Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/2/2004 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops; Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP March 2, 2004 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUD FEDERAL GRANTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Gloria Santiago-Espino, Community Housing & Revitalization Director, Mr. John Turbridy, Community Development Advisory Committee Chair and Ms. Sue Ferrell, Community Development Advisory Committee Vice-Chair. This is a request for City Council to review the Community Development Advisory Committee's (CDAC) funding recommendations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative Program (ADDI), and Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESG) funds. On August 23, 2003, the CDAC recommended using funding priorities established by City Council at the September 3, 2002 workshop. Funding priorities include the following: Housing-Related Projects Clearance and Demolition of Blighting Conditions Programs that Prevent Homelessness Programs Related to Domestic Violence Programs Related to Employment Services Programs that Benefit Seniors and Youth The CDAC conducted an extensive process for the use of Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-05 CDBG, HOME, ADDI and ESG Program funds. This process included a review of 53 applications, formal presentations by each of the applicants and the CDAC's funding 1 recommendations. This is the first year the City of Glendale will receive ADDI and ESG Program funds. The ADDI Program funds will help low-to moderate-income families obtain homeownership through the First-Time Homebuyer Program. Through a partnership with real estate agents and mortgage companies, the Community Revitalization Division will administer this program in-house. ESG Program funds provide assistance to those families in danger of eviction or foreclosure by funding existing, successful programs that help prevent homelessness. The funds can also be used to help operate existing shelters, such as PREHAB/Faith House, which assist victims of domestic violence. CDBG Proposed Funding Allocations The city will receive approximately $2.6 million of CDBG funds from HUD for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income individuals; aid in the elimination of slum and blight; and/or that address an urgent community need. An additional, $252,000 of program income and unspent CDBG funds from activities completed in prior years will be available to fund Physical Improvement Activities. The following is a list of proposed funding distributions: • Fifteen percent ($400,200) to agencies for Public Service Activities, which is the maximum allowed. • Thirty-two percent ($1,119,560) to agencies for Physical Improvement Activities. • Thirty-five percent ($920,000) for housing rehabilitation programs provided by the Community Revitalization Division, which include Residential Rehabilitation Program, Roof Repair/Replacement Program, Exterior Improvement Program, Voluntary Demolition Program, and related lead- based paint testing and hazard reduction activities. • Eighteen percent ($480,240) for program administration to comply with all related CDBG program federal regulations. The table below is a summary of the CDBG funding requests received: NUMBER OF TOTAL AMOUNT APPLICATIONS OF FUNDING REQUESTS PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES 34* $868,620.53 PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT 15 $1,522,785.00 2 ACTIVITIES * A total of 36 public service requests were received, but two applicants withdrew their applications. HOME Proposed Funding Allocations The city will receive approximately $802,683 of HOME funds from Maricopa County for activities that will improve the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing. Maricopa County serves as the lead agency of the Maricopa County HOME Consortium, which is comprised of the county and all the Valley's major cities, with the exception of Phoenix. The consortium is responsible for the administration and distribution of HOME funds. The following is a list of proposed funding distributions: • $404,664 for Housing-Related Activities. • $200,000 for the Replacement Housing Program and $150,000 for the Residential Rehabilitation Program administered by the Community Revitalization Division. • Six percent ($48,019) for program administration to comply with all related HOME program federal regulations. The table below is a summary of the HOME funding requests received: NUMBER OF TOTAL AMOUNT APPLICATIONS OF FUNDING REQUESTS HOUSING RELATED ACTIVITIES 2 $550,000 ADDI Proposed Funding Allocations The city will receive an estimated $53,643 of FY 2003-04 and $64,678 of FY 2004- 05 ADDI Program funds from Maricopa HOME Consortium. The consortium will oversee the general administration and distribution of these funds. The Community Revitalization Division will oversee the program. This program strives to increase homeownership rates among low-income first-time homebuyers with annual incomes that do not exceed 80 percent of the Maricopa County median income. ESG Proposed Funding Allocations The city will receive an estimated $99,167 of ESG Program funds from HUD to assist with the prevention of homelessness, and to assist homeless individuals and families to move toward independent living. Eligible activities include rehabilitation and renovation of emergency shelters. It can also pay for shelter operational costs, essential services, and homeless prevention activities. The following is a list of proposed funding distributions: 3 • Thirty percent ($29,750) for Homeless Prevention Activities, which is the maximum allowed. • Sixty-five percent ($64,459) to agencies for operational costs. • Five percent ($4,958) for program administration to comply with all related ESG Program federal regulations. Council received a memorandum from the CDAC dated September 8, 2003, outlining the process utilized by the CDAC for determining the city's community needs. The needs identified by the CDAC remained consistent with those needs identified by Council at the September 3, 2002 workshop. Since FY 1977-78, Glendale has used over $34,990,000 in CDBG funds to assist thousands of homeowners and individuals with services that provide safe, decent housing, and improve their living conditions. Public service programs, such as the YWCA Congregate Meals program for the elderly, provide a compassionate hand to those in need. Physical Improvement Projects are the bricks and mortar part of the program. The Housing Rehabilitation Programs provide funding for much needed repairs for heating and cooling systems, electrical, plumbing, and other critical components. Since 1992, the city has received over $5,605,904 in HOME program funds that are used specifically for housing-related programs. The HOME Program has funded the construction of many new single-family homes and has helped preserve existing homes. The public participation process conducted for the use of FY 2004-05 HUD federal funding included the actions listed below. On August 23, 2003, CDAC adopted the funding priorities set by Council on September 3, 2002. On September 11, 2003, notices of the FY 2004-05 CDBG/HOME grant cycle and orientation meeting were mailed to prospective applicants and a public notice was published in The Glendale Star on this same date. On September 26, 2003, The Community Revitalization Division staff met with grant applicants to discuss Council priorities, the application process, and evaluation criteria. On December 3, 2003, the CDAC received the grant applications for their review. The CDAC recommended that CDBG and HOME funds be reserved for the city's housing programs and demolition activities. On January 7, 8, and 14, 2004, the CDAC conducted three public hearings where applicants were given an opportunity to present their applications before the committee. 4 On January 10 and 17, 2004, the CDAC conducted two public meetings to formulate their recommendations for Council review. On February 18, 2004, the CDAC conducted a public hearing and meeting to gather additional citizen input/comments. In addition, the CDAC formulated ESG and ADDI funding recommendations for Council review. CDBG and HOME programs are federally funded. The HOME program requires a 25% match from non-federal funds. For those HOME projects that are administered by the city, an annual match allocation of $25,000 is provided in the General Fund budget as a supplement towards the required 25% match. The city has traditionally allocated $25,000 towards matching the HOME funds. The total match needed for our in-house projects could exceed $188,076, depending on the projects. The additional match will come from saved match carryover and other eligible in-kind sources such as donated materials or volunteer hours. Outside agencies that apply for HOME funds are required to provide a portion of their own match funds. The CDBG program does not have a match requirement. Capital One-Time Grants Expense Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total CDBG $ 2,668,000 $ 2,668,000 HOME - $ 802,683 $ 25,000 $ 827,683 ADDI - $ 118,321 $ 118,321 ESG $ 99,167 $ 99,167 Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number Community Development Block Grant Fund 11 HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fund 10 American Dream Downpayment Initiative Fund 10 Emergency Shelter Grants Program Fund 47 General Fund Fund 01 The recommendation was to review the funding recommendations from the Community Development Advisory Committee and provide direction. Councilmember Lieberman asked if staff thoroughly reviewed Habitat for Humanity's financial statements. Mr. Lopez responded yes. Councilmember Lieberman asked for copies of their financial statements. He also asked how much of the Community Revitalization Division funds directly go to the City of Glendale. Mr. Lopez explained the money is administered by the city and used to hire contactors. Ms. Santiago-Espino said the city receives approximately 30 to 35 percent of the Community Development Block Grant Program and a portion of the Home Program to put towards the Roof Repair, Single Family Rehabilitation, Demolition, and Replacement House programs. Councilmember Lieberman acknowledged the good work they do, stating he is just curious as to the total amount the city receives. He asked if all of the funds are used. 5 Mr. Lopez stated any amount remaining is carried forward and their budget request is adjusted accordingly. Councilmember Goulet asked how improvements to the Valley of the Sun School fit under Public Facility Improvements. Ms. Santiago-Espino explained any agency that serves low to moderate income or disabled individuals is eligible for funds and the school meets federal guidelines for a public facility. Councilmember Goulet asked if the school has more than one location in the city. Mr. Turbridy stated the Valley of Sun School has nine different homes in residential neighborhoods where participants are housed. He said the funds would be used to make improvements at several of the locations. Councilmember Martinez asked if the $300,000 for Habitat for Humanity is being targeted for homes in the older part of town. Mr. Lopez said it is targeted for the downtown redevelopment area. Councilmember Martinez asked if Community Services of Arizona has applied in the past. Mr. Lopez explained the organization runs various programs for the city, including the Emergency Repair Program and First Time Homebuyer Program. Councilmember Martinez asked why no money was allocated to Chicano's por la Casa. Mr. Turbridy said the Committee felt funding would be more effectively utilized and result in more benefit if allocated to the two other organizations. Mr. Lopez pointed out this was the first time Chicano's por la Casa applied and their application was fairly broad. Councilmember Martinez asked if 18 percent for Program Administration is considered high. Mr. Turbridy explained they typically allocate 14 percent for administration of the program, however, this year they were required to conduct a housing study, which increased costs. Councilmember Clark asked why the city is not funding any First Time Homebuyer Programs. Mr. Lopez stated the American Dream Down Payment Initiative is a first time homebuyer program. Councilmember Clark asked why no funding was allocated to Phoenix Shanty, pointing out it is the only AIDS related group that asks for support. Mr. Turbridy said the Committee believed Shanty could raise the necessary funds on their own given their high level of community support. Councilmember Clark suggested the city look at awarding future grants to programs aimed at encouraging healthy lifestyles. Vice Mayor Eggleston commended Mr. Turbridy and the Committee for their dedication. He asked about the Home Investment Partnership Program. Ms. Santiago- Espino explained the program is designed to support other housing related programs. Councilmember Frate asked if they could look forward to funding for the American Dream Program in the future. Mr. Lopez responded yes as long as Congress does not change the allocation. Councilmember Frate asked if they received an Emergency Shelter grant because of the size of the city. Mr. Lopez answered yes. Councilmember Frate commented that it costs less to prevent homelessness than it does to help homeless citizens get back into the mainstream. Councilmember Lieberman asked why funding for Pre-Fab of Arizona was reduced. Mr. Turbridy pointed out Pre-Fab of Arizona received an additional $21,486 from an emergency shelter grant. Councilmember Frate noted the number of requests for assistance throughout the state has increased 56 percent, stating, unfortunately, the amount of available funding has not increased. 6 Mayor Scruggs directed staff to bring this item to a regular city council meeting. 2. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Tim Ernester, Deputy City Manager and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Program Administrator. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on incorporating funding for pavement management into the Glendale Onboard (GO) Transportation Program. An increase in funding for street maintenance will benefit public health, safety, and welfare. At the Council workshop on December 2, 2003, Field Operations staff made a presentation on the status of the pavement management program and the associated funding necessary to keep the street network in a safe operating condition. City Council concurred with the funding recommendations and requested that the Glendale Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC) consider including pavement management in the GO Program. Transportation staff developed a funding scenario for incorporating pavement management into the GO Program that did not require the deletion of any voter- approved projects. However, this scenario was dependent on new funds received from passage of the regional transportation tax going to voters in November 2004 and the deletion of contingency funds in the GO Program. This scenario was presented to CTOC. At the January 8, 2004 meeting of CTOC, Stuart Kent, Acting Director of Field Operations, presented the same information that was presented to City Council on December 2, 2003 on street maintenance needs and the necessary funding. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Administrator, made a presentation on the potential incorporation of pavement management and potential funding from passage of the regional transportation tax into the GO Program. At the February 5, 2004 meeting of CTOC, commissioners indicated they are committed to ensuring that voter commitments for projects in the GO Program are met. CTOC took two actions regarding funding for pavement management: (1) To allocate $1.2 million in GO funds in FY 2005 for pavement management, and (2) To revisit the issue of GO Program funding for pavement management after the November 2004 election on the extension of the regional transportation tax and to evaluate the long- term impact on the GO Program of continued funding for pavement management. CTOC action to provide funding for pavement management will result in a savings of $890,000 in the FY05 General Fund. 7 The recommendation was to review and provide staff direction. Mr. Johnson said Field Operations funding received $1.7 million in 2000 for pavement preservation and overlays; however, funding has declined in recent years to a low of $1.15 million. He stated Field Operations' current request is to gradually increase funding over the next five years to $4.7 million, with an average of $4.7 million per year thereafter. He confirmed the gradual increase was factored in when determining the impact of the proposed funding on the GO program. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Johnson stated they assumed that by 2010 the entire Pavement Preservation Program would be paid for by the GO program and that funds currently committed to the program would be returned to the General Fund. He said the gradual increase in GO funding over the first five years of the program will also allow an equivalent amount in current funding to be returned to the General Fund. Mr. Ernster noted a portion of the requested funding will be used to cover the operating and maintenance costs associated with some of the projects being funded with GO funds. Councilmember Clark said she thought they were looking at the GO program to supplement the budget allocation for one year. Mr. Ernster said it was staff's understanding that all costs associated with the Pavement Preservation Program should be funded from the GO Transportation Program. Mayor Scruggs said it was Council's intention for staff to take the Pavement Management portion of the General Fund budget as an expense from the half-cent sales tax on an ongoing basis. She pointed out, however, the Council could reverse their decision if the majority of City Council feels they are breaking a trust with the public. Councilmember Lieberman said he also thought they were asking for a supplement for one year, not $4.7' million for permanent maintenance. He asked where the Transportation ballot mentioned street maintenance, stating he does not believe they ever told voters they would use GO funds for permanent street maintenance. Mayor Scruggs asked if Council wants to reverse the unanimous direction it gave staff on December 2, 2003. Councilmember Martinez asked if using GO funds for pavement management will impact other voter approved GO projects. Councilmember Frate said he thought they were using GO funds to make up the difference between the amount needed for annual maintenance and the amount of available funding. Mayor Scruggs stated the last thing they want is to have a division in the community; however, this was not how the discussion went on December 2. She said Council felt it was feasible for the half-cent sales tax to absorb the Pavement Preservation Program given all of the new development that has occurred since the voters passed the Transportation Plan. She pointed out a number of other projects have been added to 8 the GO Program since the Transportation Plan passed. She said, because of the controversy, she will make the majority by agreeing the previous direction should be reversed. Councilmember Lieberman stated some of the additional projects referenced by Mayor Scruggs were included in the ballot's summary. Mayor Scruggs noted that projects are being inserted without first being discussed by City Council. Mayor Scruggs noted projects have been added to the program since it began which has allowed the program to adjust to the changing needs in the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs listed some of those projects. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they would still consider a one-time supplement. Mayor Scruggs responded no, explaining there is a question as to whether pavement maintenance is a legitimate use of GO Funds. Mr. Beasley said staff would return to Council during the budget process with a plan for how they will rebuild the funds over a period of time utilizing their current budget. Mayor Scruggs asked how those who oppose funding the Pavement Management program on a permanent basis using GO funds could reconcile using the funds on a one-time basis. She cautioned there is a lot banking on Phoenix agreeing downtown Glendale will have light rail, she recommended that we obtain written confirmation that Phoenix will pay their half before we begin dedicating the funds. 3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Dana Tranberg, Intergovernmental Programs Coordinator. This standing workshop item provides an opportunity to update the City Council on legislative bills and issues that may impact the city and that may also require immediate policy direction. Intergovernmental Programs staff will present a Glendale Neighborhood Legislative Agenda for council consideration. Staff will focus its presentation on five key bills: HB 2400, Vested Rights, HB 2455, Halfway Houses, Neighborhood Notification, SB 1024, Seat Belt Enforcement, HB 2675, Liquor License Transfer, Revocation and SB 1307, Sex Offenders, Residency Restrictions. The first legislative report for 2004 was provided to Council during the January 20, 2004 workshop. The second legislative report for 2004 was provided to Council during the February 17, 2004 workshop. The key principles of Glendale's legislative agenda are to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver quality and cost-effective services to Glendale citizens and 9 visitors, to address quality of life issues for Glendale citizens, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve Glendale citizens by retaining local decision making authority and maintaining fiscally balanced revenue sources. The recommendation was to review and provide staff direction on the items presented. Ms. Tranberg explained this is the first year staff is presenting a Glendale Neighborhood Agenda for Council consideration and policy direction. When preparing the agenda, staff considered legislation that could have a direct impact on Glendale residents. HB2400 - Vested Rights Bill Ms. Tranberg reported the Vested Rights bill has been amended to remove the retroactivity provision. She said the amendment also creates a very broad definition of vested property rights and requires plat plans to be based on the ordinance in effect. She said the bill effectively ties the city's hands in addressing neighborhood concerns, therefore, staff recommends the Council not support the bill. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Ms. Tranberg explained once a plan is submitted to the city, as long as the plan matches the zoning on the property, the property is immediately considered vested. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the bill effectively negates the city's Conditional Use Permit process and big box ordinance. Ms. Tranberg said, while the bill does not address Conditional Uses, the interpretations being discussed would associate a Conditional Use if it were stipulated at the time zoning is applied. Councilmember Martinez suggested they brief the Legislators who will be attending Thursday's session on the possible impacts of the bill. He said the Conditional Use Permit process is the only protection the city has against undesirable uses. Mayor Scruggs asked if the term "vested rights" is defined in the State Constitution. Mr. Paladini said the Courts have said a substantial amount of money has to be spent and a building permit has to be obtained. He explained the problem with the proposed bill is that "consistent with zoning" is never defined and open to interpretation. He noted the bill not only impacts the city's ability to control what uses are allowed, it also removes the city's control over how a development looks. He said site plan specific rezoning would be the only way for the city to maintain any level of control over a property. It was the consensus of City Council to oppose HB2400. In response to Councilmember Clark's comment, Mr. Paladini said the current standard for vested rights is that a building permit has been obtained and construction has begun. HB2455 — Halfway Houses, Neighborhood Notification Ms. Tranberg stated the bill requires notification of a proposed halfway house and institutes a spacing requirement of one-half mile from a school. While staff supports the concept of community notification, the language is very vague in terms of the type of notification required to the neighborhood, the notification area, the definition of a 10 halfway house and what constitutes a neighborhood. She said staff recommends Council take a neutral position. She reported the bill is ready for full consideration by the house. Councilmember Clark asked if the bill would be further defined before it goes to the floor. Ms. Tranberg stated extensive discussions during committee indicated the bill would have to be further defined in order to gain support on the floor. Councilmember Clark asked if staff would recommend supporting the bill if it was further defined. Ms. Tranberg said she would need to see how the bill is modified before making a judgment on whether or not to support the bill. SB1024 — Seat Belt Enforcement Ms. Tranberg stated this bill allows a police officer to stop and cite drivers for seat belt violations without requiring probable cause on a separate violation and recommended Council support the bill. It was the consensus of the City Council to support the SB1024. HB2570 — Liquor License Premises, Closing Time Ms. Tranberg explained this bill would extend the closing time of bars and other establishments that serve alcoholic beverages from 1:15 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. and extend "Ist call" from 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Ms. Tranberg continued proponents believe the bill will generate economic activity, noting, however, neighborhood groups have testified in opposition to the bill out of concern over neighborhood impacts. She said staff recommends a neutral position on the bill at this time. Councilmember Lieberman stated he does not support the bill and believes DUI citations will increase. Councilmember Martinez said he also opposes the bill, pointing out other cities with extended hours have public transportation systems that help keep drunk drivers off the road. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmembers Lieberman and Martinez. She noted a different approach has been suggested wherein extended hours would be allowed only in special entertainment districts. Mayor Scruggs stated she is also opposed to the bill. She said she would not support the creation of special districts either because the patrons would eventually drive home, putting others at risk. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion the bill is short sighted. Councilmember Frate stated he opposes the bill and does not believe it was well thought out. Councilmember Martinez commented on the liberal bills coming out of the legislature, given their conservative nature. It was the consensus of City Council not to support HB2570. 11 SB1307- Sex Offenders Residency Restrictions Ms. Tranberg explained this bill addresses both the clustering of sex offenders and spacing requirements while providing appropriate exemptions in certain situations. Ms. Tranberg recommended Council support the bill. Mayor Scruggs asked how does the city track housing of convicted sex offenders. Ms. Tranberg explained the Megan Laws passed in 1996 requires sex offenders to register with local law enforcement. It was the consensus of the City Council to support SB1307. SB1043— Municipal Tax Incentives Ms. Tranberg reported the bill failed yesterday, but a motion to reconsider the bill could be made today. She said Senator Harper significantly amended the bill, explaining it now requires cities to find that the incentive will generate more revenue than it would cost and that businesses would have to say in the absence of an incentive they would not locate in that city. She stated, should the bill move forward, staff's recommendation would be to remain neutral. Councilmember Lieberman said they could live with the amended version. Councilmember Frate commented on the importance of Neighborhood Day at the Legislature, stating having the chance to speak with the legislators often makes a difference. Councilmember Clark asked for an update on liquor store drive-thru's or transfers. Ms. Tranberg stated neither bill is moving and both will be dead unless heard at committee next week. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the status of HB2698. Ms. Tranberg stated the bill has not been heard in committee and is essentially dead. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. 12