Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/4/2004 * 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 May 04, 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. GLENDALE DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Doug Kukino, Environmental Resources Director; Mr. Stephen Rot, Environmental Program Manager and Ms. Jo Miller, Water Conservation Coordinator. This is a request for City Council to review and comment on the Glendale Drought Management Plan and the enabling ordinance. Municipal water providers such as Glendale need to be prepared to effectively deal with droughts of different levels and magnitude. The city's drought management plan will help to ensure that the city has in place best management practices to effectively deal with droughts. Water availability is the foundation of every community. The city's future and the quality of life for Glendale residents depend upon the provision of adequate water supplies during normal and drought conditions. The plan is designed to affect water use decisions and actions of city government, local area businesses and Glendale residents. Much of the western United States, including Arizona, is experiencing a severe drought. The central Rocky Mountain area is experiencing the worst drought in 300 years. Arizona's Salt and Verde River watershed is in the midst of an 8-year drought that is one of the worst in the past 100 years. 1 The 60 million acre-feet Colorado River reservoir system, from which the city receives its Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, is approximately 54 percent full. While the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has no immediate plans to cut Colorado River allocations, it has growing concerns about maintaining normal water deliveries during this drought. The 2.3 million acre-feet Salt River Project reservoir system, from which the city receives its Salt River Project surface water supply, is about 47 percent of capacity. The drought has caused the Salt River Project to cut its normal allocation to eligible lands from three acre-feet per acre to two acre-feet per acre in 2003 and 2004. Glendale's water demand on project lands averages 2.3 acre-feet per acre. Groundwater now comprises 1.3 acre-feet per acre of the two acre-feet per acre delivered by the Salt River Project. Despite the drought, Glendale and other cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area have been able to provide normal water service to customers. Glendale has been able to purchase "excess' CAP water to make up for the reductions in Salt River Project supplies. The city also increased its groundwater use during the drought. The drought management plan was prepared in its entirety by city staff. In preparing the city's plan, staff reviewed drought management plans from other Phoenix area cities and cities across the western United States. The Utilities Department and Black & Veatch Consultants presented the city's Comprehensive Water System Master Plan to Council at four workshop sessions during October through December 2003. The plan contains a recommendation to increase the city's well capacity, which will help provide water during droughts. The city's water conservation office, in conjunction with other valley cities, has implemented a strong "Use Water Wisely" public awareness campaign. During the past year, the office provided 22 low water use classes free to the public in which over 850 people attended. The city's water conservation office and Parks Department conducted water use audits for city parks in 2002 and 2003. The audit confirmed that the parks' water demand was far lower than the state's recommended water use for such landscaping. The city's drought management plan will ensure that the city has in place best management practices to minimize the negative impacts of droughts. The plan is comprised of four drought stages. Each stage is progressively more serious. Best management practices are identified for each stage. The plan sets forth expectations that will guide the water use decisions and behavior of our residents, business and visitors. The plan will help to foster public trust and optimism by demonstrating that the city is prepared for droughts of varying levels of severity. 2 In the current drought, the city has been purchasing "excess" CAP water to replace the reduced Salt River Project allocation. In 2004, excess Central Arizona Project water cost $106 per acre-foot. Excess Central Arizona Project water is projected to cost $111 per acre-foot in 2005. The Utilities Fund 50 has paid the cost of purchasing the extra CAP water. In the event that the city declares a Stage 3 level drought, mandatory water use restrictions will begin to be imposed on businesses and the public. Mandatory restrictions will prompt the city to more actively monitor and enforce the restrictions. Staff will provide more details on the enforcement program and related costs at the time of the Council decision to declare a Stage 3 drought. Mandatory water use restrictions will result in a reduction of total water demand. A significant or prolonged reduction in water demand could negatively impact the city's Utility Fund 50. The drought surcharge is proposed to be implemented starting at Stage 3 to compensate for lost water sales and discourage normal water use. The drought surcharge rate will depend mainly upon the severity of the drought and the surface water supplies affected. Staff will provide more details on the drought surcharge rate at the time of the Council decision to declare a Stage 3 drought. The plan contains a discussion of drought best management practices/measures identified, but not recommended for implementation. The recommendation was to seek direction from the Council on the following: 1. Does Council want staff to add, remove or modify any of the recommended best management practices? 2. Does Council want staff to increase or decrease the number of drought stages? 3. Does Council want staff to further identify and define ways to reduce the city's drought susceptibility? Mr. Kukino stated drought is a major concern for communities in Arizona as well as the western United States. He said Glendale is fortunate in that it can draw from a number of sources of water and, as a result, has been able to provide consistent water service to residents during the drought. He stated the plan includes four concepts: 1) drought; 2) drought susceptibility; 3) drought management; and 4) water conservation. He explained drought management is the immediate and short-term actions taken in response to a drought whereas the goal of water conservation is to change conservation behaviors on a voluntary basis. He said drought means there is lower than average precipitation in an area over a given period of time, noting droughts typically only impact surface water supplies. He stated drought susceptibility is a community's vulnerability to water shortages or droughts. He said one of the keys to drought susceptibility is whether or not a community has available alternative supplies to draw upon during a drought. He explained that 85 percent of the water used in the city is comprised of surface water, with the remaining 15 percent comprised of well water, reclaimed water and stored water credits. 3 In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Kukino explained stored water credits come from water rights associated with retired agricultural uses, which can be transferred to the city when a property is developed. He noted a benefit of urban development is that used water that goes into the sewer can be reclaimed. Councilmember Martinez asked if the city has to purchase the water rights from retired agricultural uses or if they are granted to the city. Mr. Kukino explained the Irrigation Grandfather Right has no value to the landowner unless the property is being used for agricultural purposes. He said the city asks landowners to transfer the right to the city at not cost. Mr. Kukino stated staff reviewed drought plans from other valley cities and compiled a list of four drought stages. He said Stage 1-Drought Watch would be called when there is a drought on the SRP and/or CAP systems. He explained the city is still able to provide normal water services, but city operations would be asked to achieve a five percent reduction in water usage. He said Stage 1 would be declared and terminated by the City Manager and would focus on public awareness, assistance and water conservation. Mr. Reedy noted Stage 1 is where the city will be today if the strategy is ultimately implemented. Councilmember Frate commented on situations where property owners water their landscaping to the point where water is running down the street, stating that is where the issue needs to be addressed. Mr. Kukino said that is why they intend to be very vigilant and aggressive in their public outreach. Councilmember Frate said people have asked him what the city is doing in response to the drought. Mr. Kukino pointed out the residents do not see that the city has been purchasing additional CAP water and using more ground water than normal to make up the loss in SRP supplies, agreeing the city needs to do a better job of communicating to the public how it is addressing the problem. Councilmember Clark asked why the voluntary reduction for residential usage in Stage One does not set forth a goal reduction. Mr. Reedy said their intent is to remain flexible to accommodate the different circumstances involved in each drought situation. He said people are typically able to conserve about 10 percent of their normal use when asked to conserve water, however, establishing a 10 percent goal would be detrimental to residents who already make efforts to conserve water. Councilmember Clark pointed out Stage Two calls for a voluntary five percent reduction, suggesting they call for a smaller percentage reduction in Stage One. Mr. Reedy said most people would not know how to achieve a two percent reduction, explaining the five percent goal in Stage Two represents a broad-spectrum reduction among all users. Councilmember Martinez asked if staff considered imposing fines on people who blatantly waste water. Mr. Reedy stated the city's Water Conservation Ordinance addresses wasting water; however, they will recommend a higher level of enforcement during Stages Three and Four. Councilmember Goulet asked what criteria would be used to determine when the stages should be implemented. He also asked if the city's plan would result in any benefit when looked at in combination with the plans of other cities around the valley. Mr. Kukino explained staff typically knows by October the water situation for the following year. He said the City Manager and/or Council would then determine whether or not the city should implement a given stage. He noted the Stage would remain in place for the entire year (unless the drought was to end). He stated each community wants to make decisions based on their circumstances, with each having its own water 4 resource supply mix, a different demand structure, and different SRP, CAP or groundwater capabilities. Mr. Reedy stated, while Arizona has to have multiple water resources because of the lack of normal rainfall, having three water sources makes Arizona less susceptible to drought. He noted the City of Glendale has never had a situation that would result in calling more than a Stage One drought watch. Councilmember Goulet asked if cities have any recourse if it is determined one city is not implementing wise or appropriate water conservation measures. Mr. Reedy said cities are required to submit annual reports to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, describing how they have consumed water and proving that they have adequate supplies to meet demand. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city still has problems with losing water. Mr. Reedy said every water system leaks and the city's current water loss is approximately six percent. He said losses in excess of 10 percent are investigated. He equated the six percent loss to approximately 3,000 acre-feet a year. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city would eventually buy Indian Right CAP water. Mr. Reedy said not at this time, however, a dramatic change in the city's development process could result in consideration of that resource. He said, at this point, the city has water rights to meet anticipated General Plan growth related to development within the city's boundaries. Mr. Kukino pointed out Glendale has a small amount of Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community 99-year lease water. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city pays a different rate for Indian lease water than it does for other CAP water. Mr. Kukino stated the rate is actually lower. Mr. Kukino explained Stage Two results when the city can no longer meet regular demand and calls for a 10 percent reduction for city operations and five percent for residents and businesses. He said Stage Two would also be declared and/or terminated by the City Manager. He stated Stage Three represents a much more significant drought situation. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city's fountains and ornamental water features meet the criteria set forth in the plan. Mr. Reedy stated Park's Department staff is reviewing the city's fountains, but most of the fountains do not use a recirculation system. Mayor Scruggs asked if the new .fountain at Murphy Park would adhere to the plan's criteria. Mr. Reedy stated they are talking about installing a recirculation system in that fountain when built. Mayor Scruggs asked if the public would be made aware that the water is recirculated or effluent so that they do not feel the city is wasting water. Mr. Reedy responded yes. Mayor Scruggs suggested they include information about the Arena's water feature on the new Arena website. She said, while information on the steps the city is taking to conserve water is available through the Water Department, it should be available in multiple places so people can access the information whenever they think about it. Councilmember Martinez asked if effluent would be used at the lake and for landscape watering at the arena and stadium. Mr. Reedy said, while the lake will be effluent, the developer has chosen to use potable water supplies for the development. Councilmember Martinez asked if using effluent is more cost efficient. Mr. Reedy responded yes. Mr. Kukino explained developers are not used to using effluent and are concerned of the public's perception that effluent is not as clean as potable water. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion the city should strongly encourage developers to utilize effluent. Mr. Reedy said the city explains the options available to the developers, noting some developers do not have the option of using effluent. He said, in the case of the arena, the developer chose to at least start with potable water. 5 Councilmember Lieberman noted there have been no complaints about the lakes at Arrowhead, which use effluent. Mr. Reedy assured the Council the water is high quality and poses no safety issues, stating, however, there is still a perception issue. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city has to guarantee a 100-year water supply. Mr. Reedy said the Department of Water Resources requires all cities to annually prove a 100-year water supply. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the water supply would eventually limit the city's growth. Mr. Reedy said not according to the city's current General Plan. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there are plans to tap the aquifer near the airport and landfill. Mr. Reedy said they have the option to reclaim the effluent recharged in that area. Mayor Scruggs asked, realistically, what the city could serve with the effluent already being generated. Mr. Reedy said approximately 7,000 acre feet of water per year is stored by the facility, which, once expanded, could reach 10,000 acre feet a year. Councilmember Martinez asked if other states use effluent water for drinking water. Mr. Reedy responded no, stating, however, there is no technical reason why the water could not be used for drinking water if properly treated. He noted there are communities throughout the country where houses have two separate water supply systems, one for irrigation purposes and one for potable water; stating, however, building such an infrastructure is expensive. Councilmember Lieberman asked where the water supply would come from for the three water treatment plants the city intends to build in the future. Mr. Reedy said the first and second phases would use SRP water as its source, while the next phase could be a groundwater treatment plant, which would treat water from wells that currently do not meet drinking water standards. He stated the off-project groundwater treatment plant planned north of the Arizona Canal would treat water in a number of wells the city does not currently use. Mr. Kukino said staff would return to Council with a more detailed plan if the city reaches Stage Three or Four. He said Stage Three will be declared or canceled by the City Council and will call for a 15 percent reduction by city operations and 10 percent for residents and businesses. He said the focus will be on mandatory actions and a drought surcharge would be considered. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Reedy explained the drought surcharge would help offset the reduced revenue as a result of the reduction in the amount of water used. He stated the surcharge would go away as soon as the drought emergency subsided. Mayor Scruggs questioned how charging residents more for using less water will encourage them to conserve water. Mr. Reedy said at least a portion of the residents will conserve water if asked and the city's revenue stream will be reduced. Mayor Scruggs said the surcharge does not make sense since the city will be buying, treating and delivering less water. Mr. Reedy stated the drought surcharge would only be implemented by the Council at the time a Stage Three drought emergency is declared. He noted a three percent water rate increase would be necessary to cover a 10 percent reduction in water use. He said a Stage Three drought situation would likely last seven months to a year. Mr. Kukino reiterated a more detailed analysis of costs and projected revenues will be brought to Council if a Stage Three is warranted. Councilmember Clark agreed with Mayor Scruggs on the issue of the drought surcharge, noting the surcharge starts with a very low amount of water usage. She said she would require more information before moving forward with a drought surcharge. 6 Councilmember Martinez asked about base amounts. Mr. Rot explained residential has a base amount of 3,000 gallons per month; however, there is no base amount for commercial at this time. (Base amount is how much water is included in the minimum billing.) Councilmember Clark asked, under what criteria, could a resident request an exemption during a Stage Three or Stage Four drought watch? Mr. Kukino explained exemptions were provided to allow a level of flexibility, stating they cannot forecast every possible circumstance as they move forward with the plan. He said out-of-the-ordinary circumstances, such as public health and welfare issues, could require a home to utilize more water. Councilmember Clark suggested the criteria for granting exemptions be more clearly defined in the plan. Mr. Kukino stated public health and safety related situations would be the highest priority; however, other very compelling circumstances could arise as well. Councilmember Clark stated more information is needed on both the surcharge and the exemptions. Mr. Beasley suggested staff bring back additional information on the surcharges and exemptions. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Kukino stated the city will not regulate a business's water usage so much as charge more for the water being used through the surcharge. He said they hope businesses will use less water because they are good corporate citizens, but the surcharge will help ensure that no water is wasted. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city could end up with a revenue windfall if people are paying the surcharge, but not using less water. Mr. Kukino said, while that might be the case for individual developments, on the whole the city will have lower revenues. Councilmember Lieberman said the issue is how much longer the city can go with a three to four inch shortfall of rain before tripping mandatory restrictions. Mr. Reedy agreed, stating, however, the bigger question is how many more years can the Colorado River watershed go without imposing restrictions. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the speed with which circumstances can change, taking a community from worrying about drought conditions to worrying about floods and possible damage to its dams. Mr. Kukino was unable to say how much longer the city can suffer rainfall shortages without having to implement mandatory restrictions. Vice Mayor Eggleston said a rate increase or surcharge would be necessary if they reach Stage Three or Four because water will be more precious and the higher cost will encourage people to conserve. He said businesses would simply increase their rates to make up the difference. Mr. Reedy noted almost every city that has had to restrict their water supply had to raise their rates or impose a surcharge to make up for the lack of revenue. Councilmember Martinez agreed the surcharge should remain, suggesting, however, they add that a request for an exemption will only be considered if it affects a resident's health or welfare. Mayor Scruggs stated she does not like that the drought surcharge is set forth as being mandatory and would prefer it state a surcharge will be considered. She said, while people understand the need to conserve water, they may not understand an increase in rates or a surcharge because the city is not meeting its revenue projections. Councilmember Clark agreed. Mr. Reedy stated staff will have to return to Council to declare a Stage Three emergency, at which time they would recommend the amount of any surcharge or rate increase. 7 Mayor Scruggs pointed out Glendale has more restrictions during Stage Three and Four than other cities. Mr. Reedy suggested Glendale looked at its Drought Emergency Plan longer and in more depth than other cities. He said other cities' plans call for the city itself to restrict water, which will not be adequate to resolve a drought emergency. Mayor Scruggs asked if residents would be expected to let their winter grass die if it was planted before a restriction notice is given. She also expressed concern about the perception it will create if the city is allowed to use winter grass for special events. Mr. Kukino said, while their intent is to be flexible, they have to be careful not to be too flexible and give the impression the city is showing favoritism. Councilmember Frate asked about the age of other cities' drought plans. Mr. Kukino said Phoenix's plan is about three or four years old and will probably be updated and Peoria's is about one and a half years old. Councilmember Frate said he could see the sense in planting winter grass in highly used public areas such as Murphy Park. Mayor Scruggs agreed there is a point to having public grass areas, stating, however, it will be difficult to restrict golf courses whose success is dependent upon the condition of their grass. Mr. Reedy pointed out most golf courses in the city are excellent conservationist, use used reclaimed effluent and would be exempt. Mayor Scruggs suggested the plan be reworded to state winter grass restrictions might be considered. Mr. Reedy said Council could make a determination as to what restrictions should be enforced should the city get to a Stage Three or Four emergency drought. Mayor Scruggs questioned whether the plan, as written, allows for such consideration given that most restrictions are listed as mandatory. Councilmember Clark agreed the plan does not provide enough flexibility, suggesting the plan designate a certain percentage reduction in overall water usage as the goal, but leave decisions regarding how that goal is reached up to staff and the Council at the time the stage of emergency is declared. Mr. Reedy offered to reword the plan to allow Council to select viable options for addressing a water shortage based on the specific circumstances of a given drought. Mayor Scruggs stated the city could impose restrictions on itself and then present a menu of other restrictions that will be considered if the city's self imposed restrictions are not enough to address the water shortage. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion strict measures should be mandated, as they will emphasize the need to conserve water. He said it is his personal belief the city has three years before it faces a severe water shortage. Councilmember Clark agreed Stage Three and Four should require restrictions to be imposed, stating, however, she believes there should be a menu of restrictions from which to choose. She stressed the importance of the city taking a lead position in the effort to conserve water. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if staff would be able to determine if particular businesses are meeting the required reduction in water usage. Mr. Kukino said, once they get to Stage Three, they would have information as to whether there have been reductions in certain sectors. Mr. Reedy said they would know if the reduction measures are successful by the plant flows. He said it would be too time consuming, though, to measure whether each individual household or business was meeting the reduction goal. 8 In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. Kukino said the SRP allocation has been cut 33 percent; however, the impact to the city is less than 33 percent. Councilmember Lieberman stated he is very concerned about the future water supply and should take the plan very seriously. Councilmember Martinez said he believes changing the language about exemptions and including a menu of restriction options will make the plan acceptable. Councilmember Martinez asked if residents take advantage of the city's desert landscape rebate. Mr. Reedy responded yes, noting they plan to bring possible updates to the program to Council in the future. Councilmember Frate stated he would like more information on how mandatory surcharges have worked in other cities. Mayor Scruggs clarified they would still allow for a surcharge, but it would require a conscious decision versus being automatically imposed. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Martinez that exemptions should be restricted to health and welfare reasons. 2. 2004 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Miryam Gutier, Intergovernmental Programs Director and 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 an update of legislative bills, which have received policy direction from the Council. The first legislative agenda for 2004 was provided to Council during the January 20, 2004 workshop and included staff recommendations on general legislative policy issues. Council provided policy direction on the Glendale legislative agenda. The second legislative update was provided on the February 17th workshop and included all of the bills, which staff determined would have significant impacts to the City of Glendale. Council provided policy direction on each legislative bill included in the report. The third legislative update presented on March 22nd workshop included neighborhood related bills for consideration and approval by Council. Council provided policy direction on those bills. The fourth legislative update was presented on April 6th. The presentation focused on several bills, which were substantially amended. 9 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 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 the Legislative Update Report and provide staff with policy direction on the items presented. State Budget Ms. Tranberg said the Legislative session has been extended until May 14, by which time they hope to reach a budget deal. She reported a structural shortfall of $246 million, which is a significant improvement over past years. She said the Senate released a budget summary and 17 budget related bills are currently being heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee. According to Senate leadership, they plan to have a Rules Committee after the Appropriations hearing tonight, wherein they will debate the bills and vote the bills out. She said the House has yet to release a budget and is waiting to see what the Senate proposes. She identified key issues within the budget as being all day kindergarten, restoration of State Shared Revenue back to 15%, and a $50 million diversion of HURF funds for DPS. She explained the $50 million diversion would have a $7 million impact on cities and towns; however, growth in the state and increased HURF revenue will result in cities and towns actually seeing a $10 million increase. Councilmember Frate voiced his support of the diversion of HURF funds for DPS, stating DPS is understaffed and underpaid. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Tranberg explained about one- fourth of HURF revenue collected statewide goes to cities and towns. She said if approved, the $50 million diversion would be taken off the top of HURF revenues and one-fourth of the remaining amount would be distributed to cities and towns. Mayor Scruggs commented HURF revenue was not originally intended to pay for DPS officers, stating they should be paid by the State, as are all other state employees. She explained the state decided to have cities and towns pay for DPS officers by decreasing their portion of HURF revenue and, as a result, money that was originally intended to pay for maintaining and repairing streets is now paying for DPS officers. She acknowledged the importance of DPS officers and the benefits they provide to cities and towns, stating, however, she does not believe the state should be looking at implementing an all-day kindergarten when it cannot afford to fund enough DPS officers to cover the state. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the proposal for all-day kindergarten. Ms. Tranberg explained they are talking about a phased in approach, with priority given to school districts that have a high ratio of economically disadvantaged students. Luke Air Force Base Ms. Gutier reported a company known as Olympia Group made a presentation related to 6,000 acres located within the high noise and accident potential zones around Luke Air Force Base, which they currently have in escrow. She said the 6,000 acres are 10 supposed to address lands not already being acquired by the Army Corp of Engineers. She said the city received $27.3 million from Congress and the Army Corp of Engineers is under a strict timeline to appraise the land, meet with landowners, make offers and start the land acquisition process. She noted Olympia Group was key in making land swaps around Nellis Air Force Base. She said, in order to accomplish the land swap, they need the support of the local cities, the state, and the federal government. She stated they are currently working with Senators and Congressmen to develop and draft language that would go into a Senate markup this week. She explained land exchanges can happen with the Bureau of Land Management if the Bureau so desires, whereas the proposed legislation will ask Congress to mandate to the Bureau that they swap land with Olympia Group. She said Olympia Group would buy all of the land and then trade the land with the Federal Government, creating a permanent protection buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base. She stated many cities have passed or are in the process of passing resolutions asking Congress to authorize the land swap. Councilmember Clark asked why they are not seeking support from communities across Arizona rather than just in the west valley. Ms. Gutier stated Olympia Group only wants to handle land exchanges for Luke Air Force Base. Councilmember Clark asked if they anticipate additional phases to the project. Ms. Gutier said they anticipate having a second phase, noting there are approximately 11,000 acres in the area that need some type of resolution. Councilmember Lieberman asked where the Olympia Group gets its profit. Ms. Gutier explained the Olympia Group would trade the land they purchase for BLM land elsewhere in the state for future development. She said there could be opportunities for ranchers to come back and lease land from the BLM, noting, however, most property owners currently in escrow with the Olympia Group want to sell their land and move elsewhere. Mayor Scruggs pointed out a lot of the land is owned by people who are not farmers or ranchers. She voiced Council's consensus on the resolution. HB2270 Mayor Scruggs asked if HB2270 has a chance. Ms. Gutier reported the bill passed the Rules Committee and is awaiting Committee of the Whole action. She said she has not heard any negative feedback concerning the bill. She stated, however, any bill that has money associated with it will be looked at closely for potential impacts to the state. She noted Friday of next week is the last day the Legislature will be in session unless the session is extended. She said they do not know the Governor's position on the bill at this time. SB1341 Mayor Scruggs asked if the Legislature appears inclined to pass this bill. Ms. Gutier said there has been a lot of discussion among the cities on this bill because of the $7.00 fee it will impose. She stated many of the cities oppose the increased fee and there appears to be less likelihood of the bill passing through the Legislature. HB2570 Councilmember Martinez commented the bill, which allows bars to remain open until 2:00 a.m., was signed into law by the Governor. He expressed his opinion the law will be bad for the state and its citizens. Mayor Scruggs and the remaining Council 11 members agreed. Manager's Report Mr. Beasley said they have had a number of inquiries since coming out with the white papers on the Baptist Church. He explained the sale of property from a municipality's standpoint is different from that of a private landowner, with different rules and legal ramifications. In order to address the public's questions and comments, he recommended they have the property appraised and confirm that the historical value still exists. He said staff would then return to Council at a workshop to explain various options, including an RFP for the sale of the church. He noted several options and choices will be available to Council should it ultimately decide to sell the property. Councilmember Martinez asked if the church's historical value would be done from a national perspective. Mayor Scruggs noted Council is not free to discuss items mentioned during the Manager's Report. In response to those who have not been happy with her previous enforcement of the rules she is required to enforce as Chairperson of the Council, Mayor Scruggs pointed out she just enforced the rules on a Councilmember. She said the law says what they can and cannot do in a meeting and, because the Manager's Report is not an agendized item, the Council is not free to discuss the item. She said some people have misunderstood the actions she is required to take, pointing out the rules apply to everyone. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 12