Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/16/2004 * 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 BUDGET WORKSHOP March 16, 2004 8:30 a.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 FY04-05 BUDGET: 1st WORKSHOP CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager; Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Budget Director This is a request for City Council to review the FY04-05 forecast for general fund (GF) revenues and expenditures, along with the recommended supplemental requests from the following departments: Human Resources, Fire, Police, City Court, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council Office and the Mayor's Office. The material to be covered is attached. The attached information is the same as that found in the first five tabs of the City Council budget workbook (see the tabs labeled Introduction, Human Resources, Fire Department, Police Department, and Appointed Officials). The Human Resources Department presentation will address citywide issues related to proposed employee compensation increases and employee benefits like health insurance, retirement programs, and education assistance. As part of this presentation, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) representatives will discuss health insurance trends. Council's review of the FY 2004-05 budget is consistent with the Council's goal of ensuring the city's financial stability. The budget process has been modified per Council's requests. Some of the more significant modifications include the following: o Council now receives quarterly presentations on GF revenues and expenditures; o Council now receives periodic presentations throughout the year on 1 enterprise fund issues, such as water and sewer rate adjustments; o Council now reviews the CIP budget at the same time as the operating budgets for next fiscal year, as evidenced by the inclusion of CIP operating and maintenance supplementals as part of the operating budget process; and o Council now reviews all supplemental spending requests as part of the operating budget process. Future FY04-05 budget workshops are scheduled for March 23, March 30, and April 6, with the final balancing scheduled for April 20, 2004. Council was presented with an overview of the draft FY05-14 CIP at the January 6, 2004, workshop. As a follow up to the January 6 workshop, a detailed report on the draft FY05-14 CIP was provided to City Council on January 23, 2004. Council reviewed the FY04-05 GF revenue projection at the February 17, 2004 workshop. The FY04-05 budget workbook was distributed to Council on March 2, 2004 for review prior to the scheduled budget workshop discussions. The City of Glendale's budget is an important financial, planning and public communication tool. It gives residents and businesses a clear and concrete view of the city's direction for public services and operations and a better understanding of the city's ongoing needs for stable revenue sources to fund public services and ongoing operations. The budget provides Council and residents with a means to evaluate the city's financial stability. All budget workshops are open to the public and are posted publicly per state requirements. The recommendation was to provide staff direction on the recommended supplemental requests related to employee compensation and benefits as presented by the Human Resources Department, and the recommended supplemental requests for the Fire Department, Police Department, City Court, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council Office, and the Mayor's Office. Ms. Schurhammer began explaining the "ongoing" column of the GF balancing detail slide. She explained total GF ongoing revenue of $136.2 million includes decreases to the state shared revenue projection per Council's direction at the February 17, 2004, workshop, and a slight increase in primary property tax revenue based on information received from the county within the last two weeks. She said total GF ongoing expenses total $122.9 million; this figure includes the GF base operating budget plus ongoing transfers to other funds. She explained the starting point for establishing the General Fund 2004/05 base budget is the current fiscal year budget less all one-time supplementals in this year's budget. She said the 2004/05 base budgets continue to reflect the base budget reductions of $9.5 million done when the current fiscal year's budgets were established. She said the $9.5 million is now available for redistribution. 2 Ms Schurhammer stated that transfers are included as part of the General Fund base operating expenses because they are an ongoing expense to the General Fund. She noted the $829,000 one-time transfer relates to stadium-related expenses and said the city will be seeking reimbursement from the TSA and the CFD for the $829,000. Ms Schurhammer continued by saying that once total GF ongoing expenses of $122.9M is subtracted from total GF ongoing revenue of $136.2M, the resulting $13.3M in ongoing revenue is available for supplementals. From this $13.3M we must deduct the "essential supplementals" totaling $6.5M and the "all other supplementals" totaling $6.4M. She pointed out that all supplementals brought forward are recommended by the City Manager's Management Team, which includes the assistant city manager, the deputy city managers, the Fire and Police Chiefs, and the appointed officials department heads. Once all of the ongoing expenses and supplemental requests are deducted from the projected GF revenue of $136.2M, the result is $321,261; this amount represents the amount of ongoing revenue available to Council to allocate. Ms. Schurhammer continued by explaining the General Fund (GF) balancing detail slide. She stated the far-right hand column [of the slide] represented onetime GF revenue. One-time expenditures are covered by the GF fund balance rather than on- going GF revenue sources. Therefore, we need to establish a beginning GF fund balance. She explained that the projected beginning General Fund Balance at the start of FY04- 05 is anticipated to total $27 million. This projected beginning fund balance is very conservative in that it is based on the assumption that the city will spend the entire General Fund appropriation, including the General Fund contingency, this fiscal year. While it is unlikely the City will spend the entire GF appropriation, it is the most conservative approach to establishing a projection. If the beginning fund balance is greater than $27 million, the extra monies will accumulate in the GF fund balance. From the $27M, we must deduct the $829,000 one-time transfer related to stadium- related expenses [and for which the city will be seeking reimbursement from the TSA and the CFD], $731,000 in one-time "essential supplementals," and $8.1M in one-time "all other supplementals." Ms. Schurhammer stated the $17.2 million GF contingency appropriation exceeds the minimum amount required by the city's financial policy, explaining the higher contingency appropriation will provide Council with greater flexibility to handle unforeseen emergencies. She explained that the minimum required totals $13.6M, or 10% of the total GF revenue projection for FY04-05. Councilmember Clark asked if the higher than required contingency appropriation is an attempt to make up for previous shortfalls and bring the contingency back up to the appropriate level. Ms. Schurhammer responded no, explaining the GF contingency appropriation represents only the appropriated portion of the GF fund balance. In other words, the GF contingency is only an appropriation, it is not a separate fund. Councilmember Clark asked if Council could decide in the future to cap the contingency transfer at $13.6 million. Ms. Schurhammer responded by saying the Council can set the GF contingency appropriation at the minimum required. She also clarified that the GF contingency is not a transfer to a different fund. 3 Councilmember Clark asked if the $9.5 million now available for redistribution represents the last cycle's budget shortfall. Ms. Schurhammer stated that a shortfall of $9.5M was projected at this time last year. However, in reality, the City collected more revenue than expected and saved more than expected and, as a result, the projected revenue shortfall did not occur. She confirmed that a portion of the $9.5 million savings was achieved by not making GF contributions to the Vehicle Replacement Fund or the PC Replacement Fund. Councilmember Clark asked if staff is recommending that GF contributions be reinstated to those replacement funds. Ms. Schurhammer stated that staff is recommending the restoration of GF contributions to the 50% level because the City Manager's Management Team felt other ongoing supplemental requests were more important. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Kent stated certain vehicles might have a life of seven to ten years while others have a more accelerated replacement schedule. Ms. Schurhammer noted the replacement schedule for the PC Replacement Fund has been extended from three years to four. She pointed out both funds already have a healthy fund balance and can sustain a 50% GF contribution level for FY04-05 based on the expenditures planned for FY04-05. Councilmember Martinez asked if lowering the GF contingency appropriation to the required level of $13.6 million would jeopardize the city's bond rating. Mr. Lynch said they recommend they gradually build up the GF contingency because rating agencies look for increased strength. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Council could put $13.6 million in the GF contingency fund last year. Ms. Schurhammer said no and clarified that the GF contingency is not a separate fund, but an appropriated portion of the General Fund fund balance. She said this fiscal year has a GF contingency appropriation of about $8 million, which is less than the 10% required by the city's financial policy. She said the GF contingency appropriation typically is not spent each year although a portion of the GF contingency appropriation was spent this fiscal year because of the one-time, lump sum payment made to employees in February. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Ms. Schurhammer stated this year's GF contingency appropriation has nothing to do with last year's appropriation. She explained the recommended GF contingency appropriation of$17.2 million for FY04-05 was derived by subtracting General Fund expenses and supplementals from the projected beginning GF fund balance of $27 million. She pointed out the beginning balance will likely be higher than the anticipated $27 million. Councilmember Clark asked if the Council could choose to set aside for a GF contingency appropriation an amount somewhere between the minimum required of $13.6 million and staffs recommendation of $17.2 million. Ms. Schurhammer agreed. Councilmember Lieberman asked if unspent GF contingency appropriation carry over to the next year's GF fund balance. Ms. Schurhammer responded that the appropriation does not carry over, but the unspent funds carry over because they are just a component of the GF fund balance. Ms. Schurhammer continued her presentation, stating $93 million, or 69% of the $136.2 million revenue budget projected for next fiscal year comes from city sales tax and state-shared revenue. She said city sales tax accounts for 36% of the total General 4 Fund revenue budget and state shared revenue represents 33%. Through the second quarter of this year, 69% of General Fund actuals came from city sales tax and state shared revenue. Ms. Schurhammer discussed possible sources of revenue not included in the revenue projection for the next fiscal year, including city sales tax revenue expected from the Northern Crossings development. The Finance Department estimated that Northern Crossings would generate $1.1 million in FY04-05. She also noted that the League of Arizona Towns and Cities projects Glendale will collect, in FY04-05, $18.9 million in state-shared sales tax, state-shared income tax, and HURF revenues, which is $1.6 million or 9% more than the city's projection of $17.3 million. She also stated that the City's revenue projection for FY04-05 does not include a possible $4 million in additional city sales tax that could be collected over the last six months of the fiscal year (based on the additional $4M collected during the first 6 months of FY03-04). Councilmember Clark asked if Northern Crossings would open on or before the start of the next fiscal year. Ms. Schurhammer said the Finance Department has estimated Northern Crossings will generate about $108,000 in city sales tax during the last few months of FY03-04. Mr. Lynch explained construction sales taxes generated for the Wal-Mart and Eckerd stores are included in his department's estimate. He said his department's estimate also assumed a starting date that would allow for a full year of sales tax for Wal-Mart and Eckerd. He said additional stores coming on line during the year would increase that estimate. Councilmember Clark expressed concern about counting on an additional $4 million in city sales tax during the second quarter of the current FY when there is no guarantee of achieving the full amount. Ms. Schurhammer emphasized the $4 million is considered possible revenue and is not included in the revenue projection for next fiscal year. Councilmember Martinez asked about revenue from the sale of pads at Northern Crossings. Ms. Schurhammer explained revenue from the sale of parcels at Northern Crossings was received last fiscal year and this fiscal year. She said no revenue for the sale of parcels is included in next fiscal year's budget. Mr. Lynch confirmed that revenue from the sale of new parcels at Northern Crossings is not included in the FY04- 05 revenue projection. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that the budget should include the sale of at least some parcels. Mr. Lynch clarified the sale of smaller parcels was included in the original $1.1 million revenue estimate. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Mr. Lynch anticipates the Northern Crossings' loan to be repaid next fiscal year. Mr. Lynch stated it would depend on the length of escrow. Ms. Schurhammer noted that the original $800,000 supplemental request for the rising cost of health insurance has been revised to $375,000 to $450,000, depending on which option Council selects. As a result of this lower supplemental expense, an additional $350,000 to $425,000 in ongoing GF revenue will be available for other purposes. Mayor Scruggs pointed out Council was told in a February budget meeting that the Contingency Fund totaled $8 million, asking how it was increased to $17 million. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the General Fund contingency is just an appropriation within the General Fund fund balance; it is not a separate fund. She explained that the FY04-05 GF contingency appropriation must be at least 10% of the FY04-05 GF revenue budget, or $13.6 million to meet the requirement set forth in the city's financial policy. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question Ms. Schurhammer stated that the GF 5 contingency appropriation represents one-time funding since it is part of the GF fund balance. Therefore, the difference between the $13.6 million GF contingency appropriation that is required, and the $17.1 million GF contingency appropriation that staff is recommending, represents one time funding. Ms. Schurhammer identified the City Manager's supplementals as essential and prudent to continued sound operations for the city. Human Resources Ms. Carmicle said each year the Human Resources staff reviews and evaluates the benefits program. Mr. Louie Montoya, Director of Group Underwriting for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, stated, as of October 2001, the City of Glendale had 1,771 employees enrolled in its benefits program, of which, 1,554 were active employees and 217 were retirees. He said enrollment increased by October 2002 to 1,884 employees, with 1,641 active employees and 243 retirees. He stated enrollment continued to increase with 1,936 enrolled employees by October 2003, of which 1,660 were active employees and 276 were retirees. He stated the 2002 calculated rate action increase for the active employee population was 13.6%, however, the overall increase was 18.5%, explaining the difference reflects claims by the retiree population. Councilmember Martinez asked if active employees and retirees pay different rates. Mr. Montoya stated retirees over age 65 have one set of rates, while retirees under age 65 and active employees have a different set. He confirmed that all retirees, regardless of whether they are younger or older than 65 years old, are subsidized. Councilmember Clark stated it has always been the city's policy to subsidize retirees, expressing her opinion that the practice should continue as she believes the city has an obligation to the retired population. She suggested the projected improvement in retiree claims in 2004 is the result of the city's increased emphasis on preventative medicine. Mayor Scruggs asked how much does a retiree's contribution decrease once they reach 65. Mr. Montoya said, on average, the rate drops 50%. He said, however, many people do not realize any cost savings because they pick up the cost of Medicare coverage at the same time. Mayor Scruggs asked what percentage of the city's retirees is below age 65. Mr. Montoya was unable to answer, but offered to obtain the information for Council. Mr. Montoya continued his presentation, reporting the 2003 required rate action for the claims component was 3.3% for active employees and 72.7% for retired employees for an overall rate action increase of 13.1%. He said the active population is running at 4.8% rate action for 2004 and the retiree population has decreased to 23.3%. He was unable to explain the reason for the decrease, stating it emphasizes the volatility of the retiree group despite its relatively small size. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if other cities or industries are seeing lower than anticipated increases for their retired population. Mr. Montoya said most of the files he has reviewed have not had an increase as low as 23%. Mr. Montoya stated the 4.8% and 23.3% rate action increases average out to an overall increase of 7.5%. 6 Ms. Sierra explained the objectives of the city's benefit plan are to maintain a comprehensive health plan that is both cost effective and valued by the participants. She said the City needs to encourage cost effectiveness through responsible consumption of health benefits. She reviewed factors impacting health care costs. Nationally many medical practices are choosing to consolidate, leading to less competition and higher reimbursement levels. Also, labor shortages among nursing and pharmacy staff are resulting in double digit salary increases for those positions. Finally, increased pharmaceutical advertising encourages patients to be proactive in their healthcare. She said escalating malpractice premiums, changes to Medicare reimbursements and the erosion of managed care cost-saving tools also impact health care costs. Ms. Sierra reported actual claim costs for the last calendar year was $8.9 million, with 82% of the cost incurred by active employees and their dependents and 18% by retirees and their dependents. She said 70% of the active employee population is enrolled in the HMO program and 30% is enrolled in the PPO program, whereas 40% of the retiree population is enrolled in the HMO and 60% in the PPO. She explained 19% of the active employees' claim costs were related to hospital visits, 11% for outpatient facilities, 37% for physician office visits, and 15% for prescriptions. With regard to retiree costs, she said 3% was related to hospital visits, 2% for outpatient facilities, 6% for physician office visits, and 7% for prescriptions. She noted the overall individual participant cost was $388.55 per month. Mayor Scruggs asked how 1,936 employees result in over 22,981 participants. Mr. Montoya explained the 1,936 employees he referred to represents a one-month total, whereas staffs calculation is for the entire year. He said Blue Cross Blue Shield numbers also indicate around 22,000 employees for the year. Ms. Sierra confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the $388.55 individual participant cost includes prescription benefits. Ms. Sierra said data they received from Blue Cross Blue Shield for the last calendar year indicated city employees are very high in the utilization of specialists and emergency rooms. She noted the City of Glendale group spends twice as much on specialists as it does on primary care physician visits, with 3.1 visits per member per year. She stated there were 764 emergency room visits, but only 13.9% were actually admitted. Councilmember Clark pointed out referrals to a specialists are done at the discretion of a primary physician. Furthermore, she stated, while only 106 people who visited an emergency room were admitted, all were treated to some degree. Mayor Scruggs asked if it is more economical to start with a specialist rather than visiting your primary physician only to be referred at a later date. She said a certain percentage of the emergency room visits were likely attributable to broken bones which do not require admittance. Ms. Sierra noted fractures were actually number eight on the top ten list of reasons for visiting the emergency room. She said the data suggest that the emergency room is being used in lieu of visiting a doctor during the week. With regard to the cost of seeing a primary care physician first, Ms. Sierra stated the average cost is $77 versus the $124.69 average cost for a visit to a specialist. Councilmember Martinez asked if doctors are more inclined to prescribe expensive tests in order to protect themselves from future malpractice suits. Mr. Montoya responded yes, especially with respect to general and family practitioners that prescribe 7 tests for diagnostic reasons. He suggested the city educate its employees on the use of Urgent Care versus the emergency room. Ms. Sierra said the national trend for health care renewal in FY04-05 shows a 14% increase, whereas Glendale's increase is expected to be between 7% and 8%, depending'on the renewal option approved. She stated that a primary reason for the lower rate of growth in spending could be attributed to the 31% reduction in prescription spending the city achieved last year through Council's decision to adjust the prescription co-pays for participants. Councilmember Clark asked why the city is not pursuing getting prescriptions from Canada, noting other cities and states have done so without problems from the FDA. Ms. Sierra assured Councilmember Clark that she follows the issue closely, noting pharmaceutical companies are lobbying hard to prevent such actions and have threatened to limit the supplies they give to Canada. Ms. Carmicle explained staff would not pursue that option because of the expensive legal analysis that would be required to make such a recommendation. Mr. Paladini said the general consensus is that the city would run afoul of federal lawif it chose to obtain prescriptions from Canada. He stated the City does not know the ramifications of such actions and could jeopardize the substantial amount of federal grant money the city receives. He offered to conduct a legal analysis on the issue if Council so desires. Councilmember Clark asked if anyone in the city has spoken to representatives from other cities or states that are actively using the practice. Ms. Carmicle responded no. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada. Ms. Carmicle explained Canada's National Health Care Program subsidizes a certain percentage of prescription drug costs. Councilmember Clark noted many drugs are manufactured outside of the United States and the United States pays twice what other countries pay for drugs. She said until the country's health care system is straightened out; the City should look at alternatives. Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion that obtaining prescription drugs from Canada would be a dangerous and reckless practice for the city to consider and he would not want to appropriate any of the City Attorney's time to researching the issue. Ms.Sierra reported no premium increases are needed for dental, vision or life insurance. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city is staying with the same dental insurance provider. Ms. Sierra explained the city has a three-year contract with the current provider, which is renewable every year. She said she has received very few complaints and the provider is paying approximately 87% of every dollar it takes in from premium payments. Mayor Scruggs questioned whether the dental program is being used; expressing her opinion there would be more complaints if it were. Ms. Carmicle stated they can change carriers if that is the decision of Council, pointing out, however, they have the second largest provider network in the state. Ms. Carmicle explained $50,000 of the $850,000 in supplemental requests for Human Resources is for the educational assistance program. She also said the benefits supplemental for $800,000 could be reduced to $375,000 to $450,000, depending on the option Council selects. Councilmember Goulet asked if funding for the educational assistance program could 8 be increased in light of the savings achieved in other areas of the budget. He expressed concern that some public safety and other department employees may not be able to afford the mandatory training related to their positions. Ms. Carmicle explained that the education assistance program was originally established to reimburse employees for courses taken at a community college. She said the program was later expanded to cover certification classes, seminars, and university classes. She stated funds have been transferred into the program in the past to cover student need. In response to Mayor Scruggs's question, Ms. Carmicle said the education assistance program would barely cover participating employees even if departmental funding for professional development were increased. Councilmember Clark asked if staff has considered disbursing the funding in two cycles, or allocating a percentage of the funding to various departments based on a department's history of use. Ms. Carmicle explained many employees participate in cohort programs, requiring that students take consecutive classes. She said allocating the funds to departments would require a change to the policy governing the program. She noted, however, that staff is working with departments to find ways to allocate professional development dollars on a more equal basis. Ms. Carmicle stated Council requested staff take a total compensation approach in the budget process. She said, to that end, employees have received statements since 2002 that show the total value of their annual compensation. She identified the city's major total compensation challenges as maintaining a competitive pay structure, managing health care costs, and attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. She said smaller cities have restructured their pay ranges and have started competing for talent and, in fact, have taken some of Glendale's highly skilled employees. She stated younger employees value education and continuous training and are very interested in what the city offers in terms of tuition reimbursement. Ms. Carmicle explained the recommendation of a 2% market adjustment and a 4% merit increase as an attempt to help Glendale maintain its competitive strength in the marketplace. The HR Department also recommends implementing the compensation study that was conducted two years ago. With regard to benefits, she presented information about employee costs (for the employee only) for health insurance plans that are comparable with the plan offered to City of Glendale staff. Phoenix charges its employees $59/month for a comparable health insurance plan. Mesa charges $53/month, Scottsdale charges $24/month, Chandler charges $20/month, and Tempe charges $11/month. She also said staff met with the employee healthcare task force and presented two options for consideration. She stated the first option is to renew the Blue Cross Blue Shield medical plan at an additional cost of $450,000. With this option, the city would continue to absorb the majority of the increases and would not make any changes to the design of the plan. She expressed concern that the city will have to take an aggressive approach in future years if it continues on this path. She said staff is recommending the second option, which would renew the Blue Cross Blue Shield plan at an additional cost of $375,000. She believes this option will encourage responsible utilization by plan users by increasing the co-payments for emergency room visits from $50 to $100 and for specialists from $20 to $35. Ms. Carmicle stated the education assistance program will continue to be reimbursed at the state university rate and will continue to allow use for technical education and certification. 9 Ms. Carmicle clarified for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the 2% market adjustment will be an across the board increase, with the top of the range increasing but the bottom of the range remaining unchanged. The 4% merit increase is based on performance. Mayor Scruggs asked if an employee's pay increases in proportion to the increased pay range. Ms. Carmicle explained an employee at the top of the range would receive the full market increase whereas an employee at the bottom of the range would receive a 2% market adjustment and be eligible for the 4% market increase. Ms. Carmicle reviewed total compensation goals for FY04-05 1) to implement recommendations from the compensation study conducted two years ago; 2) to implement the new performance management system; 3) to increase communication with employees about total compensation and education; and 4) to better use internet technology. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion they should proceed with the first healthcare option and focus on educating employees on responsible utilization of the plan. Councilmember Clark asked why it appeared that the HR Department had added two administrators. Ms. Carmicle explained that the department was reorganized and no positions were added. Ms. Eckert of the HR Department explained that a PeopleSoft error switched two part-time employees to full-time status. She confirmed they are still at 26.5 employees. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Eckert explained that Employee Development and Employee Relations were split into two separate budgets. Fire Department Chief Burdick began by stating that the Fire Department has a base budget of $18,498,055, carryover of $232,041 and supplemental requests totaling $2,207,483. He reviewed response times over the past five years, explaining that in 2002 Standard 1710 established specific response times. He said the data indicate the goal of a 4- minute response time is being met only 48% to 73% of the time, depending on the location of each fire station. He cited station 155 (Union Hills & 63rd Avenue) as the biggest problem; with the goal being met only 48% of the time. He also discussed a five-year analysis of the type and number of calls received, noting an average 25% increase in overall call volume. Chief Burdick explained the $213,592 and $18,449 Fire Special Revenue carryover requests would complete paramedic training already underway. Councilmember Martinez asked about the $18,449 for medic school tuition. Chief Burdick explained the community college charges the city to have students attend the program. Chief Burdick said the request for $1,005,654 in ongoing funding and $60,221 in one- time funding would add a north ladder company to improve response times on both fire and EMS calls and lessening the city's reliance on neighboring communities' equipment. He said he anticipates the ladder to run 1,500 to 2,000 calls per year. He noted, in 1987 and again in 1997, the ISO rated the City of Glendale Fire Department and recommended the city provide a second ladder, preferably in the central to north area of the city He said, additionally, one of the strategic recommendations of the 10 National Commission on Fire Accreditation was to place a ladder company in north Glendale. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Chief Burdick explained the city has a current per capita ratio of .76 fire fighters per thousand and the north ladder company would increase that ratio to about 0.8. He stated his target is one fire fighter per thousand, explaining automatic aid allows them to utilize companies from other jurisdictions. Councilmember Clark pointed out the northern and western parts of Glendale are currently not covered by the automatic aid eight minute response time, stating the new ladder company would provide coverage for all of north and west Glendale. Chief Burdick explained the $341,548 request for ongoing funding and $273,102 for one time funding requests are necessary to maintain the Fire Department's fleet, equipment and stations in safe, efficient and presentable conditions. He noted the Fire Department fleet has increased in number, and fuel costs have risen too. He said he is also seeking funding for interagency response preplanning, which allows the Fire Department to continue preplanning city buildings and inputting data into the rapid responder software. He pointed out the software is also used by the Police Department. He stated he also has a request to increase the number of Hazardous Materials Technicians from 18 to 24. Chief Burdick clarified for Councilmember Clark that the Hazardous Materials Technicians are firefighters who have been given 180 hours of additional training. Councilmember Clark asked if the training is covered under the Fire Department's Professional Development supplemental request. Chief Burdick responded no, explaining that funding is for seminars. Chief Burdick stated he also is requesting $296,182 in ongoing funding and $49,562 in one-time funding for overtime expenses, explaining a major portion of the funding will provide paramedic and EMT training. He explained storms often require additional units to be put into service, increasing overtime. Councilmember Clark asked if overtime is the most cost efficient way to provide the necessary training. Chief Burdick responded yes, explaining another option would be to do what other cities have done and establish an adaptive response unit to cover stations while they are training. He pointed out, however, there would still be overtime costs associated with training. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Chief Burdick explained promotional testing is done on a bi-annual basis and involves Battalion Chief, Captain and Engineer testing. The supplemental request will cover the cost of producing training manuals, renting facilities for the tests, and instructors to prepare candidates for the tests. He noted that Glendale does not pay overtime for employees to complete promotional testing. Chief Burdick said he also is requesting $82,194 in ongoing funds and $36,140 in one- time funds for a Fire Protection Engineer. He said he initially considered hiring another Plans Review Examiner. However, for a minimal cost increase, a Fire Protection Engineer could do plans review as well as bring to the job tremendous knowledge, skills and abilities in the modeling of fire behavior. He stated the Department also lacks the engineering skills necessary to address performance-based codes. 11 Councilmember Clark asked if the Fire Protection Engineer would free up time the Deputy Fire Marshall spends doing plans review and contract plans review and, if so, what will the Deputy Fire Marshall do with their newfound time. Deputy Fire Chief Austerman said the Deputy Fire Marshall would be free to conduct other types of inspections. Councilmember Clark asked if the city could expect more inspections to occur. Deputy Chief Austerman responded yes. He confirmed the new position would free up approximately 10% of the Deputy Fire Marshall's time. Chief Burdick pointed out the Fire Protection Engineer also will free up some contractual money. Chief Burdick stated he also is requesting $80,000 in one-time grant match funding. Ms. Schurhammer explained the Grant Match Program was intended for first-time grant opportunities only. Chief Burdick stated the $30,322 one-time request for Professional Development would restore previous deductions. He said the loss of that money on a long-term basis will put the department behind in the industry and will impact the department's ability to secure Homeland Security grants. Councilmember Clark asked how much of the money will go toward training versus memberships and subscriptions. Chief Burdick reviewed their final supplemental request, explaining the $37,000 in one- time funds will be used to restore funding for equipment replacement needs. While he anticipates moving to the 800 MHz system next year, they need funding to replace their existing radios. Councilmember Frate asked about a comment Chief Burdick made in his report suggesting the city needs to be more self-reliant. Chief Burdick assured Council the intent of his comment was not to indicate the city is moving away from automatic aid. He explained, however, each community has to be somewhat autonomous with regard to specialized resources because other communities do move their own resources to accommodate shifts in population and specialized needs. Councilmember Lieberman asked Chief Burdick if he believes any of the unfunded supplementals are critical and should be funded. Chief Burdick responded not at this time. The meeting recessed for lunch, reconvening at 1:30 p.m. Police Department Ms. Schurhammer reported a base budget of $37,812,785, no carryover and $1,902,577 in supplemental requests. Chief Henderlite stated the department's response times to priority one and two calls have reduced slightly, despite a 20% average annual increase in the number of calls. Councilmember Frate asked about the volume of calls the Police Department receives on a daily basis. Chief Henderlite stated the department receives well over 800,000 calls, although only about 190,000 calls are dispatched to the field. Councilmember Goulet asked if there is a way to minimize the number of unnecessary 9-1-1 calls. Chief Henderlite said 9-1-1 is available to everyone and non-emergency calls will inherently be received. He stated, however, the city responds to 9-1-1 calls in an appropriate manner to ensure efficient use of resources. 12 Chief Henderlite explained the Police Department's five year study focused on response times to priority one and two calls and neighborhood policing. He said he believes the department must attain 20% unassigned time to achieve the department's goal of being in the community and policing neighborhoods,. Councilmember Clark asked how many officers does the department currently have, how many officers are on limited duty and how many authorized positions are currently unfilled. Officer Brian France said 337 of the 351 sworn officer positions in the department are currently filled, a small percentage of which are on light duty. He explained it takes approximately eight months for a newly hired officer to complete the academy and FTO program. Councilmember Clark asked, on average, how many officers are on vacation or out sick on any given day. Chief Henderlite said the department's policy is to first fill the 16 beats for each of the three shifts. However, certain shifts of certain beats are sometimes understaffed. Councilmember Clark asked if the computer system configures the beats and the number of officers needed for the beats. Chief Henderlite responded yes, noting, however, they can then manipulate the beats and how officers are dispatched to best fit the neighborhoods. Chief Henderlite explained the $65,000 one-time request for the restoration of training funds would allow officers to attend necessary and required training seminars. He stated the $39,720 Officer Quartermaster Program supplemental request will allow officers to have the same type of equipment and put forth a uniformed image. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Assistant Chief Andrew Kirkland explained the department would establish a contract, which is anticipated to save the department 20%. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city currently issues uniforms. Assistant Chief Kirkland responded no, explaining officers currently purchase uniforms from one of four vendors and then get reimbursed. He clarified the supplemental request will be used to set up a contract with one vendor. Chief Henderlite said the department also is requesting $43,625 in ongoing funding to increase the vest replacement program. He explained vests have a five-year life cycle and the department has added 120 officers. He said the request for $592,379 in ongoing funds and $9,455 in one-time funds will be used to hire 10 new police officers, and the request for $275,133 in ongoing funds and $4,470 in one-time funds will be used to hire 6 full time support personnel. Councilmember Clark pointed out the department is supposed to hire 100 new officers over the next five years. She asked if the department has an unfunded supplemental that would increase the number of police officers to be hired. Chief Henderlite responded yes. Councilmember Lieberman reported petty crime is the number one complaint he hears in his district. He said the number of calls for service is increasing at a much higher rate than the number of new officers. He stated, while he will support the unfunded supplemental for additional officers, he believes the supplemental should be increased to 15 new officers. Councilmember Martinez agreed that additional officers are needed, stating that Council will address unfunded supplementals at the end of the budget process. 13 Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the number of officers per capita continues to decline. Councilmember Frate asked if the city still handles Peoria's prisoners and, if so, is that the reason for the three new detention officers. Chief Henderlite said, while they still handle Peoria's prisoners, the department needs the detention officers to help address day-to-day issues related to prisoners brought in by Glendale officers. Councilmember Clark pointed out that the summary states the 6 support personnel are necessary to support the addition of 19 new officers. She asked why 6 civilian personnel are still necessary when the request for new officers has been cut almost in half. Ms. Schurhammer stated the original request was for 23 officers and 10 civilian personnel. She said the summary should have been changed to say 10 officers and 6 civilian personnel. Mr. Stuart Kent stated the Police Department also is requesting $50,000 in ongoing funds to restore funding for vehicle fuel, repair, and maintenance. He noted police officers are putting almost 200,000 more miles on their vehicles than in the previous year. He said the equipment management staff also is looking at a vehicle rotation program that will better match departments with appropriate vehicles. Councilmember Clark stated the city's shop charges seem high when compared to the civilian or public outsourcing of routine maintenance and asked if the department has considered outsourcing routine maintenance. Chief Henderlite said the department has contracts with local car washes to wash the police vehicles. He stated maintenance of police vehicles is more expensive because they are high performance vehicles driven on a day-in/day-out basis. He said he would not want the vehicles maintained by commercial quick-lube businesses because they would not receive the same level of service. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city has an extended warranty on certain vehicles. Mr. Kent said extended warranties have been used on various types of equipment and vehicles, depending on the use and anticipated life cycle of the equipment or vehicle. In response to Councilmember Martinez's comments, Mr. Kent clarified the city's shop charges $56.50 per hour. He pointed out virtually all other dealers or mechanics charge in excess of$60.00 per hour. Councilmember Lieberman noted automobile dealership shops have rates in excess of$75.00. Assistant Chief Kirkland stated the $75,000 request to restore overtime funding would be split into two categories, training for officers and operations. He said the $28,000 tactical operations unit training request will allow the department to implement recommendations from the National Tactical Operations Unit. Chief Henderlite explained the $188,860 supplemental request is to cover an increase in the department's risk management and worker's compensation premiums due to several claims within the last year. With regard to the Police Special Revenue Fund, Assistant Chief Kirkland said the department has 4 supplemental requests: 1) $195,505 in one-time funding for taser deployment; 2) $170,430 in one-time funding to cover hiring costs for new full time officers; 3) $65,000 in one-time funding for police building security; and 4) $100,000 in one-time funding for spare radio purchases. 14 Councilmember Martinez asked for an explanation of the hiring costs. Chief Henderlite explained the hiring process is very time consuming and includes a battery of medical, psychological and polygraph tests. He said the costs also include the cost of the officers' equipment. Assistant Chief Kirkland discussed police building security, stating there have been two incidents where people came into the building during evening hours. He said the department would lock the lobby at 6:00 p.m. and allow people access to the building on a limited basis only after 6:00 PM. He stated the perimeter of the building would be pushed out further for the security of employees. Assistant Chief Kirkland also reviewed the spare radio purchase, explaining the city has entered into agreements with other law enforcement agencies where communication between the units is vital. He said the supplemental request would allow the department to purchase approximately 37 extra radios. City Court Ms. Way reported a base budget of $3,454,608, no carryover and $342,865 in supplemental requests. She explained the first supplemental request for $159,000 in ongoing funding and $5,000 in one time funding would be used to establish a halftime courtroom by hiring a half-time contract pro-tem judge, half-time contract defender and two court clerks. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Ms. Way said the Court's caseload is growing most rapidly in terms of orders of protection. She stated those hearings are up 68% over last year. Ms. Way clarified for Councilmember Clark that the court time payments division is the court's JSEF account. Ms. Schurhammer explained that FY03-04 expenses were being netted out of the revenue, resulting in a zero balance. She said it was a technical problem that has since been fixed. Mayor Scruggs asked if the request is an attempt to make up for officers added in the previous budget year. She also asked what the Court was doing to accommodate the 10 new officers the Police Department has requested. Ms. Way said the request for a half-time courtroom is a result of the prior year's additional officers, but does not take into account this coming year's additional officers. She stated they hope opening the court half time will help absorb some of the caseload in other courtrooms. She noted the Court's initial request asked for one new full-time courtroom to accommodate the expected additional workload due to the new officers. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Way said the City of Phoenix averages about 3,500 filings with 3 clerks and 22 judges whereas Glendale has about 2,400 filings, with 1 clerk and 3 judges. Ms. Way stated the Court's $40,000 ongoing supplemental request would supplement JSEF grant monies currently used to fund two JSEF positions. She explained the Court is nearing depletion of JSEF grant money, and the FY04-05 grant will not fund the two positions for another year. She stated the substantial increase in orders of protections and injunctions against harassment necessitate the addition of orders of protection clerk. 15 She said they also have a request for $19,000 in ongoing funds and $16,300 in one- time funds for additional computer costs and Microsoft Office licenses. She explained the $30,000 one-time supplemental request for an AZTEC Trainer would allow the court to receive on-going training through the county's AZTEC training program. Ms. Way stated the Jail Court operates 7 days a week, 365 days a year and there is insufficient funding for Jail Court Pro-Tem coverage or accommodate vacations and sick days for City Court Judges. She said the $26,800 ongoing supplemental request would fund the shortages and reinstate professional development budget cuts. Ms. Way explained their final request for $42,000 ongoing money will be used to enhance the AZTEC system. City Attorney and Prosecutor Ms. Schurhammer stated the City Attorney and Prosecutor's base budget totals $1,551,110 with no carryover requests and $111,696 in supplemental requests. Mr. Paladini explained his department's supplemental request for $103,826 in ongoing funds and $7,870 in one-time funds would fund one additional assistant city prosecutor and one additional secretary. He explained the City Prosecutor's office has 6 court sessions per day plus jail court every morning. He said ideal staffing would be 1 prosecutor and 1 secretary for each court session, but the city currently has 5 prosecutors and 4 secretaries. He stated his department couldn't physically staff the new half-time court without the additional assistant city prosecutor and secretary. City Clerk Ms. Schurhammer stated the City Clerk has a base budget of $555,210 with no carryover or supplemental requests. Elected Officials Ms. Schurhammer reported a base budget of $270,734, $15,600 in carryover requests and no supplemental requests. Council Offices Ms. Schurhammer stated the Council Offices base budget is $797,356, with no carryover requests and $31,178 in supplemental requests. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. 16