HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/19/2004 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops; Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
October 19, 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, and Manuel D.
Martinez
ABSENT: Councilmember H. Philip Lieberman
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, Acting City
Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. ANNEXATION REQUEST AN-154: 8237 AND 8257 WEST NORTHERN
AVENUE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director and Ms.
Kate Langford, Senior Planner
This is a request for the City Council to discuss annexation request AN-154 for 13 acres
of undeveloped property, located at the southeast corner of 83rd and Northern Avenues.
This request is being presented to the Council in accordance with the procedures
outlined in the city's Annexation Policy for undeveloped properties.
Glendale 2025, the city's General Plan, includes specific goals addressing the need for
growth management. Annexation is a tool that can be used by the city to direct and
manage growth.
On December 16, 2003, the Council adopted Glendale's first Annexation Policy.
The policy includes a step that incorporates presentation of annexation requests to the
Council at a workshop after an analysis of the request has been completed by staff.
That is the purpose of this item. Three parcels are included in this annexation request.
The property owners of these parcels submitted annexation requests in March and
August of 2004.
1
Neither then, nor now, are there any specific development plans for these properties.
The parcels are currently being marketed for sale.
The Glendale 2025 General Plan identifies this site as LDR 1-2.5 (Low Density
Residential, 1 —2.5 dwelling units per acre).
The parcels are currently zoned Maricopa County R1-6, Single-Family Residential
Zoning District - 6,000 square feet per lot.
State law requires that an annexing jurisdiction apply the most comparable city-zoning
district to a newly annexed property, compared to the existing county zoning. The most
comparable Glendale zoning district is R1-6, Single Residence.
The intent of the annexation analysis is to identify immediate and long-term impacts to
the city of a potential annexation site. In this instance, the site is undeveloped and is
considered to have no immediate impact to the city. Long-term impacts would include
development according to Glendale standards, collection of all applicable permits fees
(including Development Impact Fees), and the developer will be responsible for all
required off-site improvements (streets and utility infrastructure).
The next step in the process, if the Council directs staff to proceed with the annexation,
is to record the blank annexation petition and schedule the public hearing as required
by statute.
The annexation of the 13 acres would require that any future development of this area
comply with the General Plan, future zoning, as well as all other development standards
for the City of Glendale.
The developers of these parcels would be responsible for off-site improvements,
dedication of additional rights-of-way as needed, extension of necessary infrastructure,
and payment of the Development Impact Fees associated with any future development.
Staff is seeking direction from Council to continue with the annexation process for this
site in accordance with the procedure described in the State Statutes.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Langford confirmed the city's
zoning designation has to be consistent with the area's existing county zoning. She
stated the developer could initiate a rezoning later if they don't want to develop the
property as R1-6.
Vice Mayor Eggleston noted there are three older homes on the property adjacent to
this property, will they be annexing? Ms. Langford replied those property owners don't
want to annex.
Councilmember Goulet asked if there being an established use on the adjoining
2
property should cause concern about the difference in lifestyles? Mr. Froke said this
county island has been shrinking do to our annexations and bringing in this property
into the city gives us greater control of the land use.
Councilmember Goulet noted the property would have access to Northern Avenue. Mr.
Froke agreed and noted depending on how it is developed, there could be considerable
frontage on Northern Avenue.
Councilmember Martinez commented on there being one annexation application, two
owners and three parcels involved. Mr. Froke replied correct, it was all being processed
as one annexation. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Langford
and Mr. Froke showed maps depicting current development in the area and noted their
current stage of development.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the city had an agreement with the property owners that the
property would be zoned according to our General Plan. Mayor Scruggs asked if the
property owners recognized what the General Plan called for and they had indicated a
willingness to rezone to it. Mr. Froke replied there was agreement but not in the form of
a pre-annexation or development agreement
Mayor Scruggs noted the city's annexation policy requires the city to provide an
annexation disclosure statement. Ms. Langford agreed, noting annexation disclosure
statements have been provided to everyone who has asked about annexation since the
policy was adopted last December. She explained the difference between the three
developing areas to the south and the subject site is the city was dealing with
developers on the three other locations whereas the city is dealing with individual
property owners for the subject 13 acres, not a developer.
Ms. Langford stated the existing property owners are marketing their properties;
therefore the city receives inquiries as to the type of development that will be permitted
by the city. She said, while the existing zoning on the site is R1-6, the comprehensive
plan shows a commercial opportunity for that corner; therefore, the property owners are
marketing their properties as having commercial potential. Mayor Scruggs asked if the
city is setting itself up for a conflict and confrontation since there is no written
agreement between the property owners who want to market the property as
commercial and the city that wants to designate the property as R1-17. Ms. Langford
said the point of bringing the issue before Council is to bring issues to light and
determine if a pre-annexation agreement is warranted. She said staff could go back to
the property owners to see if they would be interested in entering into a pre-annexation
agreement. Mayor Scruggs asked if the County's General Plan shows commercial.
Ms. Langford responded yes, reiterating the General Plan designation does not
necessarily match existing zoning. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern annexation of
the 13 acres will create a county island. Mr. Tindall explained the city is actually
decreasing an existing county island. Mr. Froke pointed out AN-154 touches existing
city limits in the strip annexation on Northern Avenue as well as right-of-way on 83rd
Avenue.
3
Councilmember Frate said he would like the city to have control over the property given
that it backs up to Northern Avenue. He agreed with Mayor Scruggs the city and
property owners have to have a full understanding of how the property will be
developed in the future.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the property owners have submitted anything in writing
with regard to their marketing efforts. He also asked how the other corners are
expected to develop and if those plans will impact the City of Glendale in the future.
Ms. Langford stated they have not received any marketing information from the property
owners in writing, explaining her statement is based on the calls staff has received
inquiring about future development. She stated the County's comprehensive plan does
not show residential for the corner, noting it shows the area near the existing dairy as
industrial. She said a purchaser of the property who wants to develop the property for
commercial will have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment regardless of
whether or not the city annexes the area. She stated, traditionally, the development
community assumes the corner of two arterials will be developed as commercial. She
said the corner immediately to the west of 83rd Avenue is vacant and shown for
agricultural use, noting the majority of properties west of 83rd are small ranchettes.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the Planning Department still believes the city's General Plan
designation of LDR 1 to 2.5 is still appropriate for that area. Mr. Froke explained staff
went through an extensive planning process when the General Plan was done in
2001/2002. He said they are now looking at certain corridors that might need further
study, but their position at this time is that the 1 to 2.5 designation is still appropriate for
that area. He noted the Planning Commission spent time a few months ago evaluating
land uses within the square mile. Mayor Scruggs agreed the city should annex the
area; stating, however, she is uncomfortable annexing it under the current conditions,
with the property owners marketing the properties for commercial use when the city
plans low density residential. She asked what could be achieved through a pre-
annexation or development agreement with the property owners. Mr. Froke explained
the next logical step if they proceed with annexation would be for staff to record a blank
annexation petition, stating that will not occur until staff has had further discussions with
the property owners.
Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Clark if she is comfortable with the three
different zoning designations being considered for the property. Councilmember Clark
responded no. She said under the city's new annexation policy, an agreement with the
property owner or developer should have been required prior to or at the same time that
the annexation request was made. She said she would be far more comfortable
knowing the city has reached an agreement with the property owners before
proceeding.
Mayor Scruggs asked Council if it would like to direct staff as to the issues on which
they hope to reach agreement. Councilmember Martinez suggested they set forth the
language in the General Plan as the expectation of the city. Councilmember Clark
4
stated she would prefer to see the area low-density residential, pointing out some
expensive residential developments are located to the south. She expressed her
opinion there is also an opportunity to protect additional right-of-way for the Northern
Avenue Parkway.
Mr. Froke stated staff would engage the property owners in a discussion about long
term plans for the property before proceeding. Mayor Scruggs asked if staff intends to
move towards a pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Froke responded yes.
2. ANNEXATION REQUEST AN-153: 7113 NORTH 80T" AVENUE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director and Ms.
Kate Langford, Senior Planner
This is a request for the City Council to discuss annexation request AN-153 for
approximately five acres of undeveloped property located at the southeast corner of
81st and Myrtle Avenues.
The Council raised questions during the public hearing held on May 11, 2004 on the
blank annexation petition. The item is being presented at workshop so that additional
information can be provided in response to the Council's questions.
Glendale 2025, the city's General Plan, includes specific goals addressing the need for
growth management. Annexation is a tool that can be used by the city to direct and
manage growth.
The Council adopted Glendale's first Annexation Policy on December 16, 2003.
Discussion of the policy began in July of 2002 and the development of the policy was
completed over the course of five Council workshops.
During the third workshop on the development of the policy, on October 15, 2002, the
Council reached a general consensus on the portion of the policy pertaining to
"undeveloped" properties east of 115th Avenue.
A total of nine annexation requests have been filed since October 2002. Six of the nine
annexations have been completed. All of the requests thus far have been for
annexation of undeveloped properties.
AN-153, the current request at the southeast corner of 81st and Myrtle Avenues is an
undeveloped property located east of 115th Avenue.
The property owner, Col. Harvey Finger, has been in contact with several departments
and city staff for over a year, discussing the possibility of annexing his properties into
the city.
The five acres owned by Col. Finger have been vacant for a number of years and it is
5
the owner's desire to have the property annexed so that city services and amenities will
be available whenever the site develops. No specific development proposal has been
discussed to date.
Col. Finger followed the development of the Annexation Policy and has requested water
service for his properties.
The property is considered undeveloped. The annexation request, received from the
property owner on February 20, 2004, has followed the review process outlined in the
Annexation Policy. Data gathering from Maricopa County and the Arizona Department
of Revenue have been in process since February of 2004.
The blank annexation petition was recorded on April 19, 2004 and the public hearing on
the blank petition was held on May 11, 2004.
The next step in the process is to bring forward an annexation ordinance for Council
consideration once the property owner's signature has been collected on the
annexation petition.
The annexation of this five-acre area would require that any future development of this
area comply with the General Plan, future zoning, as well as all other development
standards for the City of Glendale.
The developers of these parcels would be responsible for off-site improvements,
dedication of additional rights-of-way as needed, extension of necessary infrastructure,
and payment of the Development Impact Fees associated with any future development.
Staff is seeking direction from the Council to bring the annexation ordinance for
Annexation Area No. 153 forward for consideration.
Mr. Froke stated portions of 83'd Avenue were developed in the mid-90's and, more
recently, the West Glenn Estates neighborhood has been completed. He pointed out
the development standards for a property of this type would require the east and south
half of Myrtle Avenue to be developed unless waived or deemed unnecessary by the
City Engineer and Transportation Director. He stated a number of questions were
raised at the public hearing conducted on May 11, particularly with regard to who would
be responsible for constructing necessary street and utility improvements and how the
property will be accessed. With regard to infrastructure and city services, Mr. Froke
said city services, including water and sewer, would be available to the site and the
area would be included in the sanitation services routes. He said emergency response
would be provided by the Glendale Police and Fire Departments and the developer of
the site would be responsible for the required perimeter and onsite infrastructure
improvements. He said, historically, the site has been accessed from 80th Avenue, a
street that is under some level of disrepair. He stated, based on conversations with
potential developers, the most logical access point for the property, if developed, would
be off 81st and Myrtle Avenues.
6
Councilmember Frate asked if there are developers interested in developing the site,
pointing out it only measures five acres. Mr. Froke said they receive calls every week
from developers on various properties, regardless of whether they are located in the
city. He stated developers interested in building on the subject property are reminded
the property is not in the city. He said most of the developers they have talked to
indicate they would market the property off 81St Avenue. He agreed the parcel is
considered small from a development standpoint, noting most small-scale subdivisions
are in the range of 10 acres.
Mayor Scruggs asked what kinds of developments have been suggested for the
property. Mr. Froke said there have been inquiries for condominiums and town homes.
Councilmember Clark asked how much of Myrtle Avenue is currently developed. Mr.
Froke stated Myrtle Avenue is discontinuous, indicating on a map where Myrtle Avenue
has and has not been developed. Councilmember Clark expressed concern that
people will cut through the neighborhood on 79th Lane, even if access is available from
81St Avenue. Mr. Froke said cut-through traffic could be prevented and such issues will
be addressed during the normal planning process.
Councilmember Goulet asked if landscaping, setbacks and street improvements would
further reduce the developable size of the property. Mr. Froke said, typically, 20 to 30
percent of a private development site is devoted to infrastructure. He stated right-of-
way dedications would also have to be made if Myrtle and 81st Avenues were required.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out condominiums or town homes would also require parking
lots. Mr. Froke said staff has similar concerns about development potential, noting
during his last conversation with the property owner and a potential developer, he
asked that a site plan be developed.
Councilmember Martinez asked how the property is designated by the county and in the
General Plan. Mr. Froke said the county zoning is a combination of R-3 and R-4, which
is similar to Glendale's multi-family zoning districts of R-3 and R-4. He stated the
property is designated in the General Plan as a combination of 8 to 12 and 12 to 20,
however, he suggested to the Planning Commission that they look at conducting a land
use study. Councilmember Martinez asked about the existing residential areas, Mr.
Froke said the first is a traditional, single-family neighborhood developed in the mid-90's
and zoned R-17 PRD. He stated West Glenn Estates is somewhat more contemporary
and was built out at R-18PRD. He said the mobile home subdivision is locatedin the
county, which if it were in Glendale would likely be zoned R1-6MH. He said there are
also some small ranchettes and a large farm, as well as the low-density found in the
79th Lane neighborhood. He said the area to the south is only partially developed.
Councilmember Martinez asked about the location of the county island. Mr. Froke said
the county island is off 80th and Glendale Avenues. Councilmember Martinez asked
what density level does the County's R-3 and R-4 allow. Mr. Froke said a range of 16
to 20 units per acre.
7
In response to Mayor Scruggs's question, Mr. Froke stated the logistics of parcel
configuration and size would make it difficult to achieve a density level of 16 to 20.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the city would be responsible for improving 80th Avenue
and providing access to the site if annexation were to occur. Mr. Froke said from a
marketing standpoint, access would likely come off 81st Avenue.
Councilmember Frate asked if the mobile home subdivision represents individually
owned properties. Mr. Froke stated the mobile home subdivision is made up of
individually owned lots that exist legally through the county. Councilmember Froke
asked if 70 percent of the mobile home lot owners would be required to annex. Ms.
Langford explained the city's annexation policy requires a minimum of 70 percent of
property owners in developed areas to be in favor of annexation before the city
proceeds with the arduous task of conducting an analysis and inventory of what exists.
Councilmember Frate questioned whether 70 percent of the mobile home property
owners would be interested in annexing into the city. Ms. Langford said residents
attended meetings several years ago and were very curious about annexation, but
nothing ever came of those meetings.
Mayor Scruggs asked how many property owners are there in the county island. Ms.
Langford stated 12 or 13. She noted there are 20 or more parcels south of the subject
property, but the owners of those parcels have not indicated in the past nine to 12
months that they are interested in annexing into the city.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he would like to see a site plan for the property, suggesting
annexing the five acres could actually damage what would otherwise be a premier
housing area. Mr. Froke agreed the area is challenging, stating they have had strong
dialogue with the property owner and sent a letter indicating the city's preferred
development scheme.
Councilmember Martinez said he would also like to see a site plan.
Mr. Froke said staff would work with the property owner to secure a conceptual site
plan.
Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion no one would benefit from the city taking five
acres out of the middle of the county island. She asked for what purpose are the five
acres currently being marketed. Mr. Froke was unable to say. Mayor Scruggs said a
pre-annexation agreement would definitely be necessary; however, at this point, she
does not support going forward with annexation.
Councilmember Clark stated the area is quite troublesome, characterizing 80th Avenue
as a war zone. She stated a great deal of criminal abatement has been done along 80th
Avenue and the city participated in a county task force to dean up the area. She said
the property owners need to work together to reach a commonality of spirit and goal.
8
She stated five acres is not large enough to develop once you subtract out the land
needed for infrastructure and open space needs. She questioned whether people
would consider the area attractive and choose to locate there, even if it were annexed
by the city. She stated the whole area needs to be master planned in a manner that will
preserve quality of life and make the area marketable.
Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Clark's comments.
Councilmember Frate said the two properties combined would be desirable to
developers because of their continuity and configuration.
Mayor Scruggs echoed Councilmember Clark's suggestion for the people to the south
to work together.
Mr. Froke stated staff would go back to the owner and evaluate different options based
on Council's direction.
3. PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2005 MUNICIPAL
POLICY STATEMENT
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Miryam Gutier, Intergovernmental
Programs Director; Ms. Dana Tranberg, Deputy Director and Ms. Kristin Skabo, Deputy
Director.
This is a request for the City Council to review and provide direction on the proposed
resolutions which will be voted on at the November 5, 2004 League of Arizona Cities
and Towns (LACT) Final Resolutions Committee meeting.
The resolutions adopted by the Resolutions Committee will be included as statements
of policy in the LACT's annual Municipal Policy Statement.
The proposed resolutions, voted on during the annual League conference, were
submitted to the Council with staff comments, fiscal impacts, historical data, and other
pertinent information.
The key principles of Glendale's legislative agenda are to preserve and enhance the
city's ability to deliver quality and cost-effective services to Glendale citizens and
visitors, to address quality of life issues for Glendale citizens, and to enhance the City
Council's ability to serve Glendale citizens by retaining local decision-making authority
and maintaining fiscally-balanced revenue sources.
The proposed resolutions provide the basis for the annual Municipal Policy Statement.
Many of these resolutions will be brought forward to the Council for adoption in the City
of Glendale 2005 Legislative Agenda.
The recommendation was to review and discuss this item, and provide direction on the
9
proposed resolutions, which will be voted on at the LACT Final Resolutions Committee
meeting on November 5, 2004.
Ms. Gutier reported the League of Cities and Towns held a pre-conference resolution
meeting on August 31. She stated, of the resolutions that forward to the Committee, 20
ultimately passed, three were amended, one was withdrawn and six failed. She said
the final resolutions meeting will be held November 5, 2004, noting Mayor Scruggs will
present the city's position with regard to each of the 23 resolutions.
Mayor Scruggs asked the Council members if they have any concerns with regard to
the 23 resolutions, explaining she, as the city's representative, will have an opportunity
to raise opposition to the resolutions at the League's November meeting.
Ms. Skabo explained two resolutions that passed, Identity Disclosure Requirement and
Seat Belt Primary Enforcement, fall under the Public Safety heading. She explained
Arizona currently does not have an Identity Disclosure Requirement and a 2004
Supreme Court case requires states to have a state statute if it wants to force detainees
to identify themselves to police officers.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the law conflicts with a person's right to remain silent.
Ms. Skabo said the resolution would require a detainee to simply identify him or herself
and the person's Miranda rights would not be impacted. Mr. Tindall explained there
would be no violation of the Fifth Amendment unless the person's name could be
considered incriminating evidence or used against the person. He stated the Supreme
Court addressed that in a recent case and indicated that statutes requiring identification
in a non-vague manner passes the test in most cases.
Ms. Skabo stated the Seat Belt Primary Enforcement resolution would change Arizona
State Law to allow police officers to pull a driver over for the purpose of citing the driver
for failure to wear a seat belt. She explained current state law requires that there be
some other reasonable cause for pulling the driver over.
Councilmember Frate said he supports the resolution.
Ms. Skabo said the Liquor Laws — Neighborhood Concerns resolution seeks to change
a number of state liquor statutes to allow cities more control over to whom and where
liquor licenses are approved within their communities. She stated the resolution deals
with a number of topics and issues; however, there are no specifics in a draft piece of
legislation. She noted the same resolution was introduced by a number of cities last
year, but it received no hearings.
Councilmember Goulet asked why is the city neutral on this issue, noting the city gets a
great deal of neighborhood opposition to liquor license applications, particularly with
regard to free standing liquor license applications. Ms. Skabo said the city is taking a
neutral position until specific language is submitted. Councilmember Goulet asked if
one city in particular is taking the lead on this resolution. Ms. Skabo said the City of
10
Avondale was the lead city last year and is the lead city again this year.
Councilmember Martinez stated the resolution would allow cities to request a hearing of
the state liquor board at the time of renewal for existing licenses and, if sufficient
evidence exists, to request that the Board not renew the license. He expressed his
opinion Glendale should support the resolution.
Mayor Scruggs noted one idea from Avondale was that the Board could choose to give
a provisional 12 month liquor license if a city was concerned about a particular license
application. She clarified that, at this point, the city supports the resolution. Ms. Cutler
agreed, explaining over the next few months staff will determine the city's position on
the various resolutions, as the draft legislation language is prepared. She pointed out
changes to the draft legislation could result in the city changing its position in the future.
Ms. Tranberg stated the next resolution addresses the hyper-clustering of sex offenders
within neighborhoods, noting it was part of last year's Neighborhood Legislative Agenda
as well and a number of bills were introduced on the subject. She said the focus this
year will be on probationary sex offenders.
Ms. Tranberg said Resolution 5 urges the legislature to protect community participation
in government, noting the City of Phoenix introduced a bill last year that addressed
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. She explained the purpose of the
legislation would be to provide appropriate protections to ensure citizens are not
prevented from providing public input. She reported 20 states have similar statutes in
place.
Ms. Tranberg explained Resolution 6 urges support of the Attorney General's efforts to
map legislation that would discourage the practice of predatory mortgage lending. She
said staff's recommendation on this resolution was neutral because there are several
questions by some cities as to whether cities play a role in this issue. She stated the
Attorney General has not yet formed its decision; therefore it seems premature to
support the resolution at this time.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there would be a challenge to the resolution. Ms. Tranberg
said she has not heard of a direct challenge.
Ms. Tranberg stated Resolution 7 relates to short-term loans to customers, asking that
the regulations against them be modified to reduce the number of rollovers allowed.
She said, while this is an important issue, there are questions as to whether
municipalities play a role in the issue.
Councilmember Clark pointed out the League has supported resolutions in the past that
did not have a direct bearing on a city because, in one-way or another, it benefited the
constituency of the city. Ms. Tranberg agreed, noting the cities that support the
resolution fear their housing departments will be impacted if the issue is not addressed.
11
Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion the city should support Resolution 7,
stating families who use the short-term lenders become trapped. Ms. Tranberg said
once language has been drafted staff will contact the sponsor city and bring it forward
when they bring the Glendale Legislative Agenda to Council.
Councilmember Clark and Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Councilmember Martinez.
Ms. Tranberg explained Resolution 8 urges the legislature to support efforts to exempt
municipal parks and recreation after school youth programs from a requirement to
register as licensed day care facilities. She stated the resolution was brought forward
as a pre-emptive action, explaining cities are not currently held to this standard.
Councilmember Martinez asked if there have been attempts in the past to require cities
to register as licensed day care facilities. Ms. Tranberg said not to her knowledge, but
the City of Tucson is concerned about the future potential for such requirements.
Ms. Tranberg stated Resolution 9 deals with annexation, urging the legislature to enact
legislation to reduce the requirements placed on municipalities when annexing
unincorporated communities. She noted the resolution passed in the pre-conference;
however, it will likely be difficult to get any changes through the legislature next year.
Ms. Tranberg explained Resolutions 10 and 11 relate to State Trust Lands. She said
the first is an effort to have a formal policy direction on state trust lands that provide for
local control and land use authority. She said the city's standing position of maintaining
local control over land usability would cover the issue if it came forward at the
legislature. She stated the second resolution allows the city to seek reimbursement
costs associated with easement and right-of-way acquisition once the state land is sold
at auction. She said it is not likely Glendale will have to deal with this issue given its
limited amount of state trust land.
Ms. Tranberg stated Resolution 12 would urge the legislature to allow for the expansion
of an enhanced municipal improvement district for circumstances other than
redevelopment and slum and blight. She explained, currently, districts can only be
expanded if they are suffering from slum and blight, which is a difficult designation for
Council's to meet at this time. She said it would also provide another economic
development tool to cities and towns.
Ms. Gutier said Resolution 13 asks the legislature to continue to ask The Lottery to
direct money to the Arizona State Heritage Funds, as was directed by the voters. She
noted Glendale received over $1 million in the past calendar year from Heritage Fund
monies.
Councilmember Clark suggested they indicate strong support, stating Heritage Funds
are critical to the city's ability to create new park sites and do park improvements.
Mayor Scruggs explained her prioritization would be impacted by resolutions for which
12
the Council feels there should be strong support.
Ms. Gutier stated Resolution 14 urges the Legislature to relieve the financial burden
from unpaid property taxes imposed on cities and towns when involuntarily acquiring a
property. She explained the City of Bullhead had to pay over $400,000 when they
involuntarily acquired a piece of property.
Mr. Ray Shuey, Controller/Assistant Finance Director stated, while the city incurred a
$16,200 bill for property taxes on the Younger Wood property, the city currently does
not have any comparable improvement districts and none are forecast in its future. He
explained the rationale for remaining neutral is the potential negative impact it could
have on some jurisdictions, including school districts that rely on property tax payments.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Shuey confirmed the current state
law provides for a pro-rata sharing of the property taxes and special assessments due
on a property when it is sold at auction.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the taxes are paid at the time the property involuntarily comes
back to the city. Mr. Shuey responded yes.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the city would receive the profits from the sale of the
property, minus the taxes paid. Mr. Shuey stated the city would also owe the
assessments on the property for the local improvement district.
Ms. Gutier explained Resolution 15 urges the Legislature to eliminate the two percent
cap on net premium General Obligation Bonds and apply the premium towards any
debt service payments. She noted the resolution was forwarded by the City of
Scottsdale's financial planners. Mr. Shuey explained an underwriting firm pays a
premium to raise the interest rate paid over time, making the bonds a better investment
in the future. He said investors in states that do not have the cap will pay up to a 10
percent premium to get interest rates that are comparable to what is expected in 10 to
15 years. He noted the resolution, if passed, would save the city about $35,000 over
the life of the General Obligation Bonds issued last year. He said staff is neutral on the
resolution because the law it is intended to alter was put in place as the result of a court
decision involving the Creighton School District. He explained in looking at the School
District's debt limitation, their very high premium made it appear they were in much
better condition than they actually were.
In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Shuey explained that because
investors desire premiums in the range of 10 percent nationally, they provide a slightly
more advantageous rate of one basis point.
Ms. Gutier stated Resolution 16 was sponsored by 12 small communities and pertains
to six of those communities who have had difficulty with their revenue. She explained
the resolution asks the Legislature to make changes to the State Transaction Privilege
Tax and the Urban Revenue Sharing formula to provide a standard $100,000 for the
13
TPT and $100,000 for the Revenue Sharing each year for each of the six communities.
Mayor Scruggs explained the basis for the $100,000 was that there is now a law that if
you are going to incorporate you must have at least 1,500 members in the community
and 1,500 members equates to $100,000 in State Shared Revenue.
Councilmember Clark asked if the resolution is in any way precedence setting in that it
sets up a formula to guarantee the six small towns a certain amount of revenue on an
annual basis. She expressed concern the next class of towns will petition to get
$150,000 guaranteed and so forth.
Ms. Gutier noted several cities throughout Maricopa County have been meeting and
discussing the issue because a number of large cities will lose state shared revenue
once the special census is conducted. She said they are looking for another way to
help the smaller communities without opening up State Shared Revenues.
Councilmember Clark asked why staff recommended a neutral position. Ms. Gutier
said it is difficult to understand what is going on with the small communities and the
potential of their dis-incorporation. She said, however, legislators who in the past
wanted to make changes to the formula could take advantage of the situation if State
Shared Revenues are opened up. Councilmember Clark suggested they indicate non-
support, but that the city is willing to explore other ways to help the small cities. She
stated she does not support the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated he does not support the resolution either, particularly
since it incorporates a specific figure. He said it could also open the door for other
State Shared Revenue changes.
Ms. Gutier said Resolution 17 asks the legislature to increase the constitutional limit for
street and public safety projects from six percent to 20 percent. She said the issue was
first brought to the Legislature in 2000, went to the voters in 2002 and failed by a very
small margin. She stated the resolution, if passed by the legislators, would go to the
voters in 2006.
Ms. Gutier explained in year's past the Aviation Fund has been reduced by 50 percent,
although it has been increased back to 100 percent. She explained Resolution 18 is a
preemptive measure, letting the legislature know they want the Aviation Fund kept at
100 percent.
Ms. Skabo explained the Economic Development Tools Resolution seeks legislation
that allows cities to implement different financing mechanisms to promote economic
development within certain geographical areas. She said they have not yet seen details
on the resolution.
Ms. Skabo explained the next four resolutions fall under the heading of Federal Issues.
She explained the first is a Housing resolution that would allow cities and counties to
14
implement mandatory inclusionary ordinances to ask developers to include affordable
rental and sale units within their development for certain unspecified developer benefits,
which include streamlined permitting processes and density bonuses. She said the
resolution was sponsored by the City of Flagstaff who is looking to establish a statewide
task force to study the issue.
Ms. Skabo explained the Housing Choice Voucher Program Resolution would urge
Congress to not support the present administration's recommendation to change the
Section 8 voucher program to a Block Grant for the state. She explained, if changed to
a Block Grant, a significant portion of the money would go to administration at the state
and cities would see a decline in the number of families served with the funding.
Councilmember Frate asked why the city is taking a neutral position on the resolution.
Ms. Skabo explained, in the past, the city has taken a neutral position on "postcards to
Congress".
Ms. Skabo stated Resolution 22 is another "postcard to Congress" and deals with the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. She noted a number of Glendale's Parks &
Recreation projects have been funded through the Fund. She stated this was one of
the issues that were not resolved prior to Congress going into recess.
Ms. Gutier explained Resolution 23, Military Facilities Preservation, asks everyone
elected by the people of Arizona to work to preserve military bases.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
15