Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/15/2004 * 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 June 15, 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 ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FOOTHILLS RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Gloria Santiago-Espino, Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director; Deputy City Manager; Ms Shirley Medler, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director; Mr. Richard Gitelson, Parks and Recreation Commission Vice-Chair; Sue Klylon, Parks and Recreation Commission; Pat Reece, Principal and CEO, Architectural Resources Team, Jeff Lantiser, Project Manager; Grant Tibbits, Associated Design Architect, BCBO; Jim Larson, Cost Control Manager, Larson and Associates; John Norbitt, Construction Manager, DL Withers; Pat O'Toole, Leon, Younger and Prose. This is a request to review and provide staff direction regarding the preliminary schematic design and updated business plan for the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center proposed for the northwest corner of 55th Avenue and Union Hills Drive. The 1985 and 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plans, and the 1993 and 2025 General Plan Public Facilities and Services Elements all identified the need for increased recreation and aquatic facilities within the City of Glendale. Previous 10-year Capital Improvement Plans included a north recreation center and swimming pool. The 1999 Foothills Phase II Regional Park Master Plan designated the site of the recreation and aquatic center as a subsequent phase to the park development. In April of 2001, a needs analysis and site use study was commissioned for the 1 proposed construction of a recreation and aquatic center to be located at the northwest corner of 55th Avenue and Union Hills Drive. A public survey was conducted in the summer of 2001 providing staff with citizen direction for development of the center's functional programming areas and fee options. A needs analysis and site use study resulted in the development of a conceptual study. This conceptual study provided the information needed to conduct a thorough business plan for operations and revenue analysis. In the November 1999 Bond Election, voters approved a proposition allowing for the construction of new swimming pools and indoor/outdoor multi-sport recreation centers. On May 10, and April 12, 2004, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the updated Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center preliminary schematic design and business plan. The commission recommended moving forward with construction. In September 2003, the Council approved the construction manager at risk design services contract with D. L. Withers, with the option that they may also serve as the general contractor for the construction of the project. In June 2003, the Council approved the professional services agreement with Architectural Resource Team, Inc. to start the design for Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center. In July 2002, after review of the site analysis, conceptual use plan, facility components, and the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center Business Plan, the Council approved the request to proceed with design. It was requested that the facility be designed in such a way that the Council would have flexibility when making decisions on construction scheduling and provide the choice of building all or a portion of the project at one time, based on the city's economic position. In June 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the facility needs and site use study and recommended that staff present the study to Council. In February 2002, the Council approved the 10-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifying the need for increased recreation and aquatic facilities within the city. In January 2002, the firm of Leon Younger and Pros was retained to produce a business plan and a five-year financial projection for the conceptual recreation and aquatic center. In May 2001, the Council approved a professional service agreement with Hameed and Associates to conduct a needs analysis and site use study for the proposed construction of a recreation and aquatic center. 2 The Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center will provide opportunities for interaction with people of all ages, economic and cultural backgrounds in a social setting. It will provide a place to learn new hobbies and skills such as swimming, cooking, dance, and physical activities. In the fall of 1999, 71% of the voters approved a special bond election proposition allowing for $57,187,800 worth of projects, including the construction of new swimming pools and indoor and outdoor multi-sport recreation centers. A public interest survey was conducted in 2001. The city received 718 responses. These responses, along with input from two public meetings and teen focus groups, assisted in determining the planned center amenities and acceptable fee ranges. The center business plan reflects the public's desires for a facility that will ensure maximum productivity and high levels of customer service, provide flexible pass options, and a wide variety of programs and activities at a reasonable price. The updated business plan pro forma estimates the cost recovery for the first year of the recreation centers operation as 75% and of the aquatic center as 95%. The updated business plan includes all anticipated operational expenses and revenues generated by the facility. Some expected revenues include the contracting of services such as the special interest classes, concessions and childcare. The annual estimated operations and maintenance expense for the recreation center is $1,204,390 and the revenue projection is $902,201. The annual estimated operations and maintenance expense for the aquatic center is $250,478 and projected revenue is $237,235. Project capital expenses include the on-site and off-site improvements, building construction, furnishings, fixtures, and equipment. Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total Expense Cost d d X X $11,896,012 Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number: Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center, Account No. 36-8048-8300 The Council requested that the design of the recreation and aquatic center have the flexibility to be constructed in phases. The current plan will address these options. The negative impacts of phasing include an increased overall construction cost and the disruption of services to facility patrons while subsequent phases are being constructed. Options for operation were also considered. The option of contracting services offered within the center such as concessions, childcare, and special interest classes is included in the business plan. Options for more privatization opportunities were also considered in the business plan. Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the various design and construction 3 options. The recommendation was to review and provide direction on the three proposed options for construction of the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center. Mr. Gitleson said he is pleased to represent the Glendale Parks and Recreation Commission in support of the proposed Foothills Recreation and Aquatics Center, stating they have been involved in the process since it began in 2001. He said the Commission believes the facility will help improve the quality of life for residents of Glendale and will be used by citizens of all ages and backgrounds. He identified similar facilities located throughout the valley, stating a visit to any of those facilities provides a glimpse into what will occur at the Foothills facility once it is built. He commented on the success of the Glendale Adult Center and the benefits realized by individuals who attend the center. He stated community centers such as the one proposed provide physical, social, psychological and emotional benefits and help create a sense of community. He expressed his opinion the Parks and Recreation Commission has had ample opportunity to express the view of the individuals they represent and has been kept informed by Parks and Recreation Department staff as to the proposal's progress. He stated, based on public input and information provided by the consultants and staff, the Commission fully supports the proposal to build this facility. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Gitleson if the Commission ever discussed phasing construction of the center. Mr. Gitleson said it was felt the ideal situation would be to construct the facility in one phase, given the tremendous demand that currently exists. Mr. Lantiser give Council a brief tour of the facility, explaining the site is bounded by Union Hills, 55t Avenue, 57th Avenue and the Skunk Creek Recreational Area. He said the building is approximately 69,850 square feet and has been designed to be in context with the library and Mid-Western University. He stated they have combined the recreation and aquatic centers to achieve economy and efficiency. He explained the interior was designed to have a sense of transparency to encourage a feeling of community. Mayor Scruggs asked if security cameras will be installed at the front desk to allow staff to monitor other areas of the center. Mr. Lantiser responded yes, stating they have also used Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Standards throughout the facility. Mayor Scruggs asked if the security cameras will be installed from the beginning. Mr. Lantiser answered yes. Ms. Medler stated the original design for the center was very linear compared to the current plan, with multiple access points and a separate multi-purpose community building. She said, due to the more efficient floor plan and planned level of contracted services, the updated business plan calls for fewer FTE's than originally anticipated. She stated they are looking at contracting the areas of special interest class instructors, program leaders, league officials, fitness center and climbing wall supervisors, and aquatics management and life guards, noting contractual staff totals approximately $465,000. She said they will also contract with service providers such as childcare workers, concessionaires and possibly custodial and landscape maintenance and security monitoring personnel. She explained those services may be better served by the private sector and save the city money in terms of operations and maintenance costs. Councilmember Lieberman, pointed out the 2002 business plan called for 12 FTEs, asking what contracting services were contemplated at that time. Ms. Medler said contracted services were approximately $100,000 higher in 2002 because the building 4 was more linear and required more staff. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out they are calling for $800,000 in operating costs, not including equipment or supplies. Ms. Medler explained, similar to other human services programs, much of the operating and maintenance cost is in staffing and supervision of programs. Councilmember Lieberman asked what is included in the contract for $465,000. Ms. Medler stated the contract includes program leaders, supervision of the climbing wall and fitness center areas, and aquatic management and lifeguards. She said the only FTEs the city would hire would be the Recreation Supervisor, Recreation Coordinator, two programmers, and three support staff. Councilmember Lieberman asked if visitors will check in at a central location to ensure they are paid members. Ms. Medler explained the game room and multipurpose community room will be open to all, whereas the gymnasium and fitness area will be open to members only. She stated the front desk will be manned by city FTEs. Mr. Lantiser reviewed the facility's floor plan, noting the locations of the main receiving desk, climbing wall, multi-purpose room, child care center, administrative offices, locker rooms, pools, gymnasium, game room, and fitness center. He noted combining the two buildings into one resulted in the need for only one set of locker rooms and one front desk employee. Councilmember Frate asked if the glass will let too much sun into the building and cause problems similar to those at the Adult Center. Mr. Lantiser said a solar study for the south side of the building found little to no sunlight comes through the glass except during the winter months when the sunlight is desired. Mr. Lantiser confirmed for Mayor Scruggs the sunlight coming through the windows during the winter months will not be problematic for visitors at the administrative desk or prohibit members from using the running track. He pointed out the sunlight will help the city save money be reducing the heating load within the building. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the large windows are necessary. Mr. Lantiser explained sunlight is important to recreation facilities, as well as other public facilities that have a large group use. He pointed out the south side of the building also has a considerable overhang. He said, overall, glass makes up 30 percent or less of the surface area of the building. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion the issue is not the windows, but the type of glass used in the windows. She agreed sunlight and openness to the outdoors is important for a recreation center, stating, however, the glass should be treated in a way that mitigates the sunlight coming through. Councilmember Lieberman noted the Foothills Library has double pane solar glass on its south side and, to his knowledge, no problems have been reported. Mr. Lantiser stated they intend to use a low-heat, engineering glass that will diminish the transmission of heat and sunlight through the glass. He pointed out all glass in the building will have shading devices. Mayor Scruggs explained Council wants some assurances they will not end up with the same problems the city is experiencing at the Adult Center. Mr. Lantiser noted they have put a number of planters and trees in front of the front door, both for crime prevention reasons and sunlight control. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested staff talk to representatives from Mid-Western University and the Library to find out how they deal with sunlight coming through their 5 windows. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Lantiser explained the floor plan depicts an add-alternate for the North District Offices for Parks and Recreation. He said, while it is not currently in the program or in the budget to build, they hope to build those offices through economies of scale. Mayor Scruggs asked how they envision the multi- purpose room being used. Ms. Medler explained the community multi-purpose room could be rented for private parties and will be used for free programs and community special events. She stated a catering kitchen will be available to those renting the multi-purpose room. She noted a second kitchen is located next to the catering kitchen and will be used for special interest cooking classes. She stated seven other special interest classrooms are located upstairs. Mayor Scruggs asked if they anticipate having full programming year-round to help alleviate some of the demand on classes at the adult center. Ms. Medler responded yes, noting the center will be open 101 hours per week and will include a lot of evening classes and programs. Councilmember Frate asked if the classrooms can double as meeting rooms. Ms. Medler answered yes. He asked if a given number of the rooms will always be available for meetings. Ms. Medler stated they have not gotten to that level of detail in their programming, however, they intend to accommodate as many classes as possible. Mayor Scruggs asked if the center will take standing reservations for the meeting rooms. She explained the city does not have the type of social programs the center is anticipated to fulfill and she is concerned meeting rooms rather than classrooms will become a primary function. Councilmember Martinez asked if the center will have a quiet room where people can work on computers, read and do homework. Ms. Medler said they do not have a room designated as such; however programming that staff will do later could accommodate one. She said they looked at computers, but felt the Foothills Library was close enough that a computer room would not be the best use of the facility. She assured Councilmember Martinez they will encourage after-school programs that allow for quiet time for homework and tutoring opportunities. Councilmember Goulet asked what is the capacity of the locker rooms. Mr. Lantiser said the locker rooms are 4,000 square feet, with 150 lockers on either side. Ms. Medler said the lockers will be available on a first come first served basis. Councilmember Goulet asked if any of the pool equipment stored in the rooms outside the locker area could be stored outside to provide more space for classes. Mr. Lantiser said the proposed layout is the most efficient use of the space. He pointed out they will use a heat transfer system that will use heat from the coolers to heat the pool. Ms. Medler noted public meetings could also be scheduled in the multi-purpose community room. Mayor Scruggs asked if a multi-purpose room is actually necessary and if it is the best use of such a large space. Mr. Lantiser pointed out the multi-purpose room can be divided into smaller rooms. Ms. Medler said the flexibility afforded by such a large room will allow the center to have youth summer recreation programs. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the climbing wall requires constant supervision. Ms. Medler stated one person will supervise the wall when in use. She explained the rest of the space will be an open lobby area with comfortable seating. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the climbing wall is incongruent with the lobby area. Ms. Medler said they see similar layouts in other centers. 6 Councilmember Lieberman said a full time contract person will have to be dedicated to the climbing wall to ensure children do not climb unsupervised. Mr. Lantiser continued his tour of the facility, describing the pool area. He noted the pool area will include a lazy river for tubing, two slides that end in a plunge pool, a play pool area with a zero depth entry, a six-lane competitive pool, and a dive well. Ms. Medler stated the construction budget for the project is $11,896,000 and is included in the FY 2003/04 and 2004/05 budget years. She said, based on the updated business plan completed by Leon, Younger and Prose, the anticipated operations and maintenance budget for the recreation and aquatic center is $1.4 million and will be budgeted in the fiscal year 2005/06. She said anticipated combined annual revenue for the first five years totals $1.1 million and will be budgeted in the General Fund to offset the expenses for a cost recovery of 78 percent. Councilmember Martinez said it was stated at the May 10th Parks and Recreation meeting that 78 percent cost recovery is a conservative estimate Ms. Medler said the first year of the five year pro-forma shows the aquatic center at 95 percent and the recreation center at 75 percent for a combined total of 78 percent. She said a greater than anticipated number of attendees or lower than anticipated costs will increase the cost recovery percentage. Councilmember Lieberman asked for a comparison on the cost of operation at other facilities around the valley. Ms. Medler was unable to report the cost recovery percentages at the adult center, but reported the Gilbert center is recovering 83 percent in its second year of operation, the Red Mountain Multi-Gen Center is recovering 50 to 55 percent, and the Tempe Kiwanis Recreation Center is recovering 79 percent. She noted the Phoenix centers do not function in the same manner and do not have a percentage of recovery. Mr. Lantiser said they favor the Parks and Recreation Commission's preference to build the project in one phase at a projected cost of $11.9 million. He said the CM at Risk was asked to look at two other options, one that would build the recreation center first with the aquatics following five years later and a second that built the aquatic center first followed by the recreation center in five years. He stated the projected costs for the two options were $14.2 million and $16.9 million, respectively. Councilmember Frate asked if the proposed parking will be adequate. Mr. Lantiser said the center has 328 parking spaces, noting the Gilbert center has less than 300 spaces. He stated they believe parking to be adequate with the possible exception of special use times. Councilmember Frate expressed concern about overflow parking on neighborhood streets. Mr. Lantiser said the Gilbert center has an agreement that allows an adjacent grade school to use their parking lot during pickup and drop-off times and, even with the shared use, the parking lot is never full. Councilmember Frate referenced the vacant lot across the street, asking if any research was done to determine if it would be appropriate for overflow parking. Ms. Medler said the lot was considered in the original plan because the linear layout of the building took up a lot of parking space. She stated, however, the lot is not considered in the current plan. Mr. Lantiser pointed out the original plan only had 171 onsite parking spaces. Ms. Medler explained they intend to offer a non-primetime rate to help even out the times of use. She said they will also have the opportunity to schedule programs so that multiple large events are not held simultaneously. 7 Councilmember Lieberman noted Honeywell and the Library are both nearby, suggesting they could establish agreements to use part of their parking lots on especially busy weekends and run a shuttle between the properties. Councilmember Martinez reported Honeywell was approached about the use of their parking lots, but was not interested. He said, however, the Library and softball park parking lots could be viable options. Councilmember Goulet asked what is the cost of building the add-alternative rooms. Mr. Lantiser stated it would cost $275,000 to build the 3,000 square feet of add- alternative space. Mayor Scruggs stated, while she is glad there is room for add-ons, she believes they should wait to identify the use of that space until they determine if additional classrooms will be necessary. Councilmember Goulet asked how far the shade structure extends out from the windows. Mr. Lantiser said more than 20 feet. Mr. Lantiser pointed out the 2,600 square foot lobby area is considered a program space and will be used to host pre- and post-program functions, registration events and so forth. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Lantiser confirmed balconies from the fitness area and classrooms will overlook the lobby space. He said, as a means of control, there will be no way to traverse from one side of the second floor to the other. Councilmember Frate commended Leon Younger on the business plan, stating they did a good job of identifying membership options. He asked about the atmosphere of the lobby area. Ms. Medler said the lobby will be welcoming and encourage people to come in and socialize. She said the lobby area will also be part of the free programs they intend to offer. Chairperson Gitleson commented the lobby area will create a sense of place and community, stating people want places where they can meet and talk. He expressed his opinion games and other activities that support interaction would be a nice addition. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Councilmember Goulet asked about large crowd seating in the gymnasium. Ms. Medler said tip-and-roll bleachers will be available for use, not only in the gymnasium, but the pool and other areas as well. Councilmember Lieberman asked how many Glendale residents are included in the 90,209 market area projected for 2008. Ms. Medler explained the market area represents 17 census tracks within the City of Glendale. She said visitors from outside the City of Glendale will be charged 20 percent more for use of the facility. Councilmember Martinez asked if the center will offer mentoring programs. Ms. Medler said they have looked at the after school program and teaching kitchen as possible opportunities for older members to mentor younger members. Mayor Scruggs asked if any concessions will be located in the lobby. Ms. Medler stated the concessions will open to both the lobby and aquatic area. Mr. Norbitt noted the climbing wall will screen vending machines. Mayor Scruggs suggested they add tables to the lobby, allowing people to eat, drink and socialize. Councilmember Clark said she is very impressed with the design and the thought that 8 went into the business plan. She thanked Leon Younger for bringing all components of the project together and Parks & Recreation staff's willingness to revise the budget to bring it more in line with projected revenues. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated the new business plan is very encouraging, expressing his opinion the project should be built in one phase. He agreed with Mayor Scruggs that they should hold off on advanced planning of the add-alternative rooms. Mayor Scruggs agreed the updated plan is a marked improvement. She asked if the $275,000 will build the add-alternative rooms in shell form or finished form. Mr. Lantiser said they would build just the shell and determine the internal functions at a later date. Mayor Scruggs stated she supports building the facility in one phase, but she would like the add-alternative section built but not designated for a specific use. Councilmember Martinez said he also supports a single phase. He commended staff and the consultants on the business plan and design. He also thanked residents who participated in the planning process, noting over 700 people completed questionnaires and 200 people attended meetings. He further thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission for their careful consideration of the plan. Councilmember Lieberman asked how firm are the cost projections. Mr. Lantiser said the CM at Risk and Independent Cost Control consultant believe the $11.9 million estimate to be firm. Councilmember Frate commented every square foot of space on the site has been utilized to its fullest extent. He recommended they make the multi-purpose room divisible into four separate rooms. Mayor Scruggs asked about the next steps. Ms. Medler stated they will work to arrive at a guaranteed maximum price. Mr. Lantiser explained they would then return to Council for approval to construct. He said they hope to obtain the building permit by the end of the year, begin construction early in 2005, and open the facility in the first quarter of 2006. 2. 2004 END OF SESSION LEGISLATIVE REPORT 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 the 2004 end-of-session legislative report, which includes the final disposition of bills which received policy direction from the Council. The first legislative agenda for 2004 was provided to the Council during the January 20, 2004 workshop and included staff recommendations on general legislative policy issues. The Council provided policy direction on the Glendale legislative agenda. 9 The second legislative update was provided at the February 17th workshop and included all of the bills which staff determined would have significant impacts to the City of Glendale. The Council provided policy direction on each legislative bill included in the report. The third legislative update presented at the March 22nd workshop included neighborhood-related bills for consideration and approval by the Council. The 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. The Council provided policy direction on those bills. The fifth legislative update was presented on May 4th. The presentation focused on the disposition of several bills, which were amended. The Council provided direction on those bills. 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. This item was presented to discuss the End of Session Legislative Report. Ms. Gutier reported the Legislative session ended May 26, which was 36 days past its usual 100 day deadline. She said they had a relatively successful session given the number of important taxation, military preservation, and transportation issues. She said staff brought 52 bills forward to Council this year, of which, Council supported 25, opposed 19 and remained neutral on 8. She noted two of the six sex offender related bills passed, but in a compromised form; therefore, those who support the bills are expected to initiate bills this upcoming year that will further strengthen existing laws. She said two bills the Council opposed ended up passing; an eminent domain bill which cities felt would be harmless, and a liquor bill that allows for a 2:00 a.m. closing time. Ms. Gutier stated all of the military preservation bills passed this year and the transportation bill will go before the voters in November 2004. Ms. Tranberg explained the League Resolutions process is the process they go through with cities and towns in Arizona to develop the legislative program for the League of Cities and Towns. She said, based on feedback received by the League, a new process has been developed. She stated they are currently contacting Glendale staff with regard to potential resolution issues and will come to Council on July 20 for consideration of resolutions Glendale may be bringing forward. She noted July 30, 2004 is the deadline for submittal to the League. As part of the new process, she said resolutions must now be submitted with a minimum of two cities co-signing onto the bill. She stated a Resolutions Sub-Committee will review the resolutions prior to the League Conference on August 31. She said formal adoption of the resolutions that pass on August 31 will occur on November 5, 2004. Mayor Scruggs commented the League process has been drastically overhauled, 10 noting bills that will have a financial impact will now be required to have a funding source identified. 3. OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF CITY SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS This item postponed due to illness of lead staff person. CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Staff and representatives from R.W. Beck will be presenting an operational and financial review of the city solid waste operations, including residential and commercial sanitation services, loose trash collection, landfill and material recovery facility (MRF) operations, and a proposed five-year rate schedule. The report also includes a discussion of privatization options that the City Council previously asked to be reviewed. Today's presentation will focus on an overview of the report and the rate recommendations. Subsequent workshops will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing privatization of some of the solid waste operations. This report addresses the City Council goals of providing financial stability for the solid waste enterprise funds, coordinating exceptional service delivery, and evaluating new opportunities for partnerships. During the review of Fiscal Year 2003-04 budget, the City Council asked staff for an operational and financial review of the solid waste operations, including evaluating whether the city should pursue privatization of landfill operations, MRF operations, commercial sanitation services, and loose trash collection services. R.W. Beck has also completed a five-year rate projection for solid waste services. The City of Glendale currently provides weekly refuse and recycling collection service to over 50,000 single family households, in addition to monthly loose trash collection. The city also competes with private refuse haulers for commercial sanitation services. All of the sanitation services are funded through fees assessed to customers and the fees remain in the Sanitation Enterprise Fund The city also owns and operates its own 260 acre landfill, located at 111th and Glendale Avenues, and its own MRF, where recyclables from Glendale and several other Valley cities are processed and sold. The costs associated with operating the landfill and MRF are recovered through fees and the sale of recyclable material. These fees are retained in the Landfill Enterprise Fund. The City Council awarded Request for Proposal (RFP) 03-22 for solid waste consulting services to R.W. Beck on October 14, 2003. The City Council reviewed the staff Solid Waste Assessment during the Fiscal Year 2003-04 budget workshops and directed staff, on May 6, 2003, to engage a consultant to review possible privatization of some solid waste services. 11 Professional and independent assessments of city operations are an excellent way to review current operating procedures, identify financial opportunities or constraints, and determine if changes in a program or service are warranted. Today's workshop presentation will focus on an overview of the project and the rate study for residential and commercial sanitation services and fees assessed at the City landfill. In completing this review, R.W. Beck, in consultation with our landfill engineers, Bryan Stirrat and Associates, found that the landfill fund balance of almost $18 million is more than sufficient to cover closure and post-closure costs of the south half of the landfill. This affords the City Council an opportunity to use the excess fund balance of approximately $8.2 million in a variety of ways including: 1. Paying off debt associated with the MRF and recycling program, thereby reducing future residential rate increases. 2. Establish an equipment replacement fund for solid waste equipment, thereby reducing future lease payments and debt from capital expenditures and having a positive effect on sanitation rates. 3. Pre-funding development costs associated with the north portion of the city landfill. 4. Leave the excess fund balance in the landfill enterprise fund for now and set sanitation and landfill rates to reflect full cost recovery. The recommendation from R.W. Beck and staff is to use the fund balance to pay off up to $6.5 million in MRF debt, use $1.7 million to establish a solid waste vehicle replacement fund, and retain a reserve. This will mean no residential rate increase for Fiscal Year 2004-05 and only modest increases thereafter for the next five years. Staff requested policy guidance on the use of the excess landfill fund balance and what residential sanitation rate schedule, based on the use of the fund balance, the Council would like to pursue. 4. DISCUSSION CONCERNING SEARCH FOR NEW CITY ATTORNEY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director. This is a request for the City Council to discuss and provide direction to the City Manager and the Human Resources Director regarding the retention of a consulting firm to assist in the recruitment of applicants to fill the position of City Attorney. Human Resources Director, Alma Carmicle, will be available to answer questions. The recommendation was to provide the City Manager and Human Resources Director 12 with direction regarding the retention of a consulting firm to fill the position of City Attorney. Ms. Carmicle reported sending Council three proposals from three separate search firms. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion the proposals speak for themselves. He said he was satisfied with the response and has made his selection. Councilmember Goulet noted Avani was the only group to offer a guarantee. He asked if such guarantee is common. Ms. Carmicle said most of the proposals are similar in terms of scope and all of the firms offer some form of guarantee. Councilmember Martinez said he personally contacted some of the firms and believes Avani seems to have the most experience. Councilmember Clark said, after reading the three proposals, she agrees The Avani Group is best. She pointed out neither of the other two groups mentioned minority hirings. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion The Mercer Group's proposal was far more complete, noting their price was half that of the other two. Ms. Carmicle pointed out The Mercer Group was the only group that offered the option of allowing staff to participate in the process. She explained whatever attorney is selected; they will have to pass the Arizona bar. Mayor Scruggs stated it is apparent The Mercer Group wants the city's business whereas the others appeared to submit standard proposals. She stated the guarantees on Page 37 of The Mercer Group's proposal were very impressive. Councilmember Clark asked if a two year off-limits practice and two year replacement guarantee are standard in the industry. Ms. Carmicle responded yes. She pointed out the city has not worked with Avani or Maximus in many years. She expressed her opinion the proposals were all similar in nature. Mayor Scruggs commented on The Mercer Group's much lower price, pointing out the city will also have to pay the travel expenses for candidates who come out for interviews. Councilmember Clark referenced the city's past experience with The Mercer Group, stating for a variety of reasons they were not totally satisfied with their service. She expressed her opinion they should try a different firm. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Paladini said Council needs to discuss the parameters of the contract in executive session, noting formal approval has to be done at an evening session. Councilmember Lieberman said he would like to meet with individuals from each of the three firms. The Council reached consensus meeting with each firm would take too much time. Ms. Carmicle listed the positions for which The Mercer Group has performed a search for the city. 13 Councilmember Clark pointed out Avani listed eight pages of searches they have conducted, stating they outclass both Mercer and Maximus. Councilmember Frate said he read all three proposals and felt they were comparable. He said he chose Avani. Councilmember Martinez said he also supports Avani. Councilmember Goulet said he was least impressed by The Maximus Group's proposal. He said he was struck by the lower cost proposed by The Mercer Group, stating it speaks to Mr. Mercer's desire to do the job. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Goulet, stating she cannot find anything in the Avani proposal that justifies the 60 percent cost difference. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the firms send the same proposals to all potential clients. Ms. Carmicle said the firms typically meet with the hiring authority to develop a profile of candidates and to obtain specific instructions on how to proceed. He said they then send out mailings or conduct advertisements. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Ms. Carmicle if she believes all three firms to be reputable. Ms. Carmicle responded yes. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he does not understand the cost difference either. Councilmember Clark pointed out the 60 percent high price translates to $7,000. She reiterated, despite The Mercer Group's hunger or desire for the contract, the fact remains that they failed to satisfy the city's needs in the past. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the city limited The Mercer Group to an in-state search in their previous contract, suggesting the city should have given them more territory from which to draw candidates. Mayor Scruggs noted The Mercer Group has conducted four searches for the city since the previously unsatisfactory experience. She acknowledged there were real problems at that time, stating, however, times change. She said the same guarantees may be in all of the proposals, but seem to be more clearly set forth in Mercer's proposal. Councilmember Lieberman asked Ms. Carmicle if she has a recommendation. Ms. Carmicle chose not to respond. Councilmember Lieberman said, while money is a consideration, The Mercer Group has been successful in their last four searches. Mayor Scruggs asked if the four recent searches conducted by The Mercer Group were in-state or national searches. Ms. Carmicle answered national. Councilmember Frate asked if the most qualified people in those particular searches ended up being in-house people. Ms. Carmicle said two candidates were from in- house. Councilmember Martinez said he will change his selection to Mercer. Council members Frate and Clark stated they still prefer Avani. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to proceed with The Mercer Group. She said Council will meet in executive session to discuss the terms of the contract. ADJOURNMENT 14 The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 15