. He said he would like to proceed with the policy as written. Councilmember Lieberman stated he likes the proposed policy and the flexibility it provides the city. Mayor Scruggs asked about previous discussions concerning Maricopa County bearing the cost of certain improvements. Mr. Ernster explained the County decided it would make a $25,000 contribution toward street improvements. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to proceed with the policy as written. Mr. Ernster explained staff will bring the item to a City Council meeting for formal adoption. Mayor Scruggs commented that the self inventory packet protects the people considering annexation by outlining applicable code requirements. Councilmember Frate asked how future owners of an annexed property will know the details of the annexation agreement. Ms. Langford explained the agreement would be recorded and tied to each property through the title report, noting Council could decide to include information concerning the legal non-conforming status of a property. Councilmember Clark suggested they track the number of annexation requests the city receives after adoption of the policy. She said the exercise was initially going to be a disclosure policy, however, it has moved far a field from that intention. She pointed out issues in county islands directly affect Glendale residents who live in the vicinity. 3. PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION OPTIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Hanna, City Clerk. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on the preferred option for conducting the City of Glendale 2004 Primary and General Elections. One of the City Council's strategic priorities is increasing citizen involvement in government. Municipal elections provide an opportunity for citizens to vote on candidates and ballot issues. Previous City of Glendale elections have been conducted as independent elections with the exception of the November 5, 2002 special election, At this special election, the city's ballot question appeared on Maricopa County's ballot. Voter turnout increased by more than 30% as compared to both the Primary and General Elections of 2002. 13 The City of Glendale Primary and General Elections will be held on March 9th and May 18th, 2004. Maricopa County has tentatively scheduled special elections on the same dates. The March 9th ballot question will be on a funding mechanism for construction of additional criminal justice buildings. The May 18th ballot question will be on an extension of the '/ cent transportation tax. The City of Glendale's independent election process is no longer an option if Maricopa County has special elections. Therefore, a review of the remaining options is appropriate. Deadline to notify Maricopa County of the Glendale election option is November 10, 2003. The City Council passed Resolution No. 3692 New Series which called for the March 9, 2004 Primary Election and the May 18, 2004 General Election. Municipal elections provide the city's registered voters with an opportunity to make their choices known. There are three election options and each cost is for a single election. - Shared ballot with Maricopa County: estimated cost $43,060; - Separate city ballot with combined polling places: estimated cost $102,440; All-Mail Ballot election: estimated cost $147,115 The Fiscal Year (FY) 03/04 budget for the 2004 Primary and General Elections is $212,988. The city has a credit with Maricopa County of $21,253. This credit was taken in consideration when the FY03/04 election budget was approved. The total funds available for the 2004 Primary and General elections is $234,241. Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number: Elections, 01-1220 Ms. Hanna reviewed the pros and cons of each election option. She said a combined election with the county would lower the city's cost and cause less voter confusion, therefore, it is the option she recommends. She stated the second option, a separate ballot with shared polling places, would limit the city to County polling places, people would have to stand in line for each of the ballots, and people requesting an early ballot would have to request both ballots. She said the all-mail election option is the highest cost, however, it does typically result in increased voter turnout. She stated all-mail 14 voter ballots are received either immediately after they have been received or just prior to the election, resulting in a glut of ballots that have to be signature verified. She said the immediate results of the election are not necessarily reliable because of the time it takes to verify all of the signatures. Ms. Hanna pointed out the city has a very high early voter turnout because of its proactive steps to make voting more convenient. She said early voters accounted for 71 percent of the total turnout for the 2002 Primary Election, 88 percent for the 2002 General Election and 50 percent for the 2002 Special Election. She explained there are a couple options for increasing the city's early voter turnout: 1) send early ballot request postcards with space for two requests to 52,689 households at a cost of $25,000; or 2) mail early ballot requests to 34,571 voters that voted in the November 2002 Special Election and not already on the city's permanent early voter list at a cost of $17,000. Ms. Hanna reported the city's current budget for the 2004 Primary and General Elections totals $212,988, noting the city also has a $21,253 credit with Maricopa County for a total budget of $234,241 . She said staff is preparing for an independent election and reserving polling places, however, the city has to have a plan for moving forward should Maricopa County follow through with their plans to have elections on the city's Primary and General Election dates. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Ms. Hanna explained the County has a larger number of polling places because it cannot combine precincts, noting the city typically has two or three precincts at every polling place. She agreed voters will be confused by the polling locations, however, the County has agreed to use the majority of the polling places that will be used at the November 2003 election. Councilmember Goulet asked if there has been any indication that Option 1 would ensure voter turnout remains the same or increases. He also asked if there is any indication where the city's item would be placed on the ballot if it chooses to go with the shared ballot option. Ms. Hanna said the city's item would be located below the county's item. She said there is no assurance that a shared ballot will increase voter turnout, explaining turnout depends on the amount of interest generated by the items on the ballot. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Proposition 414 concerning the county hospital will be on the March 9 ballot. Ms. Hanna clarified the proposition is on the November 2003 ballot. Mayor Scruggs asked if an all-mail ballot would include any county issues. Ms. Hanna responded no, explaining the county cannot do all-mail ballot elections. Mayor Scruggs said she opposes an all-mail ballot, explaining voters become confused as to whether or not they still need to go to polling places to vote on other non-city issues. Ms. Hanna agreed. Mayor Scruggs said she support's staff recommendation for a shared ballot. Councilmember Clark stated she also supports a shared ballot, pointing out people are used to voting on multiple jurisdiction issues on a single ballot. Ms. Hanna asked if Council wants staff to do any additional outreach, which adds to the cost. The Council responded no. 4. FOLLOW-UP REPORTS ON JULY 1ST COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 15 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction regarding reports on the following items: A. Use of Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund B. Landfill Fee Waiver for Glendale Residents C. Suspension of Arts Fund Consideration D. Development of BMX-Freestyle Area In Fall 2002, the City Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of special interest to members of the elective body to be considered at the first workshop of each quarter. The attached reports provide an initial assessment of topics identified during the July 1, 2003 Council workshop. The four reports address issues related to the Council's priorities of ensuring the city's financial stability as well as enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents. On July 8, 2003, the City Council adopted amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code clarifying the use of the Cemetery's Perpetual Care Fund. In July 2001, the Sanitation Division modified the policy regarding the tonnage that city residents could dispose of for free at Glendale Municipal Landfill. Prior to July 2001 , Glendale residents were permitted to visit the landfill an unlimited number of times and not pay the disposal fee as long as the waste load did not exceed 2,000 pounds per visit. The policy was modified to limit the fee waiver to one time per month for loads not exceeding 2,000 pounds. The one percent contribution to the Public Arts Fund was briefly discussed at the City Council's budget retreat in November 2002. Staff explained the purpose of the fund, how the money is being generated and how it may be used. No action was taken. The Parks and Recreation Department has been working with BMX enthusiasts regarding partnership opportunities related to the development of a BMX freestyle area. Staff has also distributed a survey at local bicycle shops to solicit information from BMX riders. Council has had no formal discussion about this issue. Should Council decide to pursue further action on any of these topics, various stakeholders, interested parties and the public at-large will be notified of policy changes and/or future opportunities to provide input. Each of the four reports provides an initial assessment of the possible budget impacts and costs. Use of Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund 16 Councilmember Martinez asked how difficult and expensive would it be for the city to locate heirs. Mr. Jon Paladini said they have not determined how difficult or expensive the process would be, however, it would require an extensive investigation to identify and contact beneficiaries. He explained the Perpetual Care Fund is trust money paid upfront when a person purchases a plot, therefore, anyone purchasing a plot is arguably a beneficiary of the fund. Councilmember Martinez said staff initially brought the idea forward to Council when it was asked to identify creative ways to address the city's budget shortfall. He expressed disappointment over the lack of information provided to Council with regard to the issue, stating he believes it is an idea worth pursuing. Councilmember Lieberman asked if a person purchasing a plot signs a written agreement indicating a percentage of the purchase price is placed in the Perpetual Care Fund. He expressed his opinion the lack of a written document would make the fund a General Fund because it could not be tied to any particular individuals. Mr. Stuart Kent explained every person signed an agreement with the City of Glendale for the burial right and the policy has been for the city's General Fund to cover the operating costs of the cemetery with the proceeds from the sale of the plots going into the Perpetual Care Fund. Mr. Paladini clarified the Perpetual Care Fund was created by ordinance, therefore, use of the funds for any other purpose would require an amendment to the ordinance as well as notification to and agreement from all beneficiaries of the fund. Mr. Kent explained, once the last lot is sold, the perpetual care fund will be used to maintain the cemetery in perpetuity. He said, presently, however, the city is not using any of the funds. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted his parents are interned at the cemetery, stating he believes it will be hard to sell the idea to the beneficiaries. Mr. Paladini confirmed for Councilmember Goulet that the city could incur legal costs if a beneficiary ultimately chooses to litigate. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion it would take too much time and effort to locate the beneficiaries. He said, therefore, he does not believe they should move forward with the idea. Councilmember Clark said, while she initially saw merit in the idea, she no longer supports using the trust because of the complicating factors and possible costs involved. Councilmember Martinez thanked staff for suggesting the idea, stating it speaks to their ability to think outside the box. Mayor Scruggs stated she did not and does not support the idea. Landfill Fee Waiver for Glendale Residents 17 Mayor Scruggs was absent during discussion of this item. Councilmember Clark said, based on the material presented, staff believes there are customer service benefits to changing the fee waiver policy to allow Glendale residents multiple visits to the landfill during the calendar month. Mr. Kent explained, currently, residents can bring one load of up to one ton free of charge each month, with every load thereafter subject to a fee of up to $19.50 per ton. He said the proposed policy allows residents to bring an unlimited number of loads, each weighing up to 2,000 pounds free of charge, with any amount over 2,000 pounds subject to a fee of up to $19.50 per ton. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Kent stated a pickup truck typically holds 500 pounds. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the policy includes any provisions to deal with professional landscapers. Mr. Kent said, currently, professional landscapers who can provide proof of residency can bring loads without question. Councilmember Clark stated she is not overly concerned about abuse of the policy by landscapers, since it should offset loose trash collections to some degree. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark's position. Councilmember Frate asked about staff's concern that the policy could result in an increase in the amount of unpaid tonnage received at the landfill. Mr. Kent explained that, prior to July 2001, residents were allowed to bring as many loads weighing up to 2,000 pounds as they wanted and the landfill began to see an increasing amount of free tonnage. He said the policy was changed after July 2001 to allow only the first load of up to 2,000 pounds to be free, resulting in a decrease in the amount of unpaid tonnage. He stated it is up to Council to determine if the potential benefits outweigh the potential financial offset. Councilmember Martinez stated he supports the policy change. Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced Council's consensus to proceed with the policy change. Suspension of Arts Fund Consideration Councilmember Martinez explained that, in an attempt to address the city's budget shortfall, he suggested three options, including a reduction in funding for the Commission on Neighborhoods grant program, which was ultimately recommended by staff not to receive any money. He said his second suggestion was to use each Councilmembers' discretionary fund and his third suggestion was to suspend the one percent capital improvement program contribution to the Arts Fund. He emphasized that he is not against art, stating he recognizes what art has brought to the city. He 18 said the fund currently has $534,000, some portion of which might be committed. He explained, however, based on the Capital Improvement Program, the Arts fund is projected to receive $1,041 ,590 in the current year, $1 million in FY 2004/05, $688,000 in FY 2005/06, and $162,000 in FY 2006/07. He said considerable funding will still be available for arts projects even if half of the projected amount is redirected. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Paladini if Council has the authority to divert bond money designated for the Arts Fund to the General Fund to improve neighborhood programs. Mr. Paladini explained the Arts Fund money comes from bonds sold as part of the Capital Improvement Program. He said, because the money comes from bonds, there is a commitment for the money to be used in a certain way. He said it is possible to convert CIP money to General Fund money if there is no other CIP project need for the money. Mayor Scruggs pointed out there will never be a point where the city is not in need of additional CIP money, stating, therefore, the funds cannot be diverted to the General Fund. Councilmember Clark stated she does not want to raid the one percent contribution to the Arts Fund to offset the General Fund. Councilmember Frate agreed, stating great cities always have a strong commitment to the arts. He expressed his opinion there is a direct correlation between the arts and a city's ability to attract businesses and residents. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he does not want to divert the funds either, stating art is very important to the quality of life in the city. Councilmember Lieberman reported receiving a number of phone calls, including some from previous members of the Arts Commission, asking that he not support diverting the funds. Councilmember Goulet said he opposes diverting the funds because there are a number of things he would like to see done in the downtown area in terms of art. Mayor Scruggs stated she does not believe the city has legal authority to divert the funds. She read a letter she received from the Maricopa Regional Arts and Culture Task Force, formed by business leaders in Maricopa County, stressing the importance of arts and culture in efforts to develop a thriving economy. She said she will support keeping the Arts Fund intact. She said, while some people believe the arts to be of lesser value, art is an essential record of what is and what will be our history. She pointed out Glendale was the first city to adopt an Arts Ordinance. Councilmember Martinez said he knew Council would not support his idea, but he felt the issue should be researched. He reiterated that he was not suggesting the Arts Fund be eliminated. He said he has always been troubled by the fact that there is no limit on the amount of money that can be spent on any particular piece of art. He 19 expressed his opinion the amount spent on some pieces of art is extravagant, noting others have told him they consider it obscene. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Paladini to provide a written legal opinion on this issue, stating she is concerned that misinformation could lead employees to believe their raises are being spent on art. She noted the Arts Commission will come before the Council for review in January, stating that would be the appropriate time to discuss whether limits should be placed on the amount that can be spent on any particular pieces of art. She expressed her opinion that, often times, art turns what would otherwise just be a building into a destination. Councilmember Martinez pointed out the Arts Fund will receive an additional $1.8 million from the arena. Development of BMX-Freestyle Area Councilmember Lieberman stated there is a demand for a BMX-freestyle area and suggested that they designate a few acres of the park at Northern and 63rd Avenue for a BMX-freestyle area. Ms. Pam Kavanaugh said as a result of a previous Council meeting, wherein citizens asked staff to meet with them regarding a BMX area, staff conducted surveys and met with interested parties to determine the level of interest in BMX activities. She stated staff will discuss the details of potential facilities when they come before Council for consideration. Councilmember Goulet suggested staff research whether the private sector is involved in providing BMX areas in other communities. He expressed his opinion it is not necessarily the city's responsibility to provide a venue for the most recent sports interest. Mr. Richard Cardin stated they are researching national trends and talking to private concession operators. He said staff is looking at both the Western Area Regional Park and the park at Northern and 63rd Avenue. Councilmember Martinez pointed out staffs communication only refers to the Western Area Regional Park. Councilmember Clark said there have been numerous discussions as to whether the park should be configured for skateboards, BMX activities, or both, noting it is less expensive to build a facility that services both elements. 20 Mr. Cardin stated Parks and Recreation Directors from throughout the valley will meet on December 4, 2003 to discuss the issue since no BMX parks currently exist anywhere in the valley. Councilmember Lieberman noted one participant offered to help raise funds and a store owner has expressed interest in running the facility once it is built. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested staff to look at the city's existing skateboard park to see what problems and challenges it has presented. He said he would think very seriously before allowing such a facility in his neighborhood. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out BMX activities encourage kids to be physically active, give kids an alternative to loitering and getting involved in drugs, and the BMX bikes do not create noise issues. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to proceed with further study. 5. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Stuart Kent, Field Operations Deputy Director. This is the quarterly opportunity for City Councilmembers to identify topics of interest they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda. In Fall 2002, Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of special interest to be identified at the first workshop of each quarter. Councilmembers have been provided the opportunity to identify items of special interest in January, April and July of 2003. The City Manager has responded accordingly with assessment reports on the identified topics. Councilmember Frate asked staff to look into an ordinance related to shopping carts. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked staff to reexamine the city's speed hump policy. Councilmember Goulet said he would like to look at a process to deal in a timely fashion with those interested in developing or redeveloping the downtown area. Additionally, he said neighborhoods are growing more and more frustrated with response times by the Police Department to calls for service. He said some recurring lower priority issues are often not addressed for several hours if not days. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Council has authority to craft a policy concerning police response times. Councilmember Clark asked staff to consider a burglar alarm policy to address commercial and residential false alarms. 21 Mayor Scruggs asked staff to determine what would be involved in investigating whether the city is due compensation from ADOT for plants that died when ADOT cancelled their maintenance contracts without notice to the city. She also suggested staff find out what happened to the plants in the median. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 22