Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/5/2004 *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 OCTOBER 5, 2004 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ABSENT: Councilmember Steven E. Frate ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FINANCIAL REVIEW OF CITY SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager and Mr. Stuart Kent, Field Operations Deputy Director, and Mr. Scott Pasternak, Project Manager with R.W. Beck This is a request for the City Council to provide direction on the use of the landfill fund balance and select a residential sanitation rate option, based on an operational and financial review completed by staff and representatives from R.W. Beck. This study of the city's solid waste operations includes residential and commercial sanitation services, loose trash collection, landfill, and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The report also includes a discussion of privatization options that the City Council previously asked to be reviewed. Today's presentation will focus on a brief overview of the report and the rate recommendations. A subsequent workshop 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 also completed a five-year rate projection for solid waste services. 1 The City of Glendale currently provides weekly refuse and recycling collection service to over 53,000 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 a 260-acre landfill, located near 115th and Glendale Avenues, and a 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 MRF has a debt of $5.878 million in principal remaining from its 2000 start up. This debt will be fully paid in 2014 under current terms. However, the interest on this principal will accrue to $1.293 million during those years. The terms of the loan permit early pay-off of the debt at no additional cost to the city. The City Council reviewed a staff-developed 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. The City Council awarded RFP 03-22 for solid waste consulting services to R.W. Beck on October 14, 2003. Professional and independent assessments of city operations provide an excellent way to review current operating procedures, identify financial opportunities and constraints, and determine if change in a program or service is warranted. Today's workshop presentation will begin with a brief overview of the project and then focus on the rate study for residential, commercial sanitation, and landfill fees. In completing this review, R.W. Beck, in consultation with the city's landfill engineers, Bryan Stirrat and Associates, found that the landfill fund balance of $20.3 million is more than sufficient to cover closure and post-closure costs of the south portion of the landfill. This affords the City Council an opportunity to use the excess fund balance of approximately $10.9 million in a variety of ways including: 1. Pay the full 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 resulting in a positive effect on sanitation rates. 3. Pre-fund development costs associated with the north portion of the city landfill. 2 4. Leave the excess fund balance in the landfill enterprise fund and set sanitation and landfill rates to reflect full cost recovery. The recommendation from R.W. Beck and staff was to use the fund balance to: o Allocate $9.4 million to the current closure/post-closure liability. o Pay off $5.878 million in MRF debt. o Use the remaining fund balance of approximately $5 million to establish a solid waste vehicle replacement fund and retain additional fund balance as contingency. Adoption of these recommendations will mean no residential rate increase for Fiscal Year 2004-05 and only modest increases thereafter for the next four years. Staff requested policy guidance on the use of the landfill fund balance and, based on the use of the fund balance, what residential sanitation rate schedule Council would like to pursue. Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, this financial review of the City's Solid Waste Operations was requested by the Mayor and Council during the FY 2004 budget process and is consistent with our on-going efforts of evaluating city operations and business practices. Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, today's presentation will focus on the financial analysis conducted by R.W. Beck, in cooperation with our City Budget and Finance staff, regarding residential and commercial sanitation rates as well as landfill rates. Mr. Kent and Mr. Pasternak will present R.W. Beck's findings related to possible privatization options, which were requested by the City Council. Mr. Kent said today's presentation will focus on Section 2 of the report, the cost of solid waste collection and disposal services. He began with a brief overview management of solid waste in the city and the integration of collection and disposal operations are integrated. Mr. Kent explained that the city's sanitation trucks collect all residential garbage, referred to as solid waste, once a week and take the material to the city owned and operated landfill. He said the sanitation trucks also service the recycling containers once a week and bring those materials to the city owned and operated Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). He stated city sanitation crews also provide once a month loose trash collection to single family homes as part of the base service and inspection and education staff inspect recycling containers for contamination, monitor placement of materials put out for loose trash, and develop educational materials to assist residents in using the solid waste services properly. Mr. Kent explained businesses in Glendale could choose to use either city commercial sanitation services or a private provider. He stated the city provides a full array of commercial collection services by servicing steel bins ranging from 2 to 40 cubic yards in size. He said the rates for commercial services are set to recover the costs of this 3 operation. He noted the city also provides garbage collection service to all apartments, town homes, and other multi-family properties using steel bins. Mr. Kent explained the city's landfill is a total of 260 acres, with the south portion, which has been in operation since 1973, accounting for 140 acres and having an anticipated life cycle of 8 to 10 more years. He said the landfill currently receives 277,000 tons per year of refuse with over half of this material coming from city sanitation trucks and other city departments. He stated the north portion of the landfill is 120 acres in size and could provide up to 35 years of disposal capacity. He reported the MRF sold over 20,000 tons of recyclable material last fiscal year. Mr. Kent stated on May 6, 2003 Council reviewed an operational and financial analysis conducted by city staff regarding residential and commercial garbage collection, landfill and MRF operations. He said, at that time, the analysis called for significant rate increases through FY 2008 and a cost of service for residential sanitation that fluctuated between $16.79 and $17.85 per month per household. He said, fortunately, several of the assumptions used to develop those numbers have changed in a positive manner and, as a result, the residential sanitation rate options presented in the assessment completed by R.W. Beck are all lower than the staff assessment presented in May 2003. Councilmember Clark asked why was there a drop in the residential sanitation rate in FY08? Mr. Kent responded some of the lease payments would be completed so the rates don't need to be as high. Councilmember Goulet said there are substantial savings in a number of areas defined in the report. Why do the rates need to increase? Mr. Pasternack explained their analysis calls for the cost of service beginning in FY 2005 to be $14.51 while the city's current rate is $14.50, therefore, they recommend maintaining the city's current residential rate. He said starting in FY 2006 the cost of service increases to $15.07 and remains at approximately that level for the following two years; therefore, staff is recommending the city implement a rate during that time period of $15.05. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the final report calls for a rate of $14.90 through FY 2008 and asked why staff is now recommending a rate of $15.05 beginning in 2006. Mr. Pasternack said, while the city could put a rate of $14.90 in place in 2005, staff believes it makes more sense to keep the rate constant for the upcoming fiscal year and increase the rate to $15.05 beginning in FY 2006. Mr. Reedy noted staff was originally going to bring this issue to Council in June, but due to various issues, the presentation was delayed. Mr. Kent pointed out the consultant's report sets forth a variety of options. Mr. Reedy clarified for Mayor Scruggs that the $14.90 called for the in the report assumed the rate increase would have been implemented as of July 1, 2004. He said $14.90 is still a viable option, but the city will lose out on the first few months of additional income. Councilmember Clark referenced Page 5 of the Executive Summary, asking what 4 accounts for the $0.15 difference between the option contained in the report and the rate recommended by staff. Mr. Pasternack said it comes down to a policy issue, explaining implementing a rate of $14.90 immediately or holding the rate constant this year and increasing according to the rate schedule recommended by staff will generate approximately the same amount of total revenue. Mr. Kent reiterated the $14.90 rate assumed the rate increase was adopted July 1. Councilmember Clark referenced Page 2-10, Table 2.8, asking why the Monthly Cost By Service category goes up far more than the five percent increase they expect in their customer base. She pointed out the Cost of Service per Household Forecast goes up 13 percent, Inspection and Education increases 21 percent, and Administration increases 28 percent. Mr. Kent explained some costs straight line, but others do not, noting, for example, the assumptions they used called for six percent salary increases each year. With regard to Sanitation Administration, he said they added another person to assist with phone coverage relative to addressing solid waste calls. Councilmember Clark asked what they assumed for the cost of living increase. Mr. Kent explained the six percent increase reflects COLA and salary increases. Mr. Pasternack pointed out from an overall perspective they are looking at an average increase of 3.5 percent annually. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Kent explained the $15.05 rate would start in FY 2006 and remain constant through June 30, 2008. He said the rate would then be reevaluated for subsequent years. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the executive summary states the $14.90 rate would remain in effect for the next four years, starting July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2008. She asked if the increase to $15.05 would only be in effect for three years. Mr. Kent responded yes. Mr. Pasternack said the city is fortunate to have the flexibility to look at rate making from a policy perspective. He stated the city needs to determine whether it makes more sense to keep the rate at $14.50 for the remainder of this year and increase it to $15.05 for the following three years, or if it is better to increase the rate to $14.90 now and maintain that rate for the next four years. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out both options are predicated on the assumption that the city pays off the MRF debt. He asked if staff anticipated a growth rate for the remaining $5,022,000 in the landfill fund balance. Mr. Pasternack said they have conservatively projected funds that remain in reserves will grow two percent annually. Councilmember Lieberman noted two percent equates to approximately $100,000 per year. He expressed his opinion it makes sense to pay off the MRF debt, pointing out staff's recommended rate of $15.05 is considerably lower than the $16.50 or $17.00 called for in the MAY 2003 Solid Waste Assessment. Councilmember Clark asked if acceptance of the residential rate analysis is based on acceptance of all of the recommendations contained in the final report. Mr. Reedy said several optional recommendations are contained in the final report. He explained the rate analysis is based on retirement of the MRF debt. He clarified for Councilmember Clark that the reduction of the loose trash collection crews was not calculated into the rate analysis, stating that and numerous other issues need to be evaluated and 5 discussed with Council. Councilmember Clark referenced Pages 2 and 3 of the Executive Summary, expressing concern about the competitive nature of the Commercial Front Load and Commercial Roll-off markets. Mr. Reedy explained the residential rate is easily established because they are able to identify the growth rate and the number of customers. He said, conversely, commercial front load and roll off rates vary and adjustments to those rates impact the number of customers that use the city's services. He noted their goal is to collect an adequate amount in each area to support its cost. He assured the Council they are not attempting to use one component to support another. Councilmember Clark summarized, stating each division is charged with recovering its own cost and in no way will the residential side be used to offset the commercial side or vice versa. Mr. Reedy agreed. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted the report calls for $20 million in the closing fund, however, only half that amount will be needed for the closing costs. He asked if the $10 million not needed for closing could be returned to the ratepayers. Mr. Kent explained, while Council has the option of identifying the cost of closing the south half of the landfill and setting those funds aside, the $9.4 million referenced in the report represents closure costs that should have been saved to date. Mr. Reedy noted five years ago the city anticipated closing the south half of the landfill sooner based on the customer base at that time, explaining the life of the south half of the landfill was extended when Peoria pulled out. Mr. Kent noted the assessment done a year ago showed the cost per household and recommended rate do not match. He said it was suggested at that time that the difference be made up using the landfill fund balance; however, it was determined that doing so over the long term would not be in the city's best interest. He said the approach for this study was to look at recovering the cost of service with current rate payers. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the current life span is for the south half of the landfill. Mr. Kent said the south half has approximately eight to ten years, while the north half has a life span of about 30 years. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if some of the closing fund balance will be used to develop the north half. Mr. Kent said the city chose not to take the approach that would place the burden of developing the north area on current residents when future residents are going to be using it. He said their approach assumes when the time comes to develop the north area that the city will enter into some sort of debt financing with residents at that time paying for the cost of that development. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested the city not raise the rates or put more money away for closure costs since it already has twice the amount that will be necessary for closing the south half of the landfill. Mr. Reedy said, while that is one option, not recovering the cost of operation and subsiding it with the closing fund will result in the need for a substantial rate increase in the future. He said staff's recommendation is to recover the cost of service and look at using any cash savings to minimize future rate increases, for instance, by creating a vehicle replacement fund. Mr. Pasternack explained as part of the rate analysis they calculated approximately how full the landfill is today and the closure and post closure costs associated with each additional ton of waste that will come into the landfill in the future. He referenced Appendix A, Schedule 1, Page 9, stating $227,000 will be put aside each year for the closure and post closure costs. 6 Councilmember Clark asked if a portion of the city's impact fees go into a separate fund for opening the north portion of the landfill. Mr. Reedy referenced Page 9 of Schedule 1, stating the funds are reflected in Fund 55. Mayor Scruggs said using the $10 million to pay the difference between the operating expenses and revenue collected would, in effect, be using one-time money to pay ongoing costs. She asked if a portion of the $10 million could be used, however, to make up the shortfall that results from not having implemented the rate increase by July 1. Mr. Pasternack offered to research that option. Mayor Scruggs said she appreciates the philosophical approach staff has taken toward paying for future development of the landfill and she can support the recommendation that a portion of the balance be used to pay off the MRF debt. She expressed concern that creating a vehicle replacement fund would put the city back on a path of building a huge balance for something in the future. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the $10.9 million would be reduced by half if $5.878 were used to repay the MRF debt. He agreed a couple hundred thousand dollars could be used to make up for the loss of revenue the city would receive since the rate increase was not implemented on July 1. Councilmember Martinez said he likes the idea of establishing a vehicle replacement fund because very costly equipment will have to be replaced in the future. Mayor Scruggs said, in concept, the vehicle replacement fund is a good idea; however, in practice, it sometimes gets out of control. She said she would like to see a breakout of what they are spending on lease/purchase debts, what would be retired, and how contributions to the vehicle replacement funds match up to the lease/purchase payments. Mr. Reedy said staff would likely recommend the sanitation vehicle replacement fund be separate from the city's other vehicle replacement fund. He expressed his opinion there are compelling reasons to look at pre-funding vehicle replacements. Mr. Kent said staff will return to Council with more information on a vehicle replacement fund. He explained the $1 million placeholder identified by staff would actually need to be higher, noting the inventory value is between $10 and $13 million. Mayor Scruggs suggested staff return in the near future so the study does not become outdated. Mr. Kent stated the Enterprise Fund Balance totals approximately $20.3 million, minus the $9.4 million debt, which grows by approximately $230,000 each year, leaves a current available balance of $10.9 million. He recommended the city retire the MRF debt, which is approximately $5.878 million, saving the city about $1.2 million in interest. He further recommended they hold the remaining amount in reserve relative to closure and post-closure costs. Mayor Scruggs asked if the funds could go toward capital costs for the north section of the landfill if they are not needed for closure or post closure. Mr. Kent said dollars could be set aside for development of the north section if that is Council's desire. Mr. 7 Reedy noted they hope continued education on the recycling program will result in a reduction in tonnage per customer. He said no one knows what the regulatory agencies will do in five to ten years; therefore, it is difficult to determine what the closure/post-closure costs will be. Mayor Scruggs asked if the percentage of total human resources expenses charged to sanitation is appropriate. Mr. Reedy said yes based on available information, noting the City Auditor is currently asking the same question. He pointed out 30 to 40 percent of the city's budget and 500 of its 1,500 to 2,000 employees are in Public Works. He assured Mayor Scruggs the charge backs are being reevaluated. Councilmember Martinez referred to a recommendation in the report to move more towards permanent rather than temporary employees. Mr. Kent noted they asked for approval to convert the last crew for loose trash during the last budget session. He pointed out there has only been about one-and-a-half weeks when Sanitation has not been in active recruitment. Mr. Kent reiterated staffs recommendation is to allocate $9.4 million to the current closure/post-closure liability, to retire the $5.878 million MRF debt, and adopt the R.W. Beck recommended sanitation rate. He pointed out if the MRF debt is retired, City of Glendale sanitation trucks and residents will be charged $12.57 per at the landfill and residents will still be allowed to take the first ton of each load for free and then pay $12.57 per ton thereafter as opposed to the $19.50 currently being charged. He said staff would bring back additional information concerning the establishment of a vehicle replacement fund. Mayor Scruggs said, while an ordinance would help establish order and dependability, she is concerned that it would be too restrictive. She asked if there could be a situation wherein the city would need to draw on the fund to keep the services going, but would not be able to because of the ordinance. Mr. Reedy explained regulatory requirements require the city to be able to prove the money has been set aside. He said, while they continue to approve the city's current process of proving the money has been set aside, they would probably be more comfortable if the city had an ordinance. Mr. Pasternack stated the rates they developed are based on the assumption that the money will be set aside and not used for any other purposes. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city could adopt a resolution rather than establish an ordinance. Mr. Tindall explained a resolution in not a law, but rather a motion that indicates the Council's intention. Mayor Scruggs expressed her preference to adopt a resolution given the city's history of over- contributing versus under-contributing and its reliance upon sound financial policies. Mr. Reedy clarified the intent of staff's recommendation to establish an ordinance is to make the regulators more comfortable, however it is not absolutely necessary. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Pasternack clarified staffs recommendation is to maintain the rate at its current level of $14.50 per month for FY 2005, but increase it to $15.05 beginning July 1, 2005. Mayor Scruggs suggested staff proceed with retiring the MRF debt and increasing the 8 rate to $14.90 as of January 1, 2005. She said the six-month's of revenue the city will have lost by not implementing the rate increase on July 1, 2004 should be taken out of the $10.9 million. Mr. Reedy offered to return to Council to provide information concerning the financial impact of Mayor Scruggs' suggested scenario. Mayor Scruggs further asked staff to find a way to indicate Council's position short of establishing an ordinance. Councilmember Martinez commented the efficiency and services offered by Glendale's Sanitation staff and operations is higher than that found in many other cities. Mayor Scruggs pointed out her support of the rate increase is based on the assumption monthly loose trash will continue. Mr. Reedy stated the recommended rate supports the current services. Mayor Scruggs asked how many Glendale residents drop trash off at the landfill. Mr. Reedy estimated 4,000 to 5,000. Mr. Kent stated residents pay to drop off approximately 10,000 tons of material annually. 2. FOLLOW UP ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Pamela Hanna, City Clerk This is a request for the City Council to review and provide direction regarding the preliminary report on changing the City of Glendale's spring election cycle to correspond with Maricopa County's fall election cycle. Council "Items of Special Interest" are discussed quarterly in workshop according to a Council procedural guideline approved in the Fall of 2002. The memorandums submitted to the Council at this workshop provide an initial assessment of the election cycle topic identified by Mayor Scruggs during the July 6, 2004 Council workshop. Should the Council decide to pursue further action on this topic, various stakeholders, interested parties, and the public at-large will be notified of policy changes and/or future opportunities to provide input. The direction requested was to review this item and provide staff with direction regarding the preliminary report on changing the city's spring election cycle to correspond with Maricopa County's fall election cycle. Ms. Hanna explained Council requested at its July 6 workshop that staff study whether the city should change its election cycle from its current spring election cycle to the fall election cycle used by Maricopa County. She explained the city's election cycle provisions are in the City Charter, which means a vote of the people would be required for an amendment. She said the city's next City Council elections are scheduled for 2006 and a special election can be held in 2005. Mayor Scruggs clarified the city will hold a franchise election in May 2005. Ms. Hanna agreed. Ms. Hanna explained in a consolidated election the City Clerk's office would function as it does now, in that it would monitor the election process and filing programs for the candidates and political committees. She said the Clerk's office would contract with 9 Maricopa County for many services and would include the city's candidates and propositions on their ballot. She stated the benefits of a consolidated ballot include increased voter turnout and a substantial reduction in cost. She said potential concerns include the length of the ballot, the position of Glendale's candidates and propositions on the ballot, that Maricopa County restricts cities to the primary election except in situations where there is a runoff, and that the city's voters will have to be re-educated. Mayor Scruggs asked why the city's propositions couldn't be placed on the County's general election ballot if they are holding an election anyway. Mr. Hanna said she had contacted the election director for Maricopa County who told her the county does not allow municipalities to participate in the general elections except in situations where there is a runoff. Mayor Scruggs pointed out a goal of the County Elections Department is to increase voter participation, which is historically much higher in the November election than it is in the September election. Ms. Hanna confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the only place the city's propositions would appear would be on the County's primary election ballot. Mayor Scruggs asked what the turnout of Glendale voters was at the county's September 2004 or September 2002 elections. Ms. Hanna offered to provide those numbers. She noted the city's May 2004 election drew just under 7,500 voters whereas the November 2002 consolidated election ballot drew approximately 42,000 Glendale voters. Ms. Hanna added an increase in the voter turn-out will also increase the number of signatures required for initiatives, referendums, recalls and candidates for City Council. Mayor Scruggs emphasized the petition is supposed to indicate the support of the community, noting someone can now be placed on the ballot with as few as 39 signatures. Ms. Hanna said all cities have problems getting people to vote, explaining local elections do not draw the same kind of interest as the county, state and federal elections. Councilmember Goulet said the increased number of signatures required will also help minimize the number of inappropriate recalls or initiatives that are done for self-serving reasons that cost the city tens of thousands of dollars. Councilmember Clark pointed out the number of signatures required to place a candidate on the ballot would increase significantly if the city moves to a consolidated ballot. Ms. Hanna agreed. Councilmember Clark expressed concern that the higher number of signatures required would discourage those seeking to become candidates or seeking initiatives, referendums or recalls. . Mayor Scruggs noted a candidate has to get close to 2,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot in the City of Tempe; however, they are able to not only obtain the necessary signatures, but hold competitive races as well. Ms. Hanna stated the county is not able to have an all-mail ballot election, despite attempts last year to have the law changed. She said, therefore, the city would be precluded from having an all-mail ballot election if it chose to consolidate with the county. She explained the initial terms of City Councilmember coming into office in 2006 and 2008 would either be reduced or extended and a charter amendment would be necessary for this to occur. She stated the Mayor and Council member terms would 10 have to become consistent with a November election. Councilmember Lieberman said the first step would be to hold a regular election to change the city's charter. Ms. Hanna said the city could choose to put charter amendments on the franchise election ballot in 2005. Councilmember Goulet pointed out candidates voted into office in 2002 were voted in for a specific four year term; therefore their terms could not be extended until the fall of 2006. Ms. Hanna noted she discussed the issue with the city's acting City Attorney, Jon Paladini, and it is her understanding that public officials have to serve the term for which they were elected. She said the changes can be made prior to that but the officials have to serve out their entire four-year term. She stated, therefore, the earliest anyone could be up for reelection would be 2006. Mr. Tindall pointed out any change proposed by the city would have to be submitted to the Justice Department for pre-clearance. Vice Mayor Eggleston said anyone elected during the Spring 2006 election would be elected to a term of four years six months. Ms. Hanna there is more than one solution for example: if term was reduced to three and half years it would fall in a odd numbered year and not be consistent with county elections; if the term were extended to four and a half years it would be consistent with county elections but there are other scenarios. There needs to be further legal review. Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced his support of any measure that increases voter turnout and participation. Ms. Hanna pointed out the candidates' cost of campaigning would probably be higher because of the increased election activity occurring during the fall. Ms. Hanna confirmed for Councilmember Clark that proceeding with the consolidated ballot would preclude the city from holding all-mail ballot elections. She said, however, the county is trying to get the law changed. Councilmember Clark stated she does not support moving in the direction of a fall election, expressing her opinion it would put local candidates and issues in competition with national, state and county candidates and issues. She said she is convinced an all-mail ballot election is the wave of the future. She took issue with Councilmember Goulet's comments that the increased signature requirements would reduce the number of frivolous initiatives, referendums or recalls, stating it is not up to the city to determine whether or not a person has a legitimate reason for placing an issue on the ballot. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark that mail-in ballots are the way to increase voter participation. Councilmember Martinez asked if the decision could be postponed until Councilmember Frate can be present and to allow staff to obtain clarification as to why propositions cannot be placed on the general election ballots. Mayor Scruggs explained the intent of today's presentation was to determine whether or not staff should continue their research on the subject and return to Council with more detailed information in the future. Councilmember Martinez stated he would like more information. 11 Vice Mayor Eggleston said he supports moving to a fall election schedule, but he would like more information about why propositions cannot be placed on the November ballot. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to find out: what the turnout of Glendale voters has been for the last two county September primaries; the reasons for Maricopa County's restrictions regarding municipal propositions on the General Election ballot, and specific options on the six month term extension or reduction that would be required to implement a new fall election schedule. 3. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST This is the quarterly opportunity for City Councilmembers to identify topics of interest they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda. In the Fall of 2002, the Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of special interest to be identified quarterly. The initial assessment of each item requires staff time. The direction requested was to identify items of special interest that the Council wants the City Manager to assess. Councilmember Goulet said after talking with various residents, neighborhood leaders, Public Safety and the City Attorney, he would like staff to look into a nuisance ordinance to give homeowners relief from the perpetual problems they have with specific properties. He said the ordinance should not only hold property owners responsible for the problems the neighbors face, but also for the costs incurred by the city in having to repeatedly address the problem. Councilmember Martinez asked if rental property owners are complying with the city's rental tax and, if not, can strategies be identified to ensure compliance. Mayor Scruggs asked for information about the city's policy concerning Internet filtering with regard to the computers located in city libraries. She also asked that a comparison be done between Glendale's policy and other cities' policies. She further asked how the city's policy is communicated to library users, how complaints and violations are handled, and what is the City Attorney's opinion regarding the City Council's authority to set policy in this area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. 12