Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/20/2004 * 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 April 20, 2004 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FY 04-05 BUDGET: 5th & FINAL BUDGET WORKSHOP CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Budget Director This is a request for City Council to decide whether to fund the recommended FY04-05 supplemental requests that have been presented during the prior four budget workshops and are presented in the Council budget workbook distributed to Council on March 2, 2004. In addition, this is a request for Council to decide whether to approve the Preliminary FY05-14 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with the recommended changes that were presented at the March 23, 2004 budget workshop. The material to be covered is contained in the Council budget workbook that was distributed to Council on March 2, 2004, for review prior to the scheduled budget workshop discussions. In addition, the material was distributed with the Council Communication for each of the prior four budget workshops. An overview of the draft FY05-14 CIP was presented to Council at the January 6, 2004 workshop, and a detailed report on the draft FY05-14 CIP, titled Preliminary FY05-14 Capital Improvement Plan, was provided to Council on January 23, 2004. Council's review of the FY04-05 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 General Fund (GF) revenues and expenditures; 1 o Council now receives periodic presentations throughout the year on 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. Council has expressed an interest in funding some programs at a higher level than that reflected in the recommended FY04-05 budget. Those programs and their existing base budget funding and/or supplemental request for FY04-05 are covered in a separate memo that accompanies this Council communication. The 4th budget workshop with Council occurred on April 6, 2004. This workshop covered the revised GF balancing summary for ongoing and one-time revenues and expenditures, as well as the following departments: Community Development Administration, Building Safety, Engineering, Planning, Transportation, Public Works Administration, Field Operations, Utilities, Environmental Resources, Community Services Administration, Library, Parks & Recreation, Community Housing & Revitalization, and the Civic Center. The 3`d budget workshop with Council occurred on March 30, 2004. This workshop covered the following projects and departments: Arena, Stadium, Westgate, Super Bowl, Administration, Code Compliance, Finance, Information Technology, Management & Budget, City Manager's Office, Marketing and Communication, Economic Development, City Auditor, and Intergovernmental Programs. The 2nd budget workshop with Council occurred on March 23, 2004. This workshop covered the FY 2004-05 Pay As You Go (PAYGO) capital projects for the General Fund (GF), the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) operating and maintenance supplementals, the FY 2005-14 preliminary CIP, and the FY 2004 preliminary carryover requests. The 1st budget workshop with Council occurred on March 16, 2004. This workshop covered the GF budget balancing summary and the following departments: Human Resources, Fire, Police, City Court, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council Office, and the Mayor's Office. The FY04-05 budget workbook was distributed to Council on March 2, 2004 for review prior to the scheduled budget workshop discussions. 2 Council reviewed the FY04-05 GF revenue projection at the February 17, 2004 workshop. 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 Council on January 23, 2004. 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. Staff seeks direction from the Council on the recommended supplemental requests for all city departments, as well as the FY05-14 CIP. Councilmember Clark asked if the developer's deposit for the Coyote's Arena, which has never been fully funded, impacts this year or next year's budget. Mr. Art Lynch, Chief Financial Officer, confirmed the developer's deposit would not impact this year's budget or next year's budget. He stated the deposit is the responsibility of the developer. Councilmember Clark asked if the $2.6 million in excess contingency appropriation that staff is recommending for FY04-05 is needed to offset the partially funded developer's deposit. Mr. Lynch said no. Councilmember Clark asked staff to address the city's plans if the developer's deposit continues to remain only partially funded and how it will impact revenues to the city. She also asked how the late start of the mixed-use Westgate development impacts anticipated sales tax revenues from the development, which are expected to partially offset arena indebtedness in upcoming years. Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, said staff has identified how the debt for which the city is responsible will be addressed should a gap occur. Specifically, some of the arena bond proceeds were set aside for revenue stabilization purposes. In addition, development around the arena and Westgate property is expected to boost city revenues. He stated staff could not project the potential impact, if any, on the FY06-07 budget at this time. Councilmember Clark said she is concerned about future years. Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Budget Director said at the last budget workshop Council discussed the need to build the General Fund's (GF) fund balance. She then proceeded to explain the "Building GF Fund Balance" slide that was projected onto the screen for the audience and Council to see. She explained $1.9 million in additional 3 state shared revenue the city expects to collect in FY04-05 was not built into the FY04- 05 GF revenue budget due to concerns related to the long-term impact on state-shared revenues of the mid-decade census. Should the additional revenue come in as expected, it will go directly toward building the General Fund balance. Ms. Schurhammer also stated that Council set aside $1 million for the future Super Bowl event in a prior budget workshop. She said $13.6 million represents 10% of the General Fund revenue projection for FY04-05 and is the required minimum contingency appropriation. She explained $2.550 million was identified in a prior workshop as additional GF contingency appropriation; while $767,000 represents excess one-time GF revenue that was discussed at the April 6, 2004, budget workshop. She said $1 million is deducted to address Council's priority items, leaving a minimum budget-basis GF fund balance of $18.8 million by the end of FY04-05. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the $18.8 million is budget-basis and assumes the following: Council does not spend the GF contingency appropriation in FY04-05, the additional $1.9 million in state shared revenue comes in as expected, and that other General Fund revenues come in as budgeted. As the city builds toward the $18.8 million GF fund balance, it provides Council with an opportunity to plan for future growth. She said taking this kind of action is a budget policy decision that staff recommends Council do again next year when developing the FY05-06 budget. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the Super Bowl earmark should be taken off the ending fund balance since it has been put aside and is not available. Ms. Schurhammer explained, for the purposes of her presentation, it is shown as a positive because they do not intend to spend it next fiscal year. She said the $1 million would be shown as a portion of the General Fund balance earmarked for the Super Bowl. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Lieberman stating that by showing the $1 million as part of the GF fund balance misleads Council into thinking there are more GF contingency funds than there are in reality. Councilmember Clark agreed, stating that Council has been told since the beginning that the GF contingency appropriation should be $13.6 million at a minimum, with an additional $2.5 million that could be added if not used elsewhere. She said it confuses the issue to include amounts specifically reserved for future expenditures in the ending fund balance. Councilmember Lieberman clarified the ending balance totals $17.8 million rather than $18.8 million if the Super Bowl earmark is not included in the ending GF fund balance calculation. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the under-funded developer's deposit totals slightly more than $8 million. He pointed out a $1 million penalty will be due June 26, 2004. Mr. Paladini clarified the terms of the penalty payment. Mr. Paladini said it refers to the 800,000 square foot minimum requirement for the mixed-use development. He 4 said the penalty is not due until June 2005 because it is tied to tax revenues received for the year that begins six months after substantial completion of the arena. Councilmember Lieberman disagreed, stating the agreement said the penalty would be paid if 800,000 square feet of mixed-use development were not up and running within six months of the opening. Mayor Scruggs said all members of the Council have been guilty of misrepresenting the $1 million penalty, explaining it may be a maximum of $1 million, but is based on the shortfall between the revenue generated versus the amount expected to be received as set forth in the team guarantee. She said the penalty is tied to a dollar figure because the city was concerned that the developer would build the square footage but not have any tenants. Mr. Paladini agreed, explaining the first year's projected tax revenue is about $2.9 million and, to the extent the mixed-use development generates tax revenue, the developer's liability will be the difference between the projected amount and the amount actually received. He noted that the difference is capped at $1 million. Mayor Scruggs stated the city would not know the amount the developer owes until one year's worth of sales tax receipts is collected. Mr. Paladini said the city anticipates the mixed-use development will begin construction in October 2004 and will not likely open during FY04-05. Therefore, Mr. Paladini said it could be assumed the developer will be responsible for the entire $1 million. Mayor Scruggs clarified that the $1 million will not be due until June 2005. Councilmember Lieberman noted Council previously discussed not using the term "contingency" because it caused some confusion. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the word contingency is not the issue, but the practice of calling it a separate fund is a problem. Specifically, the term "GF contingency" is merely an appropriation within the General Fund; the GF contingency appropriation is not a separate fund. Mayor Scruggs asked why the Super Bowl earmark is not being appropriated to a separate account dedicated to Super Bowl expenses. Ms. Schurhammer said a separate account could be established, however, staff was under the impression Council simply wanted the funds set aside. She pointed out they will have to track the Super Bowl expenses separately if the $1 million is set up as a separate fund. Mayor Scruggs said, in her mind, the Super Bowl represents a liability and she is uncomfortable having the $1 million mixed in with other General Fund monies. She stated she assumed all Super Bowl related costs would be tracked separately. Councilmember Clark asked if funds remaining in the account after the Super Bowl would be moved back into the General Fund. Mr. Lynch explained the Super Bowl account would be shown as a subcomponent of the General Fund and, once the purpose of the account has been fulfilled, the money would go back into the General Fund. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $1.9 million in state-shared revenue represents the amount of state shared revenue the city will get this year. Ms. Schurhammer 5 responded no, explaining it represents additional state-shared revenue—above the amount budgeted for FY04-05 that the city expects to collect. The $1.9 million is not built into the FY04-05 GF revenue budget because of concerns about the future loss of state-shared revenue once the mid-decade census is completed. As a result of this concern, the FY04-05 projection for state-shared revenue is held flat with the FY03-04 budget for state-shared revenue. In other words, we are assuming no growth in state- shared revenue in FY04-5. However, it is likely that state-shared revenue will increase over the FY03-04 budgeted amount given the improving economy. Therefore, if the revenue were actually received, it would go toward building the General Fund fund balance. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $13.6 million GF contingency appropriation comes out of the FY04--05 operating budget. Ms. Schurhammer answered yes. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much is in the General Fund, not including the funds being set aside for the Super Bowl and contingency appropriations. Ms. Schurhammer said the 2nd quarter report presented to Council on February 17, 2004, showed a budget-basis GF fund balance of slightly more than $39 million for the 2nd quarter of FY03-04. She emphasized the $18.8 ending fund balance (budget basis) shown on the slide is for the end of FY04-05 and is extremely conservative because it assumes the city will spend its entire GF appropriation. She said the budget-basis GF fund balance will likely total somewhere in the high $20 million range because staff does not anticipate the city will spend all of the GF appropriation. Mayor Scruggs pointed out any balance above the $18.8 million will likely be the result of expenses programmed in the current fiscal year being pushed out until the next fiscal year. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to establish a separate subfund for the $1 million Super Bowl earmark and to track all expenses related to the Super Bowl separately. Councilmember Martinez asked if the state shared revenue is intended to offset the loss of funds as a result of the cost of the census. Ms. Schurhammer responded no, explaining state-shared revenue is held flat in the upcoming fiscal year given the expectation that the city will lose $3 million in state-shared revenue after completion of the mid-decade census. Mayor Scruggs noted the latest projections show the city will lose $3.6 million as a result of the mid-decade census. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's question, Ms. Schurhammer confirmed the General Fund revenue projection for city sales tax does not include Northern Crossings sales tax revenue. She said that any sales tax revenue from the Northern Crossings development would go directly into the GF fund balance. Ms. Schurhammer proceeded to the third slide that reviewed how staff allocated additional funds for each of the programs identified as high priorities by Council. She explained the Neighborhood Grants Program has a base funding level of $250,000 for next fiscal year. Based on Council's comments during the prior budget workshops, staff 6 is recommending the program be funded with an additional $250,000 in one-time funds for a total of $500,000. She noted $500,000 represents about two-thirds of the base funding level the program had before the budget cuts. It was the consensus of City Council to fund the program at the $500,000 level. She said the Right-of-Way Maintenance Program has a base budget of $376,500. In response to Council's comments during the prior budget workshops, she stated staff recommends adding $200,000 in one-time funds to bring the total budget for next fiscal year to $576,500. She said the additional $200,000 in one-time funds would restore the program to the funding level that was in place before the budget cuts occurred, but for one year only. It was the consensus of City Council to fund the program at the $576,500 level. Ms. Schurhammer stated the Traffic Mitigation Program has a base funding level of $37,573 and a supplemental request for $48,000. She explained the supplemental request includes $24,000 in ongoing funds and $24,000 in one-time funds. She stated an additional $27,000 in one-time funds would be necessary to return the program to its pre-budget cut funding level. Councilmember Martinez asked if the additional funding would be adequate to handle the backlog in requests for speed humps. Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, responded yes. He noted only 20% of the neighborhoods studied actually qualify for the installation of speed humps. In response to Councilmember Lieberman's comments, Mr. Book clarified the speed hump program is only part of the various mitigation measures the city uses. Mayor Scruggs said she would support the proposed funding level, and not a higher amount, because staff is only able to process a given number of requests per year. Mr. Book said the biggest frustration among neighborhoods occurs when funds are not available to conduct a study. He stated his staff is very pleased with the recommendation to restore funding for FY04-05 because it will allow staff to conduct the necessary traffic count studies and be more responsive to the neighborhoods. It was the consensus of City Council to fund the program at the $112,600 level. Ms. Schurhammer stated the Economic Opportunities Program (Rebates & Incentives Program Budget) has a one-time supplemental request in the FY04-05 budget for $100,000. She said staff is now recommending that Council allocate an additional $400,000 in one-time funds to the program, for a total one-time allocation in FY04-05 of $500,000. She stated, doing so, will return the program to approximately half of its pre- budget cut funding level. Councilmember Clark asked what kinds of projects could be done through the Economic Opportunities Program. Mr. lain Vassey, Economic Development Director, explained the purpose of the program is to attract major employers who will help the city diversify its economy and create jobs within the community. He explained the money could be used to build infrastructure, acquire land or as a direct incentive to the companies. Councilmember Clark asked how staff arrived at the recommendation to add $400,000 to the program. Mr. Beasley pointed out Glendale was a significantly different community when the program was established. He said, based on the city's current direction, staff believes $500,000 will be an appropriate funding level. Mayor Scruggs pointed out there are efforts within the State Legislature to hamper if not 7 eliminate a city's ability to offer incentives. She clarified Glendale only offers performance-based incentives. She stated Council recognizes that, as a city, it will most likely have to offer some type of incentive with regard to the redevelopment of Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion the program should be funded to the $1 million level, stating the city does not know what opportunities might arise in the future. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the FY04-05 General Fund contingency appropriation can be used for unforeseen opportunities. It was the consensus of City Council to fund the program at the $500,000 level. With regard to the Adult Center, Ms. Schurhammer stated Parks and Recreation staff estimates needing $81,400 to staff the center until 9:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. She stated the $81,400 is one-time funding. There was a consensus of City Council to support the FY04-05 one-time funding for the establishment of evening and Saturday hours at the Adult Center. Ms. Schurhammer stated the Tuition Reimbursement/Education Assistance Program has base funding of $100,000 for next fiscal year and a one-time supplemental request for $50,000. She said staff is recommending Council add another $50,000 in one-time funds to bring total funding for FY 2004/05 to $200,000. She noted the additional funding would return the program to the base amount it had prior to the budget cuts. Ms. Schurhammer explained there was discussion at a previous budget workshop related to tuition reimbursement funds being used to pay for the various certifications required of certain employees. She said the additional funding would help address the pent up demand for tuition reimbursements. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Ms. Alma Carmichael, Human Resources Director, explained the city reimburses at the state university rate. Councilmember Clark asked if funding for certifications comes out of the departments' professional development funds in their operating budgets. Ms. Carmichael said departments used to pay for certifications out of their operating budgets. However, with the prior year's budget cuts, almost every department reduced or eliminated their professional development funds from their operating budgets. This situation forced employees to take classes at traditional universities and colleges to meet their certification requirements. She said if the funds are restored, staff believes employees will again take classes that do not necessarily qualify for college credits. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the funds should be shifted back to the departments' operating budgets. Ms. Carmichael said that is the goal. However, some employees have the option of taking college classes or attending certification training or conferences to fulfill their respective certification requirements. Historically, when funding was available within a department's operating budget, employees have chosen to attend conferences. Councilmember Clark pointed out certification makes an employee more marketable, suggesting employees should take on some portion of the cost of obtaining the certification if the department's budget is insufficient to cover the full cost. Mayor Scruggs said Council talked about increasing tuition assistance because funds were insufficient for eligible employees to take advantage of the benefit. She asked how Council could direct the money towards helping employees who want education assistance rather than those seeking certifications. Ms. Carmichael explained that 8 many certifications are mandatory according to the industry. She said the city is required to reimburse an employee who takes a course for which they receive college credits, regardless of whether the course relates to certification or is part of an employee's degree program. She pointed out the fund was never set up to cover all employees and is administered on a first-come, first-served basis. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern employees will continue to use the tuition assistance program to obtain their certification. Ms. Carmichael said the program could be set up so employees who are working towards a degree are given first priority, as well as work with the various departments to fund certifications. Mayor Scruggs stated she would like a guarantee that no less than $150,000 will be available to higher education tuition assistance in FY04-05 Mr. Beasley confirmed staff could set aside those funds. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Carmichael stated various departments throughout the city, including fire, water and sewer utilities, planning, human resources, finance and budget all have certification requirements. She stated state law requires some of the certifications while others are recommended by the city. Councilmember Goulet suggested each department quantify the number of employees who require certification each year. He disagreed with Councilmember Clark, stating giving an employee the opportunity to go to school is a benefit that should not be withheld for fear the employee will leave. Mayor Scruggs said the City decided to offer tuition assistance as one of its benefits; however, adequate funding was not being put aside given the number of employees interested in participating. She pointed out ASU increased its tuition rate by almost 100%, further reducing the number of employees who can take advantage of the program. She agreed staff should analyze what is needed on an ongoing basis for certifications. Ms. Carmichael said staff would commit to doing that analysis. Councilmember Clark clarified her concern is that money is being taken away from tuition reimbursement to cover certifications that were formerly covered by the departments' operating budgets. She asked staff to research how much of the money expended last year went towards certifications versus degree related courses. Ms. Carmichael offered to provide Councilmember Clark with the requested information. Councilmember Lieberman stated he supports funding the program at the recommended $200,000 level and having the Human Resources Department administer the program. It was the consensus of City Council to fund the Tuition Assistance Program at the recommended $200,000 level. Mayor Scruggs stated the Council's concern that reimbursement for certifications not erode the money intended to assist employees in their efforts to obtain a degree. Ms. Schurhammer said staff identified items that needed to be funded first if additional ongoing GF funding became available. She stated the first on the list was the $533,000 unfunded public safety supplemental for 9 police officers. She explained the Council has $597,000-$672,000 available in ongoing GF revenue, depending on the benefits supplemental option the Council ultimately chooses. She noted, should Council choose the less expensive of the two benefits options, staff recommends using the extra funds to hire two additional officers and add additional funding for Fire Department overtime. 9 Councilmember Clark asked about the number of police officers that the Police Department originally requested. Randy Henderlite, Police Chief, said the Police Department originally requested funding for 23 officers and 10 civilian positions. He said this request was later reduced to 19 officers and 6 civilian positions. Councilmember Clark asked if additional civilian personnel would be necessary if the 2 additional officers are hired. Chief Henderlite responded no. Councilmember Clark asked Chief Henderlite how many additional officers would be needed over the next five years given anticipated development in the west valley. Chief Henderlite said the Police Department's operational model projects needing 19 field officers as well as 4 officers for homeland security, training and economic crimes. In an effort to help balance the FY04-05 budget, staff decided to pare the original request for 23 officers to 19 officers. Councilmember Clark asked about the priority for the 2 homeland security officer positions given the city will be home to an arena and stadium. Chief Henderlite stated staff believes hiring of the 2 officers can be delayed for now, but they will be needed in the near future. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the Police Department's original request for 23 officers and revised request for 6 civilian positions should be fully funded. Chief Henderlite noted the six civilian positions are currently in the budget. Councilmember Clark asked if the 6 civilian positions would be adequate to support the request for 23 field officers. Chief Henderlite explained the 6 civilian positions are intended to support 19 field officers. He said the 6 civilian positions would be adequate for the upcoming year. Councilmember Clark reiterated she supports fully funding the Police Department's original request for 23 officers. Mayor Scruggs stated she would not support funding of the 4 officers for homeland security, training, and economic crimes. She noted she and Councilmember Martinez have been working with Chief Henderlite and Chief Kirkland about the ongoing unmet needs in the northern part of the city. She said the north part of the city includes a large retail mall, a spring-training baseball stadium, and a major east/west regional corridor along Bell Road. She stated she and Councilmember Martinez recently asked the Police Department to provide documentation concerning response times to priority one calls along Bell Road, and the data confirmed a significant unmet need in the north sector. She noted Bell Road traffic itself exceeds anything that can be expected from the stadium/arena/Westgate area within the next five years. She stated it is past time to address the Police Department's needs in north Glendale and she will not support the addition of officers if they will be assigned to duties related to homeland security, economic crimes and training when this unmet need in north Glendale continues to exist. Chief Henderlite stated a study identified a real problem in the area surrounding Bell Road regarding an escalation in priority one and two calls. He said 4 bicycle officers have been moved to the north part of the city and they are looking at how officers will be deployed along the corridor in the July deployment. Mayor Scruggs asked if the additional officers would finally meet the existing and longstanding needs of the existing destination corridor along Bell Road. Councilmember Martinez said he believed the existing unmet needs should be addressed before more recent unmet needs are met. Councilmember Frate said he would support more officers as long as the needs in the north part of the city are addressed. Chief Henderlite assured Mayor Scruggs and Council that the department will look at deploying some of the 19 officers along that corridor. 10 Councilmember Martinez asked if the proposed staffing level would allow the Police Department to do proactive work in the neighborhoods. Chief Henderlite said the officers are intended to fulfill the department's philosophy of community policing. Councilmember Frate agreed response times along the Bell Road corridor are inadequate; pointing out it is the most densely populated area in the west valley. He said he supports more officers, but only if they will address the needs of his district. Chief Henderlite stated the calls are categorized, with priority one and two calls dispatched immediately. He acknowledged some of the beats in the northern part of the city are large, explaining the number and types of calls for service dictate the size of the beats. Mayor Scruggs said the Police Department responds to priority one and two calls the same whether they come from the north or south part of the city. However, Mayor Scruggs continued, the north part of the city is being denied police presence within its neighborhoods for calls that are not categorized as priority one or two. She pointed out the boundaries of the north part of the city equate to more than half of the square miles for the entire city. Councilmember Lieberman noted his district has more shots fired in one weekend than every single area north of Northern. He stated the intersections of 51st Avenue and Olive, 59t Avenue and Northern, and 43rd Avenue and Northern are ranked among the highest in terms of vehicle accidents. He said he strongly supports hiring 23 officers, noting Glendale is now 6in the valley in terms of its officer/residents ratio. He said his district suffers from gangs, violent criminals, and domestic violence. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus that additional field officers are needed. She asked why two officers are needed for homeland security. Chief Henderlite explained the Police Department believes there is a need for an investigator as well as a person to do intelligence work and gather data. Mayor Scruggs asked if two experienced officers would be moved out of the field to staff economic crimes. Chief Henderlite stated that officers are not moved out of the field until additional officers have been trained and are ready to come online as field officers. Councilmember Clark asked if the volume of priority one and two calls along the Bell Road corridor is greater than other parts of the city. Chief Henderlite explained priority one and two calls are typically crime in-progress or have some life threatening aspect. He acknowledged the number of calls along the Bell Road corridor is not as high as some of the other areas of the city. He confirmed priority one and two calls are the highest priority for the Police Department. Councilmember Clark stated the northern part of the city is complaining that it does not have police officers patrolling its neighborhoods or that residents have to wait for officers to respond when cars are vandalized or stolen. She said such complaints are common throughout the city. She also stated a lot of crime is associated with apartment complexes, noting a majority of the city's apartment complexes are south of Peoria Avenue, and that most of the violent crimes occur in the southern/central part of the city. She said she supports funding all 23 officers and supports putting all 23 officers in the field. Mayor Scruggs pointed out there are virtually no priority one or two calls west of 83rd Avenue. She acknowledged the majority of priority one and two calls occur in the southern/central part of the city, stating however, there are pockets in the northern part of the city that are not being addressed. She said Council agrees the city needs more officers, but Council believes the new officers should not be used to fill specialized officer positions until existing needs are met. 11 Councilmember Martinez said he also supports hiring 23 additional officers as long as all of them are in the field. Mayor Scruggs stated Glendale could not call itself a community-oriented city if it fails to have policeman patrolling the neighborhoods. Chief Henderlite explained the department has established CAT teams (community action teams), neighborhood response units, and bicycle units that respond to and address problems in different ways. He explained part of community policing is addressing citizens' fears about crime, noting the fear is often more devastating to a community than the crimes themselves. Mayor Scruggs said the prior Police Chief discouraged the Council from hiring more than 15 officers in a given year because he believed only 15 officers could be moved through the training academy in a year. She said she believes that the city is now paying for those decisions. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the recruiting and training processes will take almost one year. He asked if recruitment efforts could begin prior to July 1. He commended the senior officers, stating they are the most dedicated group in the valley. Chief Henderlite said the department could start recruiting immediately; however there are limits on the number of officers the city can enroll at the academy at any one time. Mayor Scruggs asked how much would it cost to add two additional officers and if the costs could be carried forward into FY05-06. Ms. Schurhammer explained $672,000 in ongoing funding is available only if Council chooses option 2 for the health benefits supplemental request. Given that Council already agreed to fund an additional 10 police officers, the cost of funding an additional 13 officers (for a total of 23 additional officers) would be about $773,000, leaving a gap of about $101,000. Ms. Schurhammer confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the FY04-05 operating budget would be $101,000 short of funding all 23 officers. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the city will have $100,000 in new revenue by FY 2005/06. Ms. Schurhammer agreed that this is probable. It was the consensus of City Council to add a total of 23 field police officers and 6 civilians as part of the Police Departments FY04-05 operating budget. It also was the consensus of City Council to add $100,000 in one-time funds to the Fire Department's budget for overtime costs. Councilmember Clark asked if the department uses the Phoenix Training Academy. Chief Henderlite responded yes, explaining they prefer not to use Aletta because they believe they get a better product from Phoenix. Councilmember Martinez asked if the federal government mandates the homeland security officers. Chief Henderlite responded no. Councilmember Martinez asked if the city has a waiting list of people wanting to join the department. Chief Henderlite stated the city has always had an open process for hiring and always accepts applications. He said there has not been a rise in the number of applications in the past year. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there are special funds allocated for homeland security. Chief Henderlite answered yes, explaining the funds are given to the state 12 and disbursed through the county. He noted, however, the funds cannot be used to hire officers. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the funds are one-time and could not be used to hire officers anyway because it is an ongoing cost. Ms. Schurhammer proceeded to the issue of the 2 options available regarding the benefits supplemental. She stated that staff recommends option 2. This option will require health plan design changes for emergency room visits and the use of specialist doctors. It was the consensus of City Council to select benefits option 2. Councilmember Frate asked about the need for additional park ranger coverage at city parks, noting there are currently 4 full-time rangers covering 84 parks and retention basins. He said decreasing vandalism in even a few of the parks would pay for the cost of the additional rangers. Mr. Wayne Baxter, Deputy Director of the Parks & Recreation Department, explained the $93,477 in additional funding that is requested would provide 114 additional hours for park ranger coverage per week, including 18 additional hours per week at Sahuaro Ranch Park, and 56 day part-time and 40 night part-time hours in the north and central districts. He explained rangers are deployed based on priority. Councilmember Clark asked if the request includes increased coverage at the soon-to- be open outfall channel, noting there has been in excess of $7,000 in damage already. Mr. Baxter responded yes, stating it will allow the department to increase coverage in linear parks throughout the city. Councilmember Martinez asked how staff would determine how to deploy the 4 full-time rangers. Mr. Baxter explained staff tries to assign priority to larger parks and those with requests for service calls, noting there were 1,825 requests for service calls last year. He responded the full-time ranges do not get to every park every day. Councilmember Martinez pointed out the Foothills Park had to be closed for a weekend because of vandalism and graffiti. Councilmember Martinez asked how Glendale compares with other cities with respect to ranger coverage. Mr. Baxter was unable to answer, but offered to provide the information to Councilmember Martinez after researching the answer. Councilmember Goulet asked if internal processes and responsibilities could be adjusted to free up more of the rangers' time. Mr. Baxter said staff evaluates the rangers' responsibilities on a yearly basis, but can analyze them again if Council so desires. Regardless of the outcome of the analysis, it is important to maintain a level of flexibility to deal with the realities of each shift. Council voiced its support of the FY04-05 one-time funding request for additional park ranger coverage in the amount of approximately$93,477. Ms. Gloria Santiago-Espino, Community Housing and Revitalization Department Director, explained the YWCA originally submitted a request for $72,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. However, due to limited funding, only $40,000 in CDBG funding was approved for the YWCA. She said staff has been working with the YWCA and the facilities where congregate meals are provided to determine where the growth in service demand is occurring. She said the growth in service demand is primarily occurring in the new Adult Center. While 95% (overall average) of the congregate meal program participants at City of Glendale facilities live in Glendale, much of the growth in overall program participants is related to non- 13 residents. She stated that non-residents comprise about 32% of participants in the congregate meal program. She stated staff recommends allocating $32,000 in one- time GF funding to supplement the $40,000 in CDBG funds for a total of$72,000 for the YWCA's congregate meal program in Glendale. She said staff would work with the YWCA to find long-term solutions. Mayor Scruggs reported receiving an email from a constituent asking that a full-scale study of the program be conducted. She said the YWCA, not the City of Glendale, responds to an RFP issued by the Area Agency on Aging to provide elderly services in that program's service area. She stated the City of Glendale contributes 14% in funds to cover the cost of the program; however 68% percent of the users are Glendale residents. She pointed out the city made the decision to open the Adult Center to everyone and to continue the congregate meal program. Councilmember Clark said there is a commitment by Council to fund the additional $32,000, but she believes staff should work with the YWCA to find long-range solutions to the issues. Mayor Scruggs noted the Older American's Act prohibits the YWCA from charging for a meal if the person is over 60. Councilmember Martinez asked if the RFP relates solely to Glendale residents. Ms. Santiago-Espino said the Area Agency on Aging funds senior centers throughout the valley, however, the funds are disbursed by specific area. Vice Mayor Eggleston commented the program enriches the lives of many people. Mayor Scruggs noted additional funding comes from United Way, foundations, corporations, and food banks. Mayor Scruggs referred to the estimated FY04-05 ending GF fund balance of $18.8 million, which was shown in slide two. Specifically, Mayor Scruggs said $18.8 million, minus $100,000 in one-time funds for Fire Department overtime, $94,000 in one-time funds for additional park ranger coverage, $32,000 in one-time funding for the YWCA's congregate meal program, and $1 million for the Super Bowl set aside, leaves an estimated GF fund balance of$17.7 million at the end of FY04-05. Ms. Schurhammer agreed. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Lynch stated $50 million is the ideal GF fund balance target the city should try to reach over the next couple years. He said staff would return to Council to discuss options for reaching the target over a period of years. Ms. Schurhammer stated the hearing and adoption of the preliminary budget is scheduled for June 1 and the hearing and adoption of the final budget is scheduled for June 22. She said staff would return on June 29 for the property tax levy hearing and adoption based on the existing city charter requirement. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. 14