HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/16/2004 *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 WORKSHOP
November 16, 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; Craig Tindall, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna,
City Clerk
1. DOWNTOWN PLAZA UPDATE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Jennifer Reichelt, Senior Management
Assistant and Mr. Rex Gulbranson, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director
City staff will provide the City Council an update on the Downtown Plaza Project with an
overview of the site plan, façade improvements, and the conceptual design of the public
art component.
Staff is requesting direction on the public art component of the project.
The Downtown Plaza project addresses redevelopment in the downtown and provides
enhanced cultural amenities and open space opportunities for Glendale residents and
visitors.
The concept of the Downtown Plaza project is to renovate the existing facades of the
Bead Museum and Wells Fargo buildings so that they complement the adjacent Civic
Center. Façade improvements will enhance the appearance of the buildings and tie
them together by incorporating key architectural elements of the Civic Center into the
other buildings. Each facility will complement the others; yet have its own distinctive
character. The creation of a plaza or open space between the facilities will create a
more open and pedestrian friendly area. These improvements will bring continuity and
cohesiveness and create a campus environment and provide a visual and pedestrian
link from Murphy Park to the Civic Center.
The plaza project includes the renovation of the Wells Fargo Building into additional
conference and workshop meeting rooms for the Civic Center, expansion of the Bead
1
Museum, and the conversion of the parking lot between the two buildings into a plaza
(park area) with a public art component.
Improvements to the Wells Fargo Building include facade enhancements, internal
renovations, and space expansion. This facility will provide more meeting space and
breakout rooms for the Civic Center. The new facility will allow the Civic Center to
target a new customer market, focus on small group meeting space availability, and
meet the needs of clients that need additional breakout room space. For planning and
construction purposes, this facility is referred to as the Civic Center Annex.
The Civic Center Annex, including the expansion of the building, will be approximately
11,981 square feet in size and will include a banquet room, breakout rooms, special
function gathering lobby space, a food service area, and classroom space dedicated to
the Bead Museum. The Bead Museum classroom space will have its own entrance
independent from the rest of the building.
The Bead Museum building will undergo facade improvements, as well as an expansion
of 2,044 square feet onto the north side of the building. The expansion area will
provide more gallery space, offices for museum staff, ADA compliant restrooms and
additional storage space. Other renovations include replacing the roof, a new HVAC
system, electric upgrades, and carpeting.
The existing parking lot between the Civic Center Annex and Bead Museum will be
transformed into a plaza area. The plaza area is approximately 25,300 square feet and
includes landscaping, shade trees, seating elements, decorative lighting, walkways,
electric outlets (for special events) and a public art component. The space will become
an ideal location for special events and outside activities.
The 60% design drawings have been submitted for Design Review. It is anticipated
that plans will be submitted for Construction Review by the first week of December and
go out to bid by the end of February, with construction beginning by the end of April.
The Glendale Arts Commission approved Barbara Grygutis as the public artist for the
Downtown Plaza on August 18, 2004 and Ms. Grygutis' design concept on October 20,
2004. Ms. Grygutis' vision includes designing a public art component that can be used
functionally while also creating a dynamic visual element within the Downtown Plaza.
The sculpture she is proposing will take the form of a shade structure and will be
designed to create a focal point within the plaza, as well as referencing the function of
the adjacent Bead Museum and Civic Center.
The shade structure will be fabricated of perforated steel powder, coated the color of
pewter to enhance and complement the pewter on the existing Civic Center and the
new facades of the Civic Center Annex and Bead Museum. Perforated metal emits
light and the legs of the sculpture will be three-dimensional and include lighting
elements. During the day the pewter colored metal will create a shimmering effect and
in the evening the structure will be illuminated.
2
In addition to the shade structure, other artistic elements are incorporated into the plaza
seating wall and walkways. The design pattern for the seat wall and the walkway's
colored concrete are inspired by the design of a faceted bead.
There will be artistic elements in the paving that will lead pedestrians across the plaza
through the shade structure and to the Civic Center. All of the elements, the patterned
seat wall, the repeating pattern of the seat wall in the concrete pavement, and the
sculptural shade structure, come together to create a unified artistic environment.
In February of 2004, the Council directed staff to move forward with the Downtown
Plaza Project. A Request for Proposal was issued and Michael Baker and Associates
was selected as the architecture/design firm.
The Project Team includes an outside architect, a public artist, a landscape architect,
and city staff from Planning, Engineering, Economic Development, Community
Revitalization, Public Art, Facilities Management, and the Civic Center, as well as
representation from the Bead Museum.
The Downtown Plaza project will enhance the downtown area and will become one of
the prime focal points that will create an inviting destination for pedestrians, tourists,
and patrons of the Bead Museum and Civic Center. The plaza will provide Glendale's
festivals and special events with an additional stage with seating for small, intimate
performances. The addition of more open space and the continuity of the buildings will
create a more cohesive and campus environment.
The Downtown Plaza complements other projects taking place in the area, including an
attractive pedestrian link to Murphy Park. Streetscape improvements will be completed
just south of the project (Glenn Drive from 57th — 58th Avenues) and includes brick
sidewalks, decorative lighting, seating elements and enhanced landscaping which are
funded through a Community Development Block Grant. The "Old Roma" alleyway
(Glendale Avenue to Glenn Drive) will also be undergoing improvements. This alleyway
will be developed into a pedestrian friendly environment and will lead pedestrians
directly from Glendale Avenue to the new Downtown Plaza. The alleyway project is
funded through a Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century grant.
The cost for design and construction of the Downtown Plaza will be approximately
$3,000,000 and is included in the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-05
and 2005-06.
The Glendale Arts Commission approved the budget of $100,000, plus 15%
contingency from the Arts Commission Fund for the public art piece.
3
Grants Capital Expense One-Time Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
X X X , $115,000
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number
Public Art, 70-9700-8320
A selection panel, comprised of representatives from the Glendale Arts Commission,
the Bead Museum, the Glendale Civic Center and the landscape architect, reviewed
nine applications submitted by Arizona artists. The panel narrowed the field to three
applicants before selecting Barbara Grygutis as the recommended artist.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on moving forward with the public art
component for the Downtown Plaza.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the drive-thru would be enclosed as was suggested
at an earlier meeting. Ms. Reichelt said only part of the drive thru would be enclosed in
the proposed design.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out expanding the Bead Museum 2000 feet to the
north will block the alley and driveway, asking if the expansion will be made to the
northeast portion of the building. Ms. Reichelt said the expansion goes into the existing
parking lot and visitors will no longer be able to drive through to the Civic Center.
Councilmember Lieberman asked how many parking places were lost as a result of the
expansion. Ms. Reichelt stated 10, but those will be compensated for at the Adult
Center site.
Councilmember Frate asked if any landscape improvements would be made to the west
side of the building. Ms. Reichelt responded yes, noting they are also installing
electrical outlets so the area can be lit during special events. She said electrical outlets
would be installed throughout the plaza area as well. Councilmember Frate asked to
what degree would the Bead Museum be able to expand their exhibit. Ms. Reichelt said
the Bead Museum would not only benefit from expanded exhibit space, but from
additional classroom space as well.
Councilmember Clark asked what is the difference in cost between the original concept
that included enclosing the drive-thru portion of Wells Fargo and the proposed design.
Ms. Reichelt said the budget would be finalized once a contractor comes on board.
She stated they are still within the approximately $3 million budget originally estimated
for the project. She pointed out some Glendale On Board money will be used to help
fund landscape improvements. Councilmember Clark asked how Glendale On Board
money could be used when it is primarily for transportation. Ms. Reichelt explained
Glendale On Board specifically designated some funds for pedestrian improvements in
the downtown area, including streetscape improvements and basic signage.
Councilmember Lieberman asked about the size of the door off the driveway and if a
ramp will be installed to allow displays to be hand-trucked in and out. Ms. Reichelt said
the door is a four-foot service entrance that can accommodate displays and large
deliveries. Councilmember Lieberman questioned whether four feet is adequate. Ms.
Reichelt noted the front door is a double door that measures eight feet, stating a display
4
that could not be accommodated by the service door could be brought in through the
front door.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the two ADA compliant parking spaces, one on the east
and one on the north side of the Civic Center Annex, are sufficient for the type of
activities expected. Ms. Reichelt explained four ADA accessible spaces are located in
the lot adjacent to the Bead Museum and two are located in front of the Civic Center
Annex. She pointed out the Civic Center also has existing ADA accessible spaces.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the drop-off area on the east side of the Civic Center
would be posted as such to prevent people from parking in the area. Ms. Reichelt
responded yes. Councilmember Goulet asked if the monument signs would be lit at
night. Ms. Reichelt said they are currently talking about using floodlights to illuminate
the signs rather than internally lit signs. Councilmember Goulet asked why the bricks at
the entrance to the Civic Center differ from those used elsewhere in the plaza. Ms.
Reichelt said the intent was to architecturally set the area off as the entrance.
Councilmember Frate asked what the width is of the sculpture. Mr. Gulbranson stated
approximately 25 feet.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the walkway up-lights will be diffused and why the lights
are not located elsewhere in the plaza. Mr. Gulbranson explained the artist proposes
enhancing the walkway between the Civic Center and Murphy Park using low level blue
lights embedded in the concrete. He pointed out it is likely the blue lights will not come
to fruition due to cost considerations. Ms. Reichelt stated they are working with
Facilities Maintenance to determine the best type of lighting for the area.
Councilmember Goulet asked if it would be feasible to place beads within the concrete.
Ms. Reichelt said they are currently talking about using different colors of concrete, but
have not discussed embedding beads within the concrete. She pointed out items
embedded in concrete often become the target of vandalism.
Councilmember Lieberman noted an artist presented art for the Civic Center four years
ago, but the city did not approve the design. He said, furthermore, the west end of the
Civic Center was supposed to have a fountain and brickwork and the east end was
supposed to have an archway and wedding chapel, noting neither of those projects
were ever done. He asked if there are any plans at this time to complete those
projects. Ms. Reichelt offered to research the status of those projects, explaining the
subject proposal focused specifically on the plaza area. Councilmember Lieberman
expressed his opinion completion of the Civic Center would enhance the leaseability of
the facility. Mayor Scruggs noted Council gave direction to stay with wall hangings,
tapestries and the artificial flower arrangement rather than a specific art piece since the
people utilizing the facility would have diverse tastes.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the original plan for the low level blue lights has been
completely abandoned due to the cost. Ms. Reichelt said it was more an issue of
maintenance, explaining they tend to have condensation and break easily.
Councilmember Clark said she has known the artist for a long time and is a fan of her
work, however, she is disappointed by the proposal submitted for the Civic Center
Plaza area. She stated the artist's work relies heavily upon lighting from within, but the
only lighting proposed would come from ground-mounted up-lights. Mr. Gulbranson
clarified the six legs will each be lit from within. Councilmember Clark asked if the
lighter panels on the top portion of the sculpture represent lit or open panels. Mr.
Gulbranson stated the entire piece would be fabricated out of perforated steel. He
suggested the artist's rendering includes different textures in an effort to show
5
dimension. Councilmember Clark asked if there would be any lighting from within the
roof structure itself. Mr. Gulbranson said the lighting from the legs would shine up onto
the roof of the piece. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion the piece is rather
stark and clean.
Councilmember Goulet thanked the Arts Commission, acknowledging the difficulty they
faced in selecting something that would create a transition from one facility to other
parts of the downtown without resulting in a barrier effect. He said he believes the
design is appropriate.
Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to move forward. She expressed her
opinion the design is exciting, stating she appreciates the collaboration between the
Bead Museum, Arts Commission, Civic Center and City Staff. She pointed out the Civic
Center Annex will add 11,981 square feet of usable space, the Bead Museum will
expand by 2,044 square feet and the plaza area measures 25,300 square feet, all at a
cost of$61.00 per square foot.
2. SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT: REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, Mr.
Stuart Kent, Field Operations Deputy Director and Mr. Scott Pasternack, R.W. Beck
This is a request for the City Council to provide direction on continuing solid waste
services, or alternative delivery options. The City Council was briefed on financial and
sanitation rate options developed by R.W. Beck at the October 5, 2004 Council
Workshop. Beck's analysis also included an assessment of operations for the landfill,
the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), loose trash collection, and commercial
sanitation. Today's presentation will summarize the R.W. Beck operational analysis
and recommendations and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing
components of the solid waste operations.
This report addresses the City Council goals of providing financial stability for the solid
waste enterprise funds, coordinating exceptional service delivery, and evaluating new
opportunities for partnerships.
During the review of the fiscal year 2003-04 budget, the City Council asked staff for an
operational and financial review of the solid waste operations, including evaluating
whether the city should pursue privatization of commercial sanitation services, loose
trash collection services, and landfill and MRF operations.
The City of Glendale competes with private refuse haulers for commercial sanitation
services. The city also provides monthly loose trash collection service to single-family
households placing refuse for collection. Residents and commercial customers are
charged fees for services.
The city owns and operates a 260-acre landfill, located near 115th and Glendale
Avenues, and a MRF where recyclables from Glendale and several other Valley cities
are processed and sold. The costs associated with operating the landfill and MRF are
6
recovered through fees and the sale of recyclable material. These fees are retained in
the Landfill Enterprise Fund.
The City Council reviewed solid waste service rate recommendations on October 5,
2004 and directed staff to:
1. Pay off the $5.878 million in debt associated with the construction of the MRF.
2. Lower the landfill fee for city vehicles and residents from $19.50/ton to
$12.57/ton effective January 1, 2005.
3. Raise the residential sanitation fee from $14.50 to $14.90 per month effective
January 1, 2005 anticipating that fee can be kept at that amount through June
2008.
4. Transfer $130,572 from the landfill enterprise fund to the sanitation enterprise
fund. This transfer represents the $.40 residential sanitation fee billing difference
per month from July 1 to December 31, 2004.
5. Review with the City Attorney language in a resolution, not in an ordinance,
identifying closure costs of the landfill and that the funds be identified in the
landfill enterprise fund.
6. Review the idea of a vehicle replacement fund for sanitation and the use of
landfill and sanitation fund balance to begin pre-funding this activity.
The City Council awarded RFP 03-22 for solid waste consulting services to R.W. Beck
on October 14, 2003.
The City Council reviewed a staff-developed Solid Waste Assessment during the fiscal
year 2003-04 budget workshops and directed staff, on May 6, 2003, to engage a
consultant to review possible privatization of some solid waste services.
Professional and independent assessments of city operations provide an excellent way
to review current operating procedures, identify financial opportunities and constraints,
and determine if change in a program or service is warranted.
Today's workshop presentation will summarize the R.W. Beck operational analysis and
recommendations and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing
components of the solid waste operations.
Staff is requesting policy guidance on recommended operational improvement
strategies and possible privatization of components of the solid waste operations.
Mr. Pasternack explained their approach to the project was to conduct a very detailed
and comprehensive evaluation of each of the four operational areas, the landfill, the
MRF, loose trash, and commercial collections. He said, based on that analysis, they
looked at opportunities to improve operations and the feasibility of privatizing any of the
various services. He pointed out a team of experts in the Solid Waste Industry worked
on the project.
7
Mr. Pasternack reviewed strategies identified to improve operations at the landfill. He
said the first is to change the closing time from 4:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday
through Friday, explaining the volume and number of customers at the facility
significantly drops during that half-hour period. He stated they also looked at
opportunities to develop partnerships with public and private organizations to bring 500
more tons of refuse to the landfill daily. He said, because the city already operates a
very efficient operation, they found it could generate approximately $2.3 million in
additional net revenue per year. He said they are not necessarily recommending the
city take this step, however, because it would accelerate the closing date of the landfill.
He said, however, it is an option worth considering given the increased revenue it could
bring to the city.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Kent explained the typical refuse
company or city truck brings in 10 tons per day. He said other larger generators that
utilize transfer trailers could bring as much as 20 tons per day.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out this is one of the most conflicted subjects the Council
considers. She said the city's landfill is one of its most important assets and the longer
it operates the better off the city will be. She expressed her opinion turning the
operation into a profit making venture is inappropriate. She said the city does not want
to be the recipient of the entire valley's trash or have even more sanitation trucks
traveling up and down Glendale Avenue. She stated she would prefer to leave the
landfill operation as it is and any additional tonnage be collected from the surrounding
commercial ventures rather than other cities throughout the valley.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the Westgate Development and other commercial and
infill housing developments that are coming to the west valley have been factored into
the calculations for the landfill. He also asked how quickly they anticipated achieving
the 500-ton per day increase. Mr. Pasternack explained they looked at the issue of
adding more tonnage for the purpose of providing Council with viable options, stating it
is not necessarily their recommendation. He assured the Council they recognize the
importance of the landfill to the community. He stated they anticipate it would require a
period of time to achieve the 500 ton increase, explaining the large volume customers
needed to reach that level would likely already be under multi-year contracts. He
confirmed they took into consideration the growth anticipated in the west valley, both in
their baseline analysis and with regard to the 500 ton per day increase.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the public service safety facility proposed next to
the landfill had an impact on the anticipated life of the landfill. Mr. Reedy responded
no, explaining the property was purchased as a buffer. Councilmember Lieberman
asked what is the current life expectancy of the landfill. Mr. Kent estimated it to be 45
years, assuming development plans currently in place, in fact, occur. Councilmember
Lieberman pointed out Northern will act as an express route, connecting the Loop 101
and Loop 303, asking if they anticipate moving the main entrance to Northern in the
future. Mr. Kent stated they have discussed the issue with Transportation staff, but the
Northern Avenue expressway, as presently designed, will have raised medians and an
8
interchange is not planned at the landfill entrance. Councilmember Lieberman asked if
median cuts could be built into the design of Northern, pointing out the design is no
more than 10 percent complete. Mr. Kent said the question is how safe it will be for the
trucks to make the turn. He said Northern Avenue is designed as an expressway and
creating additional interchanges could serve to impede the flow of traffic.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out other agencies are involved in funding the Northern Avenue
Expressway. She noted the city has been fighting ADOT for several months over
ADOT's proposal to turn Grand Avenue back to the cities since it no longer serves as
an expressway. She said an expressway has to be designed in a certain way and the
city's funding assistance could be put at risk if they make changes to that design. Mr.
Reedy said they have looked at other alternatives for an entrance to the facility,
including moving the entrance further to the west. He said any discussion concerning
an alternative location for the entrance would require extensive study and an
appropriate design that looks at both transportation and landfill issues.
Mr. Reedy clarified the projected life span of the landfill is based on the current service
area.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if growth patterns due to annexations would create
social pressure to close the landfill. Mr. Reedy said they have considered that issue
and had a design consultant look at the issue years ago. He said, however, they do not
anticipate any changes being necessary in the future, given the location of the landfill
and what currently surrounds it and what is expected to surround it in the future. He
stated the landfill has been in place since 1972 and has not been the subject of many
complaints from neighbors.
Councilmember Martinez stated there was consensus when the Council last discussed
the issue not to privatize the landfill operation.
Mr. Pasternack reviewed a slide of pros and cons with regard to the privatization issue.
He said privatization would allow the city to share the risk of operations and would
provide the city with access to experts in the field. He stated, while the private sector
may have better access to more tonnage, the city could also look at marketing the
facility to increase tonnage. From a negative perspective, Mr. Pasternack said the city
would lose some control of the site and costs and would continue to have
environmental risks. He said R.W. Beck recommends against privatization because the
landfill already operates very efficiently, generates excess revenue due to those
efficiencies, represents a valuable asset for the city, and is inexpensive for customers.
Mr. Pasternack discussed strategies to improve operations at the MRF. He said the
first is to expand partnerships for material collections, involving both the private and
public sectors. He stated the second strategy is to expand educational programs to
reduce expenses related to unacceptable material. He noted the city's unacceptable
materials have ranged in the area of about 25 percent, stating they would like to see
that number decrease to about 15 percent and believe an educational program is a
9
viable means of achieving that reduction. With regard to privatization, he said the MRF
would have access to wider market opportunities to sell recyclable materials, but the
city is already getting premium pricing for several commodities and is generally doing
better than the City of Phoenix. He stated the city is already using temporary labor
through the form of contract labor so it is already taking advantage of opportunities for
privatization. He said R.W. Beck recommends against privatization because the MRF
already operates in an efficient manner and privatization would not necessarily offer any
additional benefits.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the city imposes a fine for contaminated materials.
Mr. Kent responded no, explaining they give a resident a series of warnings after which
the recycling container is pulled. He said the resident is then given two refuse
collections, but their residential sanitation fee virtually doubles. Mr. Reedy stated
contamination is a widespread problem, although it is more frequent in some areas of
the community such as those with a high number of rental units. He agreed education
is the key to minimizing the problem. Councilmember Martinez asked how new
residents are educated about the city's recycling program. Mr. Reedy said Customer
Service provides new residents with an information packet. He stated they also include
information in the Connection Newsletter and distribute door hangers in some
communities.
Councilmember Frate suggested they distribute a sticker for the front of the containers
that clearly states what materials can and cannot be recycled. Mr. Reedy said they
have heard several good ideas for educating the public; stating, however, each comes
at a cost.
Councilmember Lieberman recommended putting a sticker in the water bill. Mr. Reedy
said they are looking at partnering with the water conservation group on an educational
mailer.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the city ever looked at putting out an additional
container for loose trash items to help eliminate some of the blight caused by trash lying
by the curb. Mr. Reedy said the goal is for residents to put items in their regular
containers if they are not recyclable.
Councilmember Clark agreed contamination is a big issue for the city, stating even she
is confused about what can and cannot be recycled. She suggested there is an
opportunity to partner with the private sector, such as beverage companies, wherein
they underwrite some of the advertising or production costs for an educational
campaign.
Vice Mayor Eggleston directed staff to proceed.
10
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SURPRISE: ZANJERO
PASS DEVELOPMENT
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager
This is a request for the City Council to direct staff regarding the negotiation of an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) expansion that allows the City of Surprise to
provide sewer service within a portion of Glendale's strip annexation area and Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) 208-sewer service area. If Council direction is to
move forward, there may be a need to discuss the terms of the agreement in executive
session.
The Glendale City Council adopted the regional sewer master plan that is maintained
by the MAG 208 Plan. That document indicates that the city will provide sewer service
to all properties inside the strip annexation area.
One of the goals of Glendale 2025, the city's General Plan, is to manage growth to
achieve reasonable and responsible urban development.
This item was brought forward at the request of David Maguire with Land Sblutions and
Jim Sweeney with Maricopa Water District to include the proposed 220-acre Zanjero
Pass subdivision into the Surprise IGA for sewer service as approved by Council on
February 24, 2004. The proposed development consists of 440 units from Olive
Avenue to Cheryl Drive, from Citrus Road to 175th Avenue.
This item has been returned for further discussion subsequent to approval by the City of
Surprise to provide the requested sewer service.
The Council approved the Surprise IGA to provide sewer service to Cortessa and White
Tank Foothills developments at the February 24, 2004 City Council meeting.
The recommendation was to review the information presented and provide staff
direction related to the Council's desire to allow this parcel in the strip annexation area
to be served by expanding the Surprise Intergovernmental Agreement. If Council
direction is that the area should be included in the Surprise IGA by amendment, an
executive session may be needed to discuss the potential terms of the agreement.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what Zanjero Pass previously asked of the city. Mr.
Reedy said they asked in March of this year to be added to the intergovernmental
agreement the city entered into with Surprise and have Surprise serve those two
sections of land for up to 25 years. He explained Surprise indicated at that time that
they did not have the capacity in their treatment facility and, therefore, could not provide
that service. He stated Surprise has since re-evaluated the issue and now believes
they are able to serve the area. He confirmed the agreement would be solely for water
service.
Councilmember Clark asked if the city has already entered into an IGA with Surprise to
serve the White Tanks and Cortessa areas. Mr. Reedy said the agreement is
proceeding through MAG and is on the November 30 agenda for approval.
11
Councilmember Martinez asked if Surprise's initial denial of the request was based
solely on their capacity and, if so, what has since changed that would allow them to be
able to now serve Zanjero. Mr. Reedy said Surprise initially indicated they did not have
the capacity to expand in that area and still provide service to their city. He stated they
have since discussed the issue in more detail with the Zanjero Pass developer and now
feel they have the capacity to serve the project. Councilmember Martinez asked if there
is a downside to including Zanjero Pass in the IGA. Mr. Reedy said Council should
consider whether it should allow development to occur in its strip annexation area by
accommodating Zanjero Pass. He explained the developer would like to develop the
area in a way that enhances the property value by allowing higher density. He stated
minimizing Surprise's ability to service the area would probably impact the timing and
density of the development.
Mayor Scruggs asked when the city would look at its desire for the area. Mr. Reedy
noted three council sessions are planned to discuss development between 115
Avenue and Litchfield Road and Litchfield Road and Perryville Road, as well as
services, annexation needs and Council's desires. Mr. Beasley reported the first
presentation is scheduled for December 7.
Mayor Scruggs asked about the agreement concerning Cortessa. Mr. Reedy explained
the IGA with Surprise regarding the White Tanks and Cortessa indicates that Surprise
will collect their impact fees and require the development to be constructed according to
Glendale's sewer design standards. He said if within 25 years they were to create a
regional solution in the area, the service would be turned back over to the City of
Glendale, including the impact fees. Mayor Scruggs asked if Zanjero Pass would have
the same type of agreement. Mr. Reedy suggested they talk about the terms of the
agreement in executive session. Mayor Scruggs asked if the developer has made such
an offer. Mr. Reedy said that the developer has indicated a desire for service and is
aware of the previous agreement with Surprise and the conditions stipulated in the
agreement.
Councilmember Clark pointed out all three areas are in close proximity to one another.
She expressed her opinion it would be discriminatory to make the agreement for
Zanjero different from the agreement with Cortessa and White Tanks. She stated the
city's discussion concerning its desire of the area should have occurred prior to the
Cortessa and White Tanks agreement, suggesting they halt discussions regarding any
other developments until those discussions have taken place.
Mayor Scruggs said she would support not going any further with Zanjero until the city
has its workshops.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the developer is under any kind of time constraints.
Mr. Reedy said the developer has been asking since February to be included in the
agreement. Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion it would be only fair to
proceed, given that it approved the agreement with Cortessa and White Tanks.
Mr. Reedy confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the density of Cortessa is about the
same as Zanjero.
Councilmember Goulet said, while he does not want to add to the developer's
frustration, he would rather wait until after staff's three presentations before proceeding.
Councilmember Martinez asked if this is the last request the city expects to receive for a
12
while. Mr. Reedy said many developers west of Luke Air Force Base are talking to the
city on a weekly basis. He stated, at this time, Surprise has not indicated whether or
not there are other developments they would consider, but at some point it will become
a matter of capacity.
Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion it would be best to move forward and craft
the same kind of agreement the city has already accepted with Cortessa and White
Tanks. She said it is also incumbent upon the Council to make it clear that no other
developments will be considered until the city has crafted its own policies.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he would rather wait until after staffs presentations.
Mr. Beasley stated the first presentation will be held on December 7 and the two
subsequent presentations will occur shortly thereafter. He pointed out the issue is very
complex and a decision will not be made after the first or even second presentation. He
reiterated the city receives numerous requests, not only from developers but from cities
as well.
Councilmember Martinez estimated the presentations to occur over a period of about
two months.
Mayor Scruggs said Glendale was prepared to move forward in February, but Surprise
said no. She stated Glendale is now ready to look at and determine the future of the
strip annexation area. She expressed her opinion the direction to wait until after the
Council has been further advised by staff is in the best interest of the city.
Councilmember Clark reiterated her position that it would be unfair, explaining Zanjero
Pass was previously given the impression that Glendale would entertain the project in
the future if they were able to work with Surprise to reach a solution. She said the
developer has worked with Surprise, but now Glendale is saying they want to look at all
of its annexation possibilities.
Councilmember Frate said he would prefer to wait until he has more information from
staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
13