HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/16/2003 (3) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, with Vice Mayor
Thomas R. Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Joyce V. Clark,
Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Philip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez.
Also present were Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City
Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDALE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the 10 resolutions and 5 ordinances
to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and the title
posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 25, 2003 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the November 25, 2003 Regular City Council meeting, as
each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve
them as written. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, read Agenda Item Numbers 1 through 9 and Ms.
Pamela Hanna, City Clerk, read consent agenda resolutions numbers 10 through 19 by
number and title.
Councilmember Lieberman requested item numbers 4 and 6 be heard
separately.
Councilmember Clark requested item number 10 be heard separately.
Mayor Scruggs requested item number 12 be heard separately.
1. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — BROKER OF RECORD
This is a request for the City Council to approve a Broker of Record Contract to
MARSH USA Inc. for a period of three (3) years with a possible two (2) year extension
to secure property and liability insurance coverage.
1
Council policy is to provide liability protection covering the city and its officers,
agents, and employees while engaged in governmental or proprietary capacities. A
Broker of Record contract is necessary to provide Risk Management the ability to
access a world wide insurance market with adequate insurance protection for current
and future activities and endeavors by the City of Glendale.
A Request For Proposals for Broker of Record services was distributed on
September 1, 2003. The Risk Management Division received proposals from Aon
Insurance, MARSH USA and Mesirow Financial. All proposals were received by the
City of Glendale on October 10, 2003. In order to comply with city policy it is necessary
to re-establish a Broker of Record agreement with the successful bidder.
All submitted proposals were evaluated by staff to establish necessary
qualifications and abilities. After reviewing and scoring the submitted proposals, the
Risk Management Division, along with the City Attorney, recommended MARSH USA
Inc. as the Broker of Record on a three (3) year contract with a two (2) year possible
extension.
The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with
MARSH USA Inc. as the Broker of Record.
2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT — PYRAMID PEAK
WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY RE-RATING
This is a request for City Council to approve a professional services agreement
amendment with the firm of CH2M-Hill for performance of the engineering services
needed to complete the capacity re-rating of the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant
(WTP).
The capacity re-rating of the Pyramid Peak WTP will provide additional capacity
for treating drinking water, which will enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents,
help ensure public safety (by providing more water for fire fighting needs) and promote
economic development (by providing additional water for new development).
The Pyramid Peak WTP was originally constructed in 1987. The plant capacity
was increased to 26 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1998. During the first few years
after the plant expansion was completed, it was apparent to Utilities Department staff
that the plant was capable of treating considerably more than its official rated capacity
of 26 million gallons per day. With the goal of making maximum use of the capability of
the expanded plant, CH2M-Hill was hired to oversee the testing needed to determine
what increased capacity the plant could attain. The initial study determined that the
plant could produce up to 30mgd and feasibly go up to approximately 52mgd with some
additional piping. CH2M-Hill was then retained to explore the possibility of re-rating the
Pyramid Peak WTP to a capacity of 52mgd. During the evaluation process, Maricopa
County, the agency responsible for regulation of water treatment plant design and
operation, requested CH2M-Hill do additional testing and evaluation of both fall and
2
spring water quality conditions. This additional request by Maricopa County required
this amendment.
In May 2001, CH2M-Hill was hired to determine whether the Pyramid Peak WTP
could be re-rated from its expanded 26mgd rating to a higher capacity. In March 2003,
the city hired CH2M-Hill to determine whether the Pyramid Peak WTP could be re-rated
to a capacity of 52mgd.
The re-rated Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant will provide additional
capacity for treating drinking water for Glendale and Peoria. It will help ensure an
abundant supply of high quality drinking water is available during normal and peak
demand conditions, and it will provide back-up supply during times when other Glendale
water production and treatment facilities are out of service for maintenance or other
reasons.
The total cost of the projects for re-rating the Pyramid Peak WTP will not exceed
$116,350. Funding for the contract amendment amount of $66,668 needed to
complete the re-rating process is available in Utilities Department Additional Water
Capacity, Account No. 83-8056-8300.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X $66,668
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Utilities Department Additional Water Capacity, 83-8056-8300
The recommendation was to approve the amendment with CH2M-Hill for
performance of the engineering services needed to complete the capacity re-rating of
the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $66,668.
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MURPHY PARK RENOVATIONS
This is a request for City Council to approve a professional services agreement
with Sherman Group, Inc. for the Murphy Park renovation design and construction
management.
This project reflects the City Council strategic priorities of projecting a positive
image of Glendale along with enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents.
The Parks and Recreation Department has conducted an inventory of the
physical and natural elements of Murphy Park along with a study of the functional
aspects of the park. A key element of the study revealed the park is used passively and
as a main venue for the city's major festivals. Walkways will be widened at specific
points to facilitate pedestrian flow, benching and shade opportunities will be more
3
plentiful, landscaping will be enhanced and a major water feature will be included. All
improvements will occur following a schedule that is respectful of scheduled events.
The events staff of the Communications Department has been included in the
planning process and the conceptual design was presented at the April 15, 2003
Council Workshop.
The community will benefit from this project through the stabilization and
enhancement of one of the city's oldest parks and centerpiece to the downtown and
government complex.
Public input was solicited for this project through on-site interviews conducted at
the city's Chocolate Affair and during the development of the City Center Master Plan.
Funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement
Program, Murphy Park Improvements, Account No. 36-8505-8300.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X $81,044
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Murphy Park Improvements, 36-8505-8300
The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with
Sherman Group, Inc. in the amount of$81,044.
5. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-901 LOS DOS GALLOS
This is a request by Jessica Soto for the City Council to approve a new series 12
(restaurant) license for Los Dos Gallos, which will be located at 5025 N. 67th Avenue.
The previous owner operated this business as Los Dos Gallos and held a series 12
license at this location.
The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim
permit issued by the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control. The approval of
this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. The Planning
Department, Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have
reviewed the application and have determined that it meets all technical requirements.
No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period.
4
The recommendation was to forward a recommendation for approval to the
Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.
7. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-910 LA ROSA RESTAURANT
This is a request by Francis Huguez Villa for the City Council to approve a new
series 12 (restaurant) license for La Rosa Restaurant located at 4416 W. Peoria
Avenue.
The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim
permit issued by the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control. The approval of
this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. The Planning
Department, Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have
reviewed the application and have determined that it meets all technical requirements.
No protests were received during the 20-day posting period.
The recommendation was to forward a recommendation for approval to the
Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.
8. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-911 ALBERTSON'S NO. 1009
This is a request by Glenn Edmondson for the City Council to approve a person
and location transfer of a series 9 (off-sale retail, all liquor) license for Albertson's No.
1009, which will be located at 5802 W. Olive Avenue. There have been no prior
businesses at this address. The series 9 license the applicant intends to transfer is
currently issued to an OSCO location in Scottsdale.
The approval of this license will increase the total number of liquor licenses in
this area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school. The Planning Department,
Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the
application and have determined that it meets all technical requirements.
No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period.
The recommendation was to forward a recommendation for approval to the
Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.
9. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-912 LAURA'S MEXICAN FOOD
This is a request by Rodrigo Villanueva for the City Council to approve a new
series 12 (restaurant) license for Laura's Mexican Food located at 6120 N. 59th Avenue.
5
The previous owner operated this business as Laura's Mexican Food, but did not hold a
liquor license.
The approval of this license will increase the total number of liquor licenses in
this area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school. The Planning Department,
Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the
application and have determined that it meets all technical requirements.
No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period.
The recommendation was to forward a recommendation for approval to the
Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
11. GRANT AWARD FOR AUTOMOBILE CHILD SAFETY SEAT PROGRAM
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the acceptance of a 2003 Fire
Act Grant to fund an automobile child safety seat program. It will enable the fire
department to train 21 firefighters as certified car seat technicians to inspect and
correctly install automobile child safety seats. It will also fund the purchase of 600
safety seats to be distributed to disadvantaged families via vouchers issued by
Glendale police officers and firefighters, and agencies such as Glendale Community
Action Program and Glendale Human Services.
This request supports the Council goals of ensuring public safety and
awareness, projecting a positive image and enhancing the quality of life in Glendale.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) offers the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program as part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate. It provides fire departments with funding for the categories of Personnel
Protection Equipment, Operations Equipment, Safety and Training, and Fire Prevention
and Education.
This is the third consecutive year that the fire department has received a grant
through this program. Previous awards provided funding for the development of the
West Side Training Consortium, allowing fire departments in the West Valley to conduct
their training jointly, and the development of the Volunteer Fire Inspector and Educator
program, which promotes safety awareness in the community.
This program will enable citizens to have their child safety seats inspected for
reliability, and to learn proper installation techniques at their local fire station. Vouchers
issued to disadvantaged families can be redeemed for child safety seats at Glendale
fire stations.
6
The total grant award for this program is $130,120. Matching funds in the
amount of$39,036 have been identified.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
$91,084 $39,036 X $130,120
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Grant Administration Matching Fund Account: 47-7075-7000, $20,000
Support Services Contractual Account: 01-3330-7330, $19,036
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the acceptance of the 2003 Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Assistance to Firefighters Grant.
Resolution No. 3720 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION AND ACCEPTING THE 2003
FIRE ACT GRANT FOR AUTOMOBILE CHILD SAFETY SEAT PROGRAM ON
BEHALF OF THE GLENDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT
13 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF WICKENBURG TO
PROVIDE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SERVICES
This is a request for the City Council to review and approve an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) to provide Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) processing services to
the Town of Wickenburg. The IGA will provide the City of Glendale with additional
recyclables to market, and serve as a final destination point for Wickenburg's recently
established drop-off recycling program.
One of the Council's strategic priorities is to strengthen community relationships
and create new partnerships. This agreement reflects a new and beneficial partnership
between the communities of Glendale and Wickenburg.
An additional Council strategic priority is providing financial stability. The
additional recyclable material received by the Glendale MRF will allow the city to market
additional commodities, resulting in increased revenues and more cost effective solid
waste operations.
In August 2001, Wickenburg's recycling committee began work to establish an
official recycling program for its residents. In early 2002, Glendale staff was contacted
for information on Glendale's recycling program, and to determine potential assistance
and services available to assist Wickenburg with the development and startup of a
commingled recycling drop-off program. Wickenburg would be responsible for the
collection and transportation of the commingled recyclables to Glendale's MRF. Staff
7
provided educational information and offered to provide MRF processing service for the
commingled recyclables on a trial basis.
A grant was obtained by Wickenburg from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality to develop a recycling drop-off center at the Wickenburg landfill.
Construction was started on the drop-off center in November 2002, and a newsletter
was published to promote the future opening of the center and recycling program.
The recycling drop-off center opened to the public on August 23, 2003. The first
load of recyclables was shipped to the Glendale MRF on a trial basis beginning on
September 26, 2003. On November 17, 2003, the Wickenburg Town Council approved
a proposed IGA with Glendale to continue shipping recyclables to the Glendale MRF.
To date over 13 tons of recyclable material has been shipped to the MRF.
The term of the proposed IGA is through June 30, 2005. There is no tipping
charge or revenue sharing agreement through the term of the IGA. The IGA may be
extended on terms and conditions acceptable to both Glendale and Wickenburg, and
continue for three additional periods of five years each. A revenue sharing agreement
may be negotiated to be effective beginning July 1, 2005. The long-term goal for
Wickenburg is to develop the recycling drop-off program into a curbside collection
program. The curbside collection program would result in additional recyclable material
being directed to the Glendale MRF for processing and marketing. The proposed IGA
will allow Glendale to continue to receive material from the curbside recycling program.
Either party may terminate the IGA, with or without cause, at any time with a sixty-day
written notice to the other party.
In early 2002, staff began meeting with Wickenburg representatives to provide
recycling education information and requested technical assistance on the development
and startup of a commingled recycling drop-off program.
On September 26, 2003, the Glendale received the first shipment of recyclable
material from Wickenburg.
On November 17, 2003, the Wickenburg Town Council approved the proposed
IGA with Glendale for MRF processing services.
The added commodities resulting from the materials received from Wickenburg
has an annual estimated value of$8,500.
No additional staff or equipment is required to process the material received from
Wickenburg.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
approving the proposed agreement with Wickenburg.
8
Resolution No. 3722 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF WICKENBURG FOR
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SERVICES
14. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH GLENDALE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT #40
This is a request to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Glendale
Elementary School District #40 to develop a joint use neighborhood park site at the
southeast corner of 79th avenue and Orangewood.
This agreement furthers the two Council strategic priorities; (1) enhancing the
quality of life for Glendale residents, (2) strengthening community relationships and
creating new partnerships.
There are currently no parks in this square mile. By constructing this facility, the
city addresses the 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plan goal of providing
neighborhood parks in the one-mile service area bounded by Northern, Glendale, 75
and 83rd avenues.
Neighborhood parks range from one to ten acres in size and typically include
picnic areas, playgrounds, outdoor courts for basketball or tennis and other active and
passive recreation amenities. Neighborhood parks generally serve a population residing
within one square mile.
On April 23, 2002, Council approved the final plat for Orangewood Estates. On
May 28, 2002, City Council directed staff to proceed with the purchase of land adjacent
to Glendale Elementary School District site at 79th Ave and Orangewood for the
development of a joint use neighborhood park site. The city closed escrow for purchase
of the five-acre property on March 20, 2002. The school purchased 15 acres adjacent
to the park site on the same date.
Meets the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended level of service.
Public meetings will be conducted to develop the site master plan.
Development costs will be shared between the city and school district.
Anticipated development costs will not exceed $750,000 or $375,000 per partner. The
development is currently in the FY 08 — 09 CIP budget.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution allowing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with
the Glendale Elementary School District #40.
9
Resolution No. 3723 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH GLENDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 40 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A JOINT PARK SITE
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 79TH AVENUE AND ORANGEWOOD
15. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
This is a request for the City Council to approve an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) to continue
providing public transportation services in Glendale.
One of the City Council goals has been to provide transportation options for the
citizens of Glendale. With funding approved by the citizens through the Go Glendale
Transportation Plan in November 2001 , many transit service improvements have been
made including service 365 days a year.
The RPTA receives about $7 million annually from the Regional Area Road Fund
(RARF) tax to provide regional bus service in the Valley. Approval of this IGA will
provide for the continuation of the portion of bus service provided by the RPTA in
Glendale for FY 2003-04 at an estimated cost to the RPTA of $721,643. This amount
reflects a reduction of 10% from the previous year and will continue to be reduced by
an additional 10% next year for a total reduction of 30% until the funding runs out in
2005. The RPTA Board approved the Valleywide reductions in an effort to reduce
RPTA's debt services to the City of Phoenix.
This is an annual IGA to provide bus service in addition to the service provided
by the Go Glendale Transportation Plan sales tax. The IGA also provides regional
fixed route customer services and communication for all routes in Glendale and the
coordination of the Transportation Demand Management program, which is specified in
the Transportation Plan.
Bus service funded with the passage of the Go Glendale Transportation Plan in
November 2001, along with the service provided by RPTA through this agreement, has
greatly improved the level of transit service in Glendale. Bus service is now available
every half-hour, Monday through Saturday from approximately 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., and
hourly service on Sundays and holidays. This IGA provides funding for part of the
service provided on 59th Avenue, 67th Avenue, and Glendale Avenue. Due to the
service enhancements, ridership has increased 25% over the previous 12-month
period.
The regional customer services function provides customer assistance to fixed
route passengers. Customers can call the customer services center and get assistance
in planning their bus trip. They can also use the internet to access information on bus
10
routes. In addition, regional customer services provides information brochures and the
bus book. The Transportation Demand Management program provides services to
local businesses to assist them in offering alternative transportation options to their
employees to reduce trips resulting in less traffic and pollution.
Public comments have been received at several open houses held during the
process for the Go Glendale Transportation Plan. In addition, public comment was
received in August 2003 during the restructuring of the Grand Avenue bus service.
Costs to Glendale include $221,758 for the regional customer services portion of
the IGA. The Transportation Demand Management program cost is $35,000.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X $256,758
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line item Number:
Transportation/Fixed Route: 25-6354-7330 - $221,758
Transportation/Demand Management: 25-6355-7330 - $35,000
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the entering into of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the
City of Glendale and the Regional Public Transportation Authority to continue the
provision of public transportation services in Glendale.
Resolution No. 3724 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF
THE TRANSIT SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
16. AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
PHOENIX FOR FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE
This is a request for the City Council to approve two contract change orders for
year five of the five-year intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of
Phoenix and the City of Glendale. Contract Change Order #4 is for the cost of
providing bus service in Glendale. Change Order #5 is a credit earned due to route
restructuring.
One of the City Council Goals has been to provide Transportation Options for the
citizens of Glendale. Many service improvements have been made with the funding
approved by the citizens through the Go Glendale Transportation Plan in November
2001. Service levels have expanded to include increased frequency on weekdays and
Saturdays, and implementation of service on Sundays and holidays.
11
The City of Phoenix provides fixed route bus service in the City of Glendale
through an IGA. Approval of this contract change order will provide continued operation
of fixed route service in Glendale through June 2004.
Council originally approved this five-year IGA in 1999. This request is to approve
the final year of the five-year IGA.
Bus service funded with the passage of the Go Glendale Transportation Plan in
November 2001, has greatly improved the level of transit service in Glendale. Bus
service is now available every half-hour, Monday through Saturday from approximately
5 a.m. to 10 p.m., and hourly service on Sundays and holidays. This agreement covers
part of the service provided on the following fixed route services: Glendale Avenue,
59th Avenue and 67th Avenue. This agreement provides all of the service on: Bethany
Home Road, Northern Avenue, Olive Avenue, Thunderbird Road, Bell Road, Union Hills
Drive, 51st Avenue, and two express routes. Due to the service enhancements,
ridership has increased 25% over the previous 12-month period.
Public comments were received at several open houses held during the process
for the Go Glendale Transportation Plan. In addition, public comments were received
recently during the restructuring of the Grand Avenue bus service.
The contract amount for FY 2003-04 Change Order #4 is $3,461,500. The
amount for Change Order #5 is a credit for ($91,476). The net cost for bus service for
FY2003-04 is $3,370,024 and is available in the Transportation/Fixed Route account
25-6354-7330.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X $3,370,024
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Transportation/Fixed Route: 25-6354-7330
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the execution of Contract Change Order Nos. 4 and 5, to the
intergovernmental agreement with the City of Phoenix for the operation of fixed route
bus services in Glendale.
Resolution No. 3725 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NOS. 4 AND 5 TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE OPERATION OF FIXED
ROUTE BUS SERVICES IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
12
17. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
development agreement with BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company for the construction of a
90,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility in the Glendale Airpark.
This project meets the City Council objective of creating high quality jobs in
Glendale.
Coca-Cola Enterprises has agreed to purchase approximately 13 acres at the
Glendale Airpark and to construct a 90,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility.
Total project capital investment is estimated at $10 million. The company agrees to
maintain operations at the property for at least 10 years. The City of Glendale agrees to
provide an Employment Development Incentive (EDI) of up to $250,000 for the creation
of 160 full-time jobs paying an average of $15 per hour and providing at least 50% of
health benefits. The incentive will be paid at up to $50,000 per year for a term of 5
years. The development agreement includes a provision for repayment to the city if
operations should cease before the 10-year commitment.
The project will create approximately 160 jobs with an overall average wage of
$15 per hour.
The 90,000 square foot facility included in this project will be one of the largest
non-municipal or medical developments in the city. In addition, this project helps
solidify the Glendale Airpark as a preferred business location.
This company is very interested in being a strong corporate citizen involved in
the community.
The total agreement is for $250,000 paid out at $50,000 per year conditioned
upon the creation of qualified full-time jobs. Since the client is constructing a new
building, a payment is not expected to occur this fiscal year. A supplemental will be
submitted during the upcoming FY04-05 budget process for appropriation and timing of
payments over the span of the development agreement.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into a development agreement with BCI Coca-
Cola Bottling Co.
Resolution No. 3726 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF
LOS ANGELES; AND DIRECTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE
RECORDED
13
18. ER SOLUTIONS, INC. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
development agreement with ER Solutions. ER Solutions has agreed to lease
approximately 25,000 square feet at the Brookwood Commerce Center at 4425 W.
Olive Avenue for their accounts receivable processing call center. ER Solutions agrees
to maintain operations at the property for at least five years and to hire a minimum of
150 employees.
This project meets the City Council objective of creating quality jobs for Glendale
citizens.
Economic Development staff was able to identify ER Solutions through their work
with real estate representatives while promoting Glendale as a location for business
expansion and development. ER Solutions is consolidating offices currently located in
Phoenix, AZ and Peoria, IL. ER Solutions will create at least 150 jobs with an average
wage of $10 per hour. They expect to increase employment to 260 employees in the
next two years. The City of Glendale will provide an Employment Development
Incentive (EDI) up to $40,000 based on the creation of 150 full-time positions during the
first five years of operation in Glendale. At least 35% of the full-time positions must be
filled by residents of the City of Glendale. A repayment provision is outlined in the
development agreement if ER Solutions should cease its operations before five years
has transpired.
This project will assist in the creation and retention of jobs available for Glendale
citizens.
Payment of the incentive is expected to occur this year because ER Solutions is
moving into existing office space. This transaction will require a transfer of appropriation
authority in the amount of $40,000 from FY03-04 General Fund Contingency, account
no 01-2450-7000, to Economic Development Incentives, 01-5415-7330. This will result
in a reduction of General Fund Contingency appropriation for FY03-04 and a reduction
in the General Fund balance.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X X $40,000
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Economic Opportunity Incentives, 01-5415-7330
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into a development agreement with ER Solutions
14
Inc., and further, approve a transfer of $40,000 from General Fund Contingency, 01-
2450-7000, to Economic Opportunity Incentives, 01-5415-7330.
Resolution No. 3727 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ER SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND DIRECTING THAT
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE RECORDED
19. THUNDERBIRD PALMS, LLC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
development agreement with Thunderbird Palms, LLC for their development of a
medical office complex at 57th Drive and Thunderbird Road.
This project is consistent with the General Plan and will assist in the creation and
retention of jobs in Glendale.
The developers of Thunderbird Palms have constructed a 70,000 square foot
office complex on an 8-acre project site located at the northeast corner of 57th Drive
and Thunderbird Road. Thunderbird Palms is a high quality medical office complex
with a tenant base of medical services, dental and medical offices and laboratory
services. It is estimated that the tenants of the complex will employ approximately 350
people with an average wage of$20.00 per hour.
The development agreement will give a rebate up to $54,925 of the construction
sales tax paid to offset development costs and offsite improvements.
The project is an infill project that provides a much-needed amenity to a parcel
that prior to development had limited access and availability. It will assist in the creation
and retention of jobs in Glendale.
Funds are available in Development Agreements, account no. 01-2480-7326.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X X $54,925
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Development Agreements, 01-2480-7326
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a development agreement with
Thunderbird Palms, LLC.
15
Resolution No. 3728 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THUNDERBIRD PALMS, L.L.C., AN ARIZONA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND DIRECTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BE RECORDED
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced his
support of the safety seat program. He said he also supports the intergovernmental
agreements with the Town of Wickenburg and the Glendale Elementary School
Districts. With regard to the intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Public
Transportation Authority and the amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with
the City of Phoenix for fixed bus service, he said he is concerned that City of Phoenix
bus drivers ignore transfer passengers. He thanked the Council for the Thunderbird
Palms medical complex.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Eggleston and seconded by Frate, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, including the approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3720
New Series, Resolution No. 3722 New Series, Resolution No. 3723 New Series,
Resolution No. 3724 New Series, Resolution No. 3725 New Series, Resolution No.
3726 New Series, Resolution No. 3727 New Series, and Resolution No. 3728 New
Series and to forward Liquor License Applications No. 3-901 for Los Dos Gallos,
3-910 for La Rosa Restaurant, No. 3-911 for Albertson's No. 1009, No. 3-912 for
Laura's Mexican Food, with the recommendation for approval. The motion
carried unanimously.
4. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SAFETY CITY BIKE PARK
Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council to approve a professional services agreement
with Carter+Burgess for the Safety City Bike Park design and construction
management.
These improvements will create a recreational opportunity focusing on bicycle
activities along with instructing youth on vehicular safety. The facility is consistent with
the Parks and Recreation Masterplan in providing a balance of leisure activity
opportunities.
16
In 2002, a masterplan was prepared for recreational uses at the 25-acre
retention basin at 63rd and Northern avenues. The amenities that will be constructed
include a children's pedestrian/bicycle safety town with built-to-scale streets, sidewalks,
and traffic signs. The facility will also include a bicycle motocross racetrack, picnic and
play areas. All improvements will be done in a manner that respects and does not
hinder the retention function of the basin.
This project is consistent with the citywide Parks and Recreation Masterplan
approved by Council.
Public meetings will be held to gain input on the design and site plan for this
facility.
Funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement
Program, 63rd & Northern Park Development, Account No. 36-8503-8300.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
X $156,296.4
6
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
63rd & Northern Park Development, 36-8503-8300
The recommendation was to approve the Professional Services Agreement with
Carter+Burgess in the amount of $156,296.46.
Councilmember Lieberman said he does not support the inclusion of a
motocross race track, stating the people who brought the issue to Council want a
freestyle track rather than a motocross facility. Mr. Broyles explained the motocross
track was included in the master plan for the facility, but is not part of the design being
awarded. Councilmember Lieberman asked when a BMX freestyle area will be created.
Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director, said both uses could occur at the
proposed site, noting representatives from the bicycle/motocross community will be part
of the planning process. He said proponents of the freestyle area will also be invited to
participate in the planning process. He assured Councilmember Lieberman the uses
would be located in separate areas. He said, once approved, they will begin the
planning process and expect design to take six months.
Councilmember Martinez asked if ADEQ approval will be required because of
the dust created by the motocross track. Mr. Smith assured Councilmember Martinez
that all applicable clearances and permits will be obtained.
17
Councilmember Goulet clarified the motocross track will be for bicycles, not
motorcycles. He asked if his previous request for a dog park will be implemented into
the plan. Mr. Smith stated it would be considered.
Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Smith to verify that measures are currently
being taken to suppress dust.
Mayor Scruggs asked where is the project in the CIP. Mr. Smith said the project
is funded in this year through the city's match, however a majority of the funding comes
from a Heritage Fund Grant. Mayor Scruggs asked why the item covers both design
and construction management when it has not yet been determined when the project
will be constructed. Mr. Broyles explained construction administration services are
included as part of the overall contract, but the services will not be charged to the city
unless the project goes to construction.
It was moved by Lieberman and seconded by Goulet, to approve the
recommended action on Consent Agenda Item 4. The motion carried
unanimously.
6. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-909 PRODUCE CITY
This is a request by Ben Safou for the City Council to approve a new series 10
(off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for Produce City located at 5508 N. 43rd Avenue.
There have been no prior liquor licenses at this location.
The approval of this license will increase the number of liquor licenses in this
area by one.
The Planning Department, Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health
Department have reviewed the application and have determined that it meets all
technical requirements.
The applicant originally applied for a series 10 license at this location in
September 2003. The applicant subsequently withdrew the application because the
location was next to a church. The church has moved and the applicant has reapplied.
The Tax and License Department is recommending disapproval of this
application based on the protests.
Fourteen letters were filed, signed by 25 residents. The letters received are from
residents living in the Sevilla Neighborhood Association located in Phoenix within a mile
of the proposed liquor application. The grounds for the protests can be summarized as
follows:
• Concerns with the number of liquor licenses in the area.
• Concerns with how the applicant filled out the liquor application.
18
• Homelessness in the area.
• Concerns with the compatibility of the establishment with the proposed future
uses in the area, including a day care center.
The protests received were from the September 2003 application, as staff did not
feel it was necessary to provide new protests for this application.
The recommendation was to forward a recommendation for disapproval to the
Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.
In response to Councilmember Lieberman's questions, Mr. Bailey stated the self-
initiated petitions contained 63 signatures and the two other petitions contained
approximately 23 signatures in favor of granting the liquor license. He confirmed the
church no longer exists in the shopping center. He said, at this time, an active liquor
license exists in the shopping center, however, it is not attached to any business.
Councilmember Clark asked about the petitions. Mr. Bailey explained there were
three petitions in support of the license, one initiated by the applicant and two initiated
by residents in the area. He noted letters and protests have been received from the
Sevilla neighborhood. Councilmember Clark asked if the addresses on the petitions
are located in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Bailey responded yes.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out a number of the addresses are located on 43rd
Avenue. She asked if they belong to businesses or residences. Mr. Bailey explained
the petition indicates those addresses on the 43rd Avenue that belong to other
businesses in the strip center who support the application. He said the other addresses
on 43rd Avenue are residences. He noted the city will cross reference the addresses
with city accounts to ensure they are valid. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the majority of
signatures came from an apartment complex, a mobile home complex, businesses in
the area and residences outside the city of Glendale.
Mayor Scruggs clarified for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the Liquor License
application Council denied at its last meeting has been forwarded to the State Liquor
Board, but will not be resolved until February or March.
Mr. Jerry Lewkowitz, Applicant's representative, pointed out that, while some of
the people who signed the petition live in Phoenix, 43rd Avenue is the dividing line
between Phoenix and Glendale. He noted the Department received 14 letters signed
by 25 residents of the Sevilla neighborhood during the posting period. He said the
business will be operated by two very experienced people who have never received a
violation. He stated the applicants have met with the neighborhood and, as a result of
those meetings, have agreed to prohibit the sale of single liquor bottles/cans, malt liquor
and fortified wines. He pointed out every business in the area signed the petition in
favor of the application.
19
Councilmember Clark asked if Produce City is a new business. Mr. Lewkowitz
said the business has been operating for approximately one month. Councilmember
Clark pointed out two of the petitions are headed with a preface that reads "Help
Produce City to remain open...they need our help." She asked if that is the premise
upon which the signatures were gathered. Mr. Lewkowitz explained 15 to 18 percent of
a convenience store's volume is in beer and wine. Councilmember Clark noted 11
Series 10 licenses are located within one mile of the subject establishment. She asked
what kind of due diligence was done when selecting the subject site. Mr. Safou said the
closest convenience store is approximately one mile away. Councilmember Clark
asked if the applicant conducted a market study. Mr. Safou pointed out the shopping
center in which they are located is almost vacant. Councilmember Clark asked what
compelling need will the establishment meet that would justify granting of the license.
Mr. Safou said they treat their customers as people, not numbers.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the applicants would be making their application
if the liquor license before the state for a Karaoke bar had already been granted. He
further asked if the applicants believe their establishment will still be meeting a need if
the Karaoke bar's liquor license is granted. Mr. Lewkowitz said, while both
establishments sell liquor, the Karaoke bar will offer onsite sales only. He stated their
establishment will fulfill the community's need for convenience.
Councilmember Frate pointed out the city has no way of enforcing the applicant's
offer not to sell single liquor bottles/cans. Mr. Lewkowitz agreed, stating ,however, the
applicant is good to his word. Councilmember Frate asked if the store will be a grocery
store as the name implies. Mr. Safou said the store will sell various grocery items.
Councilmember Lieberman questioned Council's level of concern regarding the
total number of licenses in an area, given its approval of a license for Laura's Mexican
Food which has 12 Series 10 and 40 overall licenses within one mile. Councilmember
Clark pointed out the license for Laura's Mexican Food was a restaurant license, which,
typically, the Council supports.
Mayor Scruggs clarified that the addresses she referred to on the petitions as
being in Phoenix are actually located more than two miles away from the subject site.
She agreed the applicant's offer to restrict sales of single liquor bottles/cans and malt
liquor cannot be enforced.
Mr. Safou explained customers who come in to purchase beer or wine ultimately
purchase other items as well. He said, however, those customers would not be drawn
to their store without the beer and wine.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Safou why they went to the time and expense of
opening their store without having a guarantee of receiving a liquor license. Mr. Safou
said their accountant advised them that the establishment had to be open in order for
them to apply for a Series 10 license. He said he later found out that was not the case
20
and they closed the store. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Safou what he will do if the
application is denied. Mr. Safou said they will close the business permanently.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 6.
Ms. Shelley Pressler, a resident of the City of Glendale, stated she manages the
mobile home park next door to the applicant's store. She said tenants of the park
signed the petition in favor of the application because they like to shop at their store,
however, they will go elsewhere if beer and wine are not available. She noted three of
the licenses mentioned by Councilmember Clark are for bars that are no longer in
operation. She expressed her opinion the applicant is providing a service to the
neighborhood.
Ms. Jamie Johnson, a resident of the City of Phoenix and President of the Sevilla
Neighborhood Association, said Produce City has been a topic of discussion at three of
their Association meetings and there is a strong resistance to additional liquor licenses
in the area. She noted the southwest quarter mile of their neighborhood remains in the
top 100 most crime ridden areas in the City of Phoenix, with over half of the violent
crimes in Phoenix during the year occurring in that southwest quarter mile. She said
federal, state, county and city officials have come to the neighborhood, and yet crime
rates continue to increase. She expressed concern about adding another liquor license
to an area that has had such a profound and long term level of distress.
Ms. Vivian Valle, a resident of the City of Phoenix and Boardmember of the
Sevilla Neighborhood Association, introduced other members of the association present
at the meeting. She said they met with the applicant on November 20, at which time
the applicant asked for their support of his liquor license application. She stated the
license will be a new license for a convenience market in an area where other
convenience markets exist. She said Council previously denied a liquor license
application for the same center because the applicant had not demonstrated the need
for another license in the area. She expressed her opinion the same reasoning can be
applied to the proposed application. She questioned the validity of the petitions, stating
they were not submitted in a timely manner, resulting in little time to verify the
signatures. She said the letters from their Association were delivered to the city on
September 30, noting the applicant withdrew his license that same day and refilled the
license three days later. She stated Mr. Bailey's office assured her the letters did not
have to be resubmitted and would be applied to the new application. She said, had she
not received that assurance from the city, she would have resubmitted those 13 letters
along with many others. She urged the Council to recommend denial of the license.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Clark and seconded by Lieberman, to approve the liquor
license for Produce City.
21
Councilmember Martinez said he has listened to the arguments for both sides of
the issue. He said, however, given that businesses in the area support the application
and the store is a convenience for residents of the apartment complex and mobile
home park, he will support the application.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out no representatives from Grand Missouri
Mobile Home Village were present to voice any objection to the application. He said he
supports the application, noting he receives very few complaints and the police get few
calls for service in the area.
Councilmember Clark voiced her opposition to the application. She pointed out
a majority of the signatures on the petitions came from residents of the apartment
complex, stating, by nature, apartment tenants are transient and do not invest in the
community. She said residents of the Sevilla neighborhood have lived there for a long
time and have worked to preserve their community. She stated she does not believe
the store fulfills a compelling need and fears a society in which a business cannot
succeed without the ability to sell liquor. She said a true convenience store will find a
way to meet the needs of its customers regardless of whether or not they are allowed to
sell liquor.
Councilmember Goulet expressed concern that applications are brought forward
without an understanding of the number and type of other licenses already in the area.
He said there is no shortage of opportunity to purchase liquor. He explained his
concern for older neighborhoods and their attempts to preserve a quality of life prevents
him from being able to support the application.
Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed another liquor license is not needed in the area.
He said, therefore, he will recommend denial of the application.
Councilmember Martinez took issue with comments concerning apartment
tenants, stating many people live in their apartment for a long time. He pointed out
many older neighborhoods have a large number of rental properties. He reiterated his
position that there is a need for a convenience store in the area.
Councilmember Frate said he understands the applicant's position that beer and
wine sales are essential to the success of his business. He said the store was
providing a service and had the support of the neighborhood, but was unable to achieve
a profit. He stated he will support the application and apprised the applicant of their
right to appeal to the state if the application is ultimately denied.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out a number of the people who signed the
petitions own mobile homes.
Mayor Scruggs stated valid points were made by both sides and she commends
the residents for their attempts to address the problems that have beset their
neighborhood for many years. She said, while she recognizes the need for a
22
convenience store, she cannot support the application because of the two outstanding
liquor licenses that already exist in the shopping center.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out two the licenses are for the same
address, therefore, one will become invalid once the other is approved. Mr. Bailey
agreed.
Mayor Scruggs responded she still felt approval of this license would be sending
a conflicting message.
Upon a call for the question, the motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4 with the
following Councilmembers voting "aye": Frate, Lieberman, and Martinez.
Councilmembers voting "nay": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, and Scruggs. The
motion failed.
10. ANNEXATION POLICY
Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director, presented this item.
This is a request for the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the
Annexation Policy.
One of the goals of Glendale 2025-The Next Step, 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.
The draft policy arose from Council comments offered during 2000 and 2001
regarding specific annexations or annexation requests.
Council has held five workshops on this matter. 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 draft policy was held.
Discussion centered on specific elements contained in the draft annexation policy,
especially the inclusion of a disclosure statement and use of pre-annexation
agreements.
During the third workshop on October 15, 2002, a general consensus on the
evaluation process for the consideration of undeveloped land for annexation was
reached. Staff was directed to bring the draft policy and disclosure statement back to
workshop in early 2003 to continue the discussion on the evaluation process for
developed properties.
23
At the City Council Workshop on February 18, 2003, the disclosure statement
and draft annexation policy discussion continued. The Council requested code
compliance, a fee structure and an example of property tax impact.
The fifth workshop, on October 21, 2003, included presentation and discussion
of the code compliance section, infrastructure improvement requirement and municipal
service fee for developed properties seeking annexation, and a property tax example.
The Council came to a consensus during the workshop that the policy and disclosure
statement should be brought forward to a business meeting to be considered for
adoption.
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 that 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.
The recommendation was to adopt a resolution approving the Annexation Policy.
Mr. Paladini noted a motion to approve the Resolution would have to verbally
reference the editing change made to the resolution as well as to the minor correction
to the policy as outlined in the Planning Department memo, dated December 16, 2003.
Councilmember Clark asked if changing the language has the effect of evoking
the emergency clause. Mr. Paladini responded no, explaining the Resolution is not an
ordinance. Councilmember Clark asked why the original language asked for a date
certain. Mr. Paladini was unable to answer, stating Resolutions are not typically dated.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if Resolutions come into effect 30 days after
approval unless approved under an emergency clause. Mr. Paladini explained only
Ordinances that adopt new code have a 30 day referendum period.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 10.
Ms. Margery Beaty, a resident of the City of Glendale, said Pendergast West
Amended petitioned Glendale for annexation in 2000 and there is little doubt the
proposed annexation policy is directed at that request. She said staff was directed after
the May 1, 2001 Council workshop to develop an annexation policy. In the mayor's
letter of February 12, 2003 to Supervisor Wilson, Mayor Scruggs noted that the original
annexation request from Pendergast Estates is one of the reasons the city has
developed a formal annexation policy. Ms. Beaty explained their original annexation
request stressed the need for fire protection and protection from commercial traffic on
their streets. She stated they did not desire curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights,
sewer connections and so forth. She said the city's fire and police departments
determined annexation of their neighborhood would have negligible impact on existing
24
services. She stated the Code Compliance Division felt there would be no significant
impact and the Waste and Recycling Collection Department believed $7,500 would be
needed to deliver containers to the neighborhood's 65 homes. She said, while the
area's drainage system was considered inadequate, it was pointed out that they are set
up for flood irrigation and no drainage problems currently exist. Ms. Beaty said the city
has installed a large sewer line down the middle of one of their streets, in spite of the
fact that the neighborhood does not desire sewer connection. She noted the city was
offered $25,000 by the County to upgrade the streets, which is twice the actual cost
according to the city's analysis. She said the residents do not desire street lighting and
the lack thereof was not considered a problem by either the Police or Fire Departments.
She said, unlike a new subdivision, their neighborhood has been in existence for over
30 years. She pointed out they are already using the city's streets, parks, libraries,
water system and public safety services. She said they were willing to be annexed and
to pay taxes, but not under the terms outlined in the proposed annexation policy. She
noted in 2001 her neighborhood could have been annexed for $61,500, of which the
county would have paid $25,000 and Glendale would have paid $42,000. She said the
proposed annexation policy requires already developed areas to pay for the required
infrastructure improvements needed to comply with current Glendale codes prior to
annexation. She said, using 2001 prices and the city's estimates, it would cost
$4,222,500 to annex her three street neighborhood. She expressed her opinion her
neighborhood is being subjected to unfair and prejudicial treatment and that the policy
is discriminatory. Ms. Beaty said, consequently, there is no doubt as to Pendergast
West's position on annexation. A petition was submitted by Pendergast Homeowners
stating they did not desire annexation.
Mayor Scruggs emphasized that, since 2000, Council made it clear that the city's
annexation policy was being developed based on past experiences with neighborhoods.
She said, while they understand Pendergast West's desire not to change its lifestyle,
over the years new people move into the neighborhood and want the lifestyle changed.
She stated the annexation policy is intended to provide a record of the promises made
and not made. She assured Ms. Beaty that the policy will not be used to force
neighborhoods to make infrastructure improvements. She said, while she commends
the work Pendergast West has done, she disagrees with their analysis of the Council's
actions and the intent of the policy.
Councilmember Martinez discussed a situation where residents of a previously
annexed neighborhood claimed promises were made by a prior Council. He said the
proposed policy will help prevent future misunderstandings.
Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion the proposed policy requires
neighborhoods to pay for the right to be annexed into the city. She read an excerpt
from the policy concerning developed areas, stating areas proposed for annexation are
required to upgrade the existing infrastructure to comply with the current City of
Glendale standards before the adoption of the annexation ordinance. She said the
proposed annexation area is also required to pay a Municipal Service Fee (MSF) equal
to one year of the city's current property tax based on the assessed valuation of the
25
proposed annexation area. The MSF would include the current primary and secondary
property tax rates leveled by the city. She stated the policy precludes an area from
being annexed until the funds are paid by every property owner. Councilmember Clark
said, additionally, the proposed annexation area is required to enter into a pre-
annexation agreement with the City of Glendale to clarify the extent of the infrastructure
improvements to be accomplished and the amount of the MSF to be paid. She stated
the City of Glendale has also proposed that 70 percent of the affected property owners
express an interest in annexation before any formal meeting can occur. She explained
residents will have a grace period of one year from actual annexation to rectify any
code violations identified during the city's assessment of the area. Councilmember
Clark said the city has historically pursued annexations, questioning what Glendale
would look like today if the proposed policy had been adopted in the 1960's. She said,
unlike impact fees paid by new subdivisions, the fees paid by proposed annexation
areas are not federally or court regulated. She expressed her opinion it makes sense
to encourage properties to come into Glendale so that their taxes will help pay for the
services they are already receiving. She pointed out the city waives or reduces fees for
infill development where city infrastructure already exists, stating it is ironic the same
kind of thinking is not applied to county islands. She said, unlike county islands, infill
developments create a greater demand on Police, Fire, parks and libraries.
Councilmember Clark stated, on the contrary, annexation of county islands has positive
affects on the city, including a higher population base, resulting in a higher share of
income tax and state shared revenues. She expressed her opinion adoption of the
policy would not be in the best interest of the city, noting Glendale neighborhoods are
often negatively impacted by the presence of county islands. She said residents into
those neighborhoods would prefer to see the county islands annexed into the city. She
stated the proposed policy could be precedent setting and encourage other cities to
adopt similar policies. She pointed out people will come from all over the country to
visit the new sporting venues and many will travel to downtown Glendale. She said
visitors who see substandard county islands will not make any distinction between
county islands and Glendale neighborhoods. She stated she continues to hope her
colleagues will one day realize the benefits of adopting an annexation policy that
encourages annexation. She urged the Council to weigh recapturing costs against the
intangible benefits created for the community.
Councilmember Lieberman asked to address Ms. Beaty. Mr. Paladini stated the
public hearing has been closed. Councilmember Lieberman disagreed.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said, while
he knows the Council is making decisions based on what they believe to be right, he
believes the city should embrace diversity and extend its lifestyle to all areas that desire
annexation. He expressed his opinion the policy sends the wrong message, stating it
seems un-American. He asked that the speaker card he submitted be changed to
reflect that he is opposed to the proposed policy.
26
Councilmember Lieberman referred to Page 6 of the Policy wherein it states,
"Council has the authority to waive the MSF and other selected improvements which
may be accomplished through improvement programs administered by the city if
annexation is deemed in the best interest of the city. This allows the Council some
flexibility so that each developed area requesting annexation can be evaluated on a
case by case basis." He expressed his opinion the statement is ambiguous, asking at
what point would the city be justified in waiving the MSF or other selected
improvements. He suggested Council table the issue to allow for further discussion.
He clarified his position, stating he favors a standard annexation policy and believes a
newly annexed developed area should have the same costs associated with it as a new
subdivision.
Mayor Scruggs explained the statement was added in an attempt to address
some of Councilmember Clark's concerns.
Mr. Froke agreed Page 6 of the policy gives Council the discretion to waive the
MSF and/or selected improvements relative to infrastructure. He explained the
statement was included to allow Council to deal with developed areas on a case by
case basis. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would be fair to waive the fees or improvements
in one case but not in all cases. Mr. Froke stated a neighborhood not interested in
making improvements would come before Council, who would then decide if the
improvements should be waived. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the statement
adds an element of fairness and allows Council to respect the lifestyles of the
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the policy allows neighborhoods to remain on
septic system if the system is not up to city standards. He also asked if the
neighborhood could utilize the city's program to extend the main sewer to the
neighborhood. Mr. Froke referred to a list of general services provided to Glendale
residents on Page 2 of the disclosure statement, stating sewer services are included in
that list.
Councilmember Clark asked if the city's liability increases if it annexes an area
who's infrastructure is not up to city standards and does not require improvements to be
done. Mr. Froke explained the city is liable if it fails to act in a reasonable manner,
however, it is not necessarily unreasonable for the city not to require improvements if
the infrastructure is reasonably safe. Councilmember Clark referred to the six
assistance programs that would be available to annexed neighborhoods to help make
necessary improvements. She pointed out the Neighborhood Partnership Program is
currently unfunded and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program focuses primarily on
low-income neighborhoods. She asked if there is a waiting list with regard to the Infill
Lighting Program. Mr. Froke responded no. Councilmember Clark asked if there is a
waiting list for the Speed Hump Program. Mr. Froke answered yes. Councilmember
Clark questioned what impact the programs' lack of funding and waiting lists will have
on a neighborhood's ability to complete the annexation process. Mr. Froke
27
acknowledged that a neighborhood's annexation request could be delayed, reiterating,
however, Council has the discretion to waive the improvements.
Resolution No. 3719 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE "ANNEXATION
POLICY FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE"; AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
It was moved by Eggleston and seconded by Goulet, to approve and adopt
Resolution No. 3719 New Series and the exhibit with the editing changes as to the
minor correction to the policy as outlined in the Planning Department memo,
dated December 16, 2003. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1 with the
following Councilmembers voting "aye": Eggleston, Frate, , Goulet, Lieberman,
Martinez, and Scruggs. Councilmembers voting "nay": Clark.
12. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDING
Mr. Mark Burdick, Fire Chief, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council approval to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management
(MCDEM) to facilitate and administer the provision of Federal Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) grant funding to Glendale. This function was formerly performed by the
Arizona Department of Emergency Management, but is being conferred to MCDEM,
which is now the designated agency to administer DHS grant awards to cities in
Maricopa County.
This request supports the council strategic priorities of ensuring public safety and
awareness, and enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents.
Fire department emergency management staff has been actively and
successfully pursuing Homeland Security grant funding for programs for the past two
years. Since August 2001 , a total of $1.7 million in federal funding has been awarded
to the City of Glendale for disaster preparedness planning and training, purchasing
emergency medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, hazardous materials equipment and
supplies, communications equipment, and disaster response and recovery equipment.
Glendale has become a leader among Arizona cities in disaster preparedness
planning, response capability and readiness. The fire department conducts emergency
management planning regionally in concert with outside agencies, so that necessary
resources are identified that will provide the most effective coverage. These resources
are deployed strategically in the West Valley to provide a regional disaster response
capability to protect Glendale and neighboring communities.
28
Fire department emergency management staff continues to pursue Homeland
Security funding on behalf of the city, in cooperation with other city departments.
The ability to protect the health and safety of Glendale residents and visitors
from natural or manmade disasters is enhanced.
Fire department grant purchase appropriation is identified in the FY 2003-04
budget, account 47-331-A7000.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution entering into an intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management for the provision of Federal Department of
Homeland Security grant funding.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there are any differences between this
intergovernmental agreement with the county and the previous agreement with the
Arizona Department of Emergency Command. Mr. Burdick responded no, explaining
the agreement is in response to a transfer of responsibility mandated by Federal
Homeland Security.
Resolution No. 3721 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ENTITLED, "FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS (ODP)
REIMBURSEMENT GRANT PROGRAMS" BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
AND MARICOPA COUNTY
It was moved by Eggleston and seconded by Frate, to approve and adopt
Resolution No. 3721 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
20. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATIONS (REQUEST
TO TABLE)
This city-initiated request was legally noticed for tonight's meeting but is not
ready to be heard by the City Council and needs to be tabled. Additional workshops
and discussion is needed on this item. The City Council will need to take formal action
to table this item.
The goal of combining and updating these expectations is to provide a tool for
staff, City Council, Planning Commission, and the development community to guide
high quality development and provide for diverse neighborhoods. The document should
29
be a customer friendly document, easily understood, and outline the city's expectations
and goals for new residential development throughout the city.
The draft document updates and combines the existing 1999 single Family
Residential Design and Development Guidelines and the 1996 Multiple Residence
Housing Design Guidelines. It will replace the existing Single Family Residential Design
Guidelines and the Multiple Residence Housing Design Guidelines. Modifications from
the existing documents include: Definitions, Small Lot Development, House Product
Design, Architectural Design Review, and Amenities/Open Space.
The draft document separates the Design and Development Expectations into
eight parts:
o Part 1: Small Lot Development Lot sizes less than 7,000 S.F.
o Part 2: Medium Lot Development Lot sizes between 7,000 to 12,000 S.F.
o Part 3: Large Lot Development Lot sizes over 12,000 S.F.
o Part 4: Amenities
o Part 5: House Product Design
o Part 6: Architectural Design Review
o Part 7: Multi-Family Development
o Part 8: Appendix
Some of the key objectives expressed throughout the draft document include: a
greater variety of lot sizes to include small lots, detached sidewalks, shorter block
lengths, open space, varied setbacks, improved recreational amenities, larger buffers
from collector streets and intense land uses, and more variety in architectural style and
building materials for house products.
The proposal clarifies the minimum expectations for all new subdivisions
regardless of standard subdivisions, Planned Residential Developments, or Planned
Area Development. Subdivisions with lot sizes greater than 12,000 square feet will be
eligible for certain alternate development standards, if exceptional quality can be
shown.
In June 2003, the Council received a preliminary draft of the expectations.
The proposal was introduced at the Planning Commission workshop on May 8,
2003 meeting. Staff discussed the draft expectations at five additional workshops with
the Planning Commission on June 12, July 10, August 14, September 11, and
September 24, 2003 and one Planning Commission meeting on November 6, 2003.
At the November 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the draft document to the Council with the
attached amendments.
30
The Planning Commission recommended a change to the title of the document
to Residential Design and Development Expectations in an effort to be consistent with
the approved Commercial Design Expectations.
The proposal was presented to City Council at its November 18, 2003
Workshop. Due to time constraints the Council continued the item to the Workshop of
December 16, 2003.
With the growth of the city there is a need to insist upon greater quality in
residential development citywide, and diverse housing products. The revised
expectations should set the standards for diverse residential development.
The Planning Department has been advising developers and homebuilders of
the proposed change in the expectations during pre-application and post-application
review meetings.
The Planning Department held three meetings with the Home Builders
Association of Central Arizona to discuss the updated draft and provided their
representative a copy of the draft expectations.
The Planning Department has met with the Arizona Multi-Housing Association to
discuss the minor changes made to the Multi-family section of the expectations and the
incorporation of the document into the Residential Design and Development
Expectations.
Other interested parties notified of the proposed draft and the changes made to
the existing Single Family Residential Design Guidelines and the Multiple Residence
Housing Design Guidelines include: Fulton Homes; Earl, Curley and Lagarde; Beus
Gilbert PLLC; and Gilstrap and Associates.
The draft document has been placed on the city's website and is available at the
Development Services Center.
These expectations will be used as part of the standard city review process.
With the exception of reproduction of the final document, no additional resources will be
required once they are adopted.
The City Council will need to take formal action to table this item.
It was moved by Goulet and seconded by Lieberman to table Item 20 to a
date uncertain. The motion carried unanimously.
21. APPLICATION NO. ZONO3-09: DESERT GLEN PLAZA — 5350 WEST BELL
ROAD (REQUEST TO TABLE)
31
This is a request by Earl, Curley & Lagarde P.C. on behalf of A & C Properties
for City Council to approve Application No. ZONO3-09, Desert Glen Plaza, located at
5350 West Bell Road. The applicant is requesting to amend stipulation #1 of Z-02-08.
This amendment would modify the Development Master Plan for Desert Glen Plaza
shopping center by adjusting the building footprint for Retail B and Retail C and adding
a Retail D building closer to Bell Road. The overall square footage would be reduced
by this amendment from the approved Development Master Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and this amendment promotes
economic development within the City of Glendale. By modifying the footprint of the
retail buildings, the shopping center will become more marketable to other retailers and
restaurants. The Kohl's department store opened in October and a proposed Eckerd
drug store has been approved within the shopping center.
The site is located at the northeast corner of 55th Avenue and Bell Road. On
October 22, 2002 the property was rezoned to CSC (Community Shopping Center)
which requires a Development Master Plan (DMP) to be adopted at the time of zoning.
The original DMP depicted two access points along Bell Road and two pads at the
immediate corner of 55th Avenue and Bell Road. Another amendment to the DMP was
approved by Council on July 22, 2003. That amendment (Application No. ZONO3-03)
approved one pad at the northeast corner of 55th Avenue and Bell Road and added
another driveway on Bell Road.
On November 20, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the application subject to two stipulations.
The project promotes the development of vacant property and advances
economic development in the Bell Road corridor. It will also provide more retail choices
for the residents of Glendale.
On September 3, 2003, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. Of the 317
people invited to the meeting, six persons attended. Issues discussed included type of
grocery store anticipated, increased activity along the north property line, outdoor
activity along the north property line, hours of operations and original stipulations to the
site.
The recommendation was to table Application No. ZONO3-09 until the Council's
January 27, 2003 hearing.
It was moved by Goulet and seconded by Lieberman to table Item 21 until
the January 27, 2003 Council hearing. The motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCES
22. SALE OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
55TH AND GROVERS AVENUES
32
Ms. Kathie Sholly, Property Manager, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council to authorize the completion of the sale of city-
owned property located at the southwest corner of 55th and Grovers avenues. The high
bidder for the property has put his earnest money deposit in escrow and signed the
city's standard Purchase and Sale Agreement. To complete the sale, formal Council
approval is required.
Three of the Council's goals are Providing Financial Stability, Enhancing the
Quality of Life for Glendale Residents, and Leveraging Technology for Efficiency and
Convenience. Earlier this year, Council had determined this former well site property to
be surplus, and anticipated it would have no further use to the city. Selling the property
helps provide financial stability by generating revenue to the city, and also enhances
the quality of life for Glendale residents by enabling a vacant, unimproved lot within an
established residential neighborhood to be developed with a home. Council leveraged
technology for efficiency and convenience by directing staff to market the property on
eBay.
On April 15, 2003, Council directed staff to offer the property, a former, but now
abandoned well site, for sale. State statutes require that the city offer real estate for
sale through a public auction process, and stipulate that certain public notification of the
intended sale be performed. The city had previously offered this piece of property for
sale in 2001, but at that time only received one bid that was below the minimum
acceptable sales price.
Council directed staff to market the property more widely, including a listing on
eBay. Since eBay offers a listing-only service for real estate, without requiring actual
bidding over the internet, a 90-day real estate listing on eBay was used to complement
signage placed on the property and advertising in the Glendale Star. Interested parties
were directed to submit their bids directly to the city's Property Manager. As directed by
Council, the minimum acceptable bid price was set at $30,000. Numerous phone calls
and emails expressing interest in the property were received over the approximate three
months the property was marketed. At bid closing, eight valid bids were received,
ranging from $32,000 to the highest bid of $41,748.47. The highest bidder, Abdul Al-
Sayyed, was offered the opportunity to complete the sale by depositing 10% of the
purchase price in escrow the within a specified time frame and signing the city's
standard purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Al-Sayyed has performed both in a timely
manner. First American Title Insurance Company is handling the escrow account on
behalf of the city. Proceeds from the sale will be deposited into Miscellaneous
Revenues, Account No. 50-0050-4521 . To complete the sale and close escrow by the
end of January 2004, it is necessary for Council to formally approve the sale.
In July 2001, Council directed staff to offer this property for sale at public auction.
No valid bids were received at that time and interest in the property was virtually non-
33
existent. Inadequate exposure and marketing of the property was believed to be the
primary problem.
In April 2003, Council again directed staff to offer this property for sale at public
auction, using better and more widespread marketing. Council directed staff to include
a listing of the property on eBay.
Staff ran a 90-day real estate listing on eBay, had signs posted on the property
announcing the city's intent to sell the site, and ran public notice ads in the Glendale
Star. Largely due to the presence on eBay, news articles were carried in other
publications such as the Arrowhead Independent and the Business Journal, which
helped market the property.
The neighborhood surrounding 55th and Grovers avenues will benefit from this
sale. The property has long been a vacant, unimproved lot at the immediate corner of
the two half-mile streets. The buyer plans to construct a home on the site.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to
complete the sale of the 55th and Grovers Avenues property.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 22.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, thanked the
city for being innovative and using eBay for this transaction.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2356 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SALE OF CITY
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 55TH AND GROVERS
AVENUES IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND
DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THIS TRANSACTION
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance
No. 2356 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
23. PROPERTY EXCHANGE —WELLS FARGO BANK SITES
Ms. Kathie Sholly, Property Manager, presented this item.
34
This is a request for City Council to approve a property exchange between the
City of Glendale and Wells Fargo Bank. The properties to be exchanged are the
existing Wells Fargo bank site at the northwest corner of 57th and Glenn drives adjacent
to the Civic Center, and the bank building at the southwest corner of 55th and Northern
avenues within the Northern Crossing development.
The City Center Master Plan, adopted by Council on July 23, 2002, considers
enhancing public facilities to be a priority, and further states "The Glendale Civic Center
could be further improved by public acquisition of two bank buildings currently located
immediately in front of the buildings to create attractive open space for public uses."
Approval of this land exchange will facilitate the acquisition of one of the two referenced
bank buildings.
Wells Fargo expressed a desire to be part of the new Northern Crossing
development, and the existing bank site at the southwest corner of 55th and Northern
avenues was found to be suitable. To accommodate this request, the city and Wells
Fargo agreed to exchange the bank's existing downtown Glenn Drive property, located
in front of the Civic Center, for the Northern Avenue property. The city retained
ownership of the Northern Avenue property for this purpose when it conveyed the rest
of the Northern Crossing development to the Ellman Companies. The individual fair
market values of the Glenn Drive property and the Northern Avenue property are
substantially equal, at about $1.2 million each.
The city committed to paying environmental remediation costs in the Manistee
Town Center development agreement with Ellman Co. The Northern Avenue property
is included in this Development Agreement and requires environmental remediation
before it can be used. Through this exchange, Wells Fargo has agreed to assume the
city's responsibility for environmental remediation and pay the costs associated with the
Northern Avenue property. Wells Fargo and the city will share in paying escrow closing
costs and real estate commissions. The city's portion is estimated to be approximately
$71,647. This transaction will require a transfer of appropriation authority in the
amount of $71,647 from FY03-04 General Fund Contingency, Account No. 01-2450-
7000, to Redevelopment Land Acquisition, Account No. 32-9606-8100. This will require
a transfer of appropriation authority only; no funds will be transferred. The purchase will
be covered by the proceeds of the June 2000 bond sale.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
$71 ,647 X $71 ,647
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Redevelopment Land Acquisition, Account No. 32-9606-8100
35
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to facilitate
the property exchange with Wells Fargo.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 23.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, thanked the
City for the property exchange, noting his father helped construct the bank on 57th and
Glenn Drives.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2357 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXCHANGE OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 57TH AND GLENN
DRIVES (WELLS FARGO BANK SITE) AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 55TH
AND NORTHERN AVENUES (BANK BUILDING) IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AMENDED AND RESTATED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to approve Ordinance No.
2357 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
24. PROPERTY ACQUISITION OF PARK SITE AT 87TH & MISSOURI AVENUES
Mr. RJ Cardin, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation, presented this item.
This is a request to purchase a five-acre neighborhood park site, located at 87th
and Missouri avenues.
This agreement furthers two Council strategic priorities. 1) Enhancing the quality
of life for Glendale residents, and 2) Strengthening community relationships and
creating new partnerships.
By purchasing and developing the property, we address the 2002 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan goal of providing neighborhood parks in the one-mile service
area. Parks and Recreation will work with the Pendergast Elementary School District
through an Intergovernmental Agreement to develop a 10-acre joint use
school/neighborhood park.
Staff has met with property owners to negotiate terms that meet the city's needs.
An environmental study has been completed, and there are no indications of
contamination on the property. The first appraisal conducted by Financial Valuation
36
Group LTD., estimates the market value of the property at $325,000, and the second
appraisal conducted by Michael W. Hurscroft and Assoc. values the property at
$316,250. The purchase price for the 5-acres is $300,564. The school district has
already purchased their 5 acres that will be used for the park. An Intergovernmental
Agreement will be developed to cost-share development and operational expenses.
Council directed staff to proceed with the purchase of this property after being
briefed.
Meets the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended level of service.
Public input gathered for the 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified
accessible neighborhood parks as a top priority. This input was generated through
public meetings held in 2001 and a citywide survey conducted in 1999. Neighborhood
meetings will be held to solicit input during the master planning of the park.
The total cost of this property is $300,564 plus customary closing costs.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
$300,564 $300,564
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Land Acquisition (36-8518-8300)
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the purchase agreement for the
property at 87th and Missouri Avenues.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 24.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, commended
the Council for working with the Pendergast School District.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2358 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ACQUISITION OF A
FIVE-ACRE PARK SITE AT 87TH AND MISSOURI AVENUES IN GLENDALE,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No.
2358 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
37
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
25. TICKET RESALE ORDINANCE
Mr. Harold Brady, Deputy City Attorney, presented this item.
This is a request for the City Council to adopt a ticket resale ordinance.
This ordinance allows for ticket resales for events at the Arena (and Stadium
events in the future) by creating zones in which these resales can occur and prohibiting
the resales elsewhere
Public safety is the ultimate goal of government and this ordinance is intended to
further public safety at arena and stadium events by allowing resales to occur only in
specified areas, thereby reducing pedestrian and vehicular congestion and minimizing
the opportunity for fraudulent ticket resales to occur.
Based upon the experience of other cities, ticket resales pose a considerable
public safety issue. Allowing ticket resale vendors free reign in determining where they
will conduct their business results in vehicular and pedestrian congestion. In addition,
some tickets purchased through resale vendors are turned down for admission and
then the purchaser has difficulty in finding the vendor in an attempt to obtain a refund.
On the other hand, a small but considerable number of the original purchasers of tickets
will not be able to, or never intend to, personally use the tickets. Allowing for those
resales seems to be the appropriate thing to do in light of this fact.
This ordinance is an attempt to reduce the vehicular and pedestrian congestion
associated with ticket resales as well as an attempt to control and minimize sales of
fraudulent tickets. In addition, this ordinance recognizes and provides an area and
opportunity for the resale of tickets.
The consistent experience of other cities is that there needs to be some
enforcement relative to ticket resales. The model that provides for the greatest
enforcement with the least resources is the one created through this ordinance. Should
ticket resales not be restricted in geographical scope, the Police Department will need
to have an expanded enforcement presence to minimize congestion and discourage
fraudulent ticket resales.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt the Ticket
Resale Ordinance.
Councilmember Clark asked who established the resale area. Mr. Brady said
they have not yet established the resale areas for the stadium, but the arena areas
were identified jointly by the city and arena. He clarified the resale areas are located on
the arena grounds.
38
Mr. Brady confirmed for Mayor Scruggs the ordinance would not allow people to
peddle tickets during events in Murphy Park.
Councilmember Frate asked if the city has jurisdiction at the intersection of the
Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue. Mr. Brady responded yes, pointing out the city will be
handling traffic control for arena events at that location. Councilmember Frate asked
how the proposed ordinance differs from how Tempe handles ticket resales. Mr. Brady
said, while Tempe has a scalping ordinance, it does not have a ticket resale ordinance.
Councilmember Frate asked if companies that resell tickets will be notified of the
ordinance. Mr. Brady said ticket resale vendors will be contacted and told about the
ordinance prior to enforcement and signs will be posted around the arena.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the ordinance will prohibit the resale of tickets on
eBay or in the newspaper. Mr. Brady explained there is no way the Police Department
would know when a sale is occurring in Glendale. He stated the ordinance is focused
on ticket sales that result in traffic congestion and fraudulent sales.
Councilmember Clark asked if GEMS or other employee groups will be
prohibited from selling tickets except within the designated ticket sales area. Mr. Brady
explained tickets sold by employee groups would be done from a fixed location and,
therefore, would be exempted from the ordinance.
Councilmember Goulet asked if people would be prohibited from selling tickets
from other areas of the city, even if no traffic congestion will result. Mr. Brady
responded yes. Councilmember Goulet asked if people would be able to sell tickets
within their homes or businesses. Mr. Brady answered yes.
Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the ordinance needs to be further clarified.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested the ordinance define who can and cannot
sell tickets.
Councilmember Clark stated she cannot support the ordinance as written. She
expressed concern that unintended consequences could result because the exemption
section is unclear.
Councilmember Martinez said public safety is the ultimate goal. He stated staff
has put a lot of time and effort into developing the ordinance and, while every
contingency cannot be foreseen, he is comfortable with the ordinance as written.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Item 25.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said, while
he feels the ordinance is great, he agrees it needs to be further clarified.
39
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Martinez pointed out the ordinance can be modified at a later
date if necessary.
Councilmember Frate asked Mr. Paladini if he believes anything should be
added to the ordinance based on comments he has heard from Council. Mr. Paladini
suggested they add sales from private property to the exemption list.
Councilmember Clark suggested Glendale handle ticket resales administratively
like Phoenix does until the ordinance can be clarified. She asked Mr. Brady if he will
bring back an amendment at the earliest possible date. Mr. Brady said they will bring
back an amendment once one has been determined necessary. Mayor Scruggs
clarified Council has not given direction for an amendment, but that the Police
Department and City Attorney look at the ordinance to determine if an amendment is
needed.
Mr. Paladini clarified for Councilmember Lieberman that the ordinance is not
intended to prevent private citizens from selling legitimate individual tickets from their
homes or places of business. He said the ordinance is intended to deal with people
who sell streetside tickets and to corral people in an area making it easier to monitor
fraudulent ticket sales. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the ordinance
is too restrictive. He agreed, however, that in the interest of time Council should pass
the ordinance and then look to see if an amendment is necessary.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Chief Henderlite stated they would
prefer that Council pass the ordinance, stating they can offer an amendment at a future
date if necessary.
Ordinance No. 2359 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 26, ARTICLE
III, BY ADDING A NEW DIVISION 3 RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF TICKET
SELLING AND RESELLING; SPECIFYING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance
No. 2359 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate,
and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": Clark.
26. DEEDS AND EASEMENT ORDINANCE
Ms. Kathie Sholly, Property Manager, presented this item.
40
This is a request for City Council to accept real estate properties conveyed by
quit-claim deed, warranty deed and/or easements from property owners, pursuant to
Article VII, Sec. 15 of the City Charter.
One of the City Council strategic priorities is managing growth and preserving
neighborhoods. The Deeds and Easement Ordinance conveys properties necessary to
complete municipal objectives.
The Deeds and Easement Ordinance is compiled of recently conveyed
properties. These properties have been used for sidewalks, streets, alleyways, parks,
water and sewer lines, and other public utilities. In order to utilize these properties for
similar use in the future, it is necessary that Council adopt an ordinance dedicating
these properties for public use.
It is to the advantage of the City of Glendale to dedicate the described properties
for public use.
Glendale citizens directly benefit from the city's ownership of properties utilized
for public amenities.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance dedicating certain real property for public use.
Ordinance No. 2360 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING DEEDS AND EASEMENTS FOR STREET,
PUBLIC UTILITY, SIDEWALK, ALLEY, WATER AND SEWER, PARKS AND OTHER
PURPOSES; ORDERING THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED; AND DEDICATING TO
PUBLIC USE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED THEREIN
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance
No. 2360 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez,
Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
NEW BUSINESS
27. APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY
This is a request for the City Council to appoint Jon Paladini as Interim City
Attorney effective December 17, 2003 and approve a temporary salary increase of ten
percent (10%) retroactive to December 1, 2003. This appointment and salary increase
shall remain in effect until revoked by further action of the City Council or until the
appointment of a permanent City Attorney, whichever occurs first.
41
The recommendation was to motion to appoint Jon Paladini as Interim City
Attorney.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to appoint Jon Paladini
as Interim City Attorney. The motion carried unanimously.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
28. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
This is a request for the City Council to approve the recommended appointments
to the following commissions that have a vacancy or expired term.
Effective Term
Date Expires
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Wilkinson, William Vice-Chair Re-appointment 12/16/2003 03/03/2005
Terranova, Joseph P. At-Large Re-appointment 12/16/2003 03/04/2006
Wood, Michael J. At-Large Re-appointment 12/16/2003 01/14/2006
Khiel, Omar Sahuaro Re-appointment 12/16/2003 01/14/2006
Salus, Susan At-Large Appointment 12/16/2003 01/14/2006
Citizens Commission on Neighborhoods
Edmondson, John Vice-Chair Appointment 12/16/2003 06/29/2004
Curtis, Vickie Ocotillo Appointment 12/16/2003 06/29/2005
Commission on Persons With Disabilities
Hayes, Stephanie Chair Re-appointment 12/16/2003 02/25/2005
Loya, Vickie Mayoral Re-appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2006
Loya, Vickie Vice-Chair Re-appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2005
Duncan, Robert Barrel Appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2006
Obie, Florinda Cactus Re-appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2006
42
Weber, Marsha Ocotillo Re-appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2006
Library Advisory Board
Jansen, Kasey At-Large Appointment 12/16/2003 05/26/2004
Effective Term
Date Expires
Boosa, Kathleen P. At-Large Appointment 12/16/2003 05/26/2004
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Neyer, Kathe Chair Appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2005
Gitelson, Richard Vice-Chair Appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2005
Acosta, Abelina At-Large Appointment 12/16/2003 05/26/2004
Personnel Board
Ojala, Lillie Chair Appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2005
Levine, Ben Vice-Chair Appointment 12/16/2003 02/26/2005
The recommendation was to make appointments to the Commissions.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Eggleston, to appoint the
applicants listed above, for the terms listed above, to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee, Citizens Commission on Neighborhoods, Commission on Persons
with Disabilities, Library Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission and the Personnel Board. The motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez to vacate City
Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 and to hold a City Council
Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on Tuesday,
January 6, 2004, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-
431.03. The motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, thanked Council for
the opportunity to speak, stating Glendale is lucky to have a District Council system in
place.
43
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark congratulated Mr. Paladini on his appointment.
Councilmember Goulet thanked the Police and Fire Departments for their service to the
citizens of Glendale. He said he is grateful for the developers who want to come into
the downtown area and for Habitat for Humanity's continued interest in the area.
Councilmember Lieberman thanked staff and his fellow Council members for the
unbelievable accomplishments of the last year.
Councilmember Frate thanked the city employees who will continue working or will be
on call during the holidays.
Mayor Scruggs thanked the residents of the City of Glendale for their tremendous
support.
The Council wished all citizens of Glendale a happy and safe holiday season.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
/2
Pamel. Hanna - City Clerk
44