HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/21/2006 *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
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
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, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City
Clerk
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT UPDATE — GLENDALE REGIONAL
PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Kristin Greene Skabo, Deputy Director,
Intergovernmental Programs, Mr. Rob Gunter, Homeland Security Director and Mr. Jim
Higgins, Assistant Fire Chief
This is a request for City Council discussion on a proposed intergovernmental
agreement with the cities of Avondale, Surprise, and Peoria and the Maricopa County
Community College District (MCCCD) to delineate the financial and operational
partnership with the city in the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center.
The intergovernmental agreement addresses the Council's goal of constructing the
Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center with established municipal and
educational partnerships.
In the 1999 general obligations bond package, the City of Glendale Fire and Police
Chiefs identified a need for a Regional Public Safety Training Center in the West
Valley. The Valley's current training accommodations are at critical limits. The growth
of the metropolitan area along with the projected attrition of personnel for the next
decade has created the need for a regional training Center that allowed partnerships
with other West Valley cities.
The Council approved $33,843,433 in the Fiscal Year 2005/06 and Fiscal Year 2006/07
budgets for the first phase of the construction of the Regional Public Safety Training
Facility and the Emergency Operations Center.
1
Partnerships with various West Valley cities and with the MCCCD will enhance the
function and value of the training and continuing education of police and fire personnel,
and ensure the number of trained public safety staff available is secured for the
protection of the community.
As indicated, the Council budgeted $33,843,433 for the first phase of the Regional
Public Safety Training Center and the Emergency Operations Center. Potential
partnerships with the cities of Avondale, Surprise, and Peoria for fire personnel training,
and with MCCCD for fire and police training allowed the scope of the training Center to
expand to accommodate partner capacity. The partners' pro rata share of the project is
based on the anticipated number of recruit and on-going training hours needed.
If approved, intergovernmental agreements with the three cities and MCCCD will
provide $11,795,514 toward the capital construction costs. In addition, the federal
government granted $150,000 toward the project, for a total of $11,945,514 in financial
partnerships. Subsequently, the Regional Public Safety Training Center budget for
Phase I will be $47,050,000, which includes $2 million for a market increase in
materials.
Partner Pro Rata Share of Project Phase I Contribution
Avondale 3.9% $1,750,759
Surprise 6.6% $2,962,823
Peoria 6.5% $2,917,932
MCCCD 8.2% $4,164,000
Federal Government $ 150,000
$11,945,514
The intergovernmental agreements also provide for the partners to participate in the
annual operations and maintenance budget commensurate with their pro rata share of
participation in the project. (Listed above)
Staff is seeking guidance to bring the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center
intergovernmental agreement to the regular business meeting for Council approval.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the figure represents the construction costs only. Ms.
Skabo responded yes, explaining the O&M budget has not yet been finalized.
Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Skabo to elaborate on what is meant by a three-tiered
governance structure. Ms. Skabo explained the first level is comprised of Training
Captains for both Police and Fire from each of the partner cities who will be charged
with setting forth the training schedule, policies and procedures, and operation and
maintenance budget. She said the Chiefs Board will have the ability to approve the
training schedule and policies and procedures and recommend approval of the
budgets. She stated the City Manager's will then discuss the final budgets.
Councilmember Goulet asked about the length of time for which each of the partners
would be committed. Ms. Skabo said the term of the IGA is 30 years. Councilmember
Goulet asked if a city would have the ability to opt out and, if so, what kind of notice
2
would be given to the other partner cities. Ms. Skabo said a provision in the IGA
anticipates voluntary termination prior to the thirty year term of the agreement,
explaining it states the shares that the partner has will first be offered to the remaining
partners and then transferred to another governmental entity approved of by the
partners. Councilmember Goulet asked if there will be an opportunity to add other
partners in the future. Ms. Skabo stated the IGA does not include a provision that
would allow another partner to come into the agreement once the agreements are
signed. She noted, however, there are provisions that would allow amendments to the
agreement if the partners agreed additional partners should be considered.
Councilmember Lieberman said when he adds up the potential income he comes up
$1,261 ,053 short. Ms. Skabo explained over the summer there was a dramatic
increase in the cost of construction materials and Council approved adding another $2
million to the Public Safety Training Center. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $2
million is included in the $33,843,000. Ms. Skabo responded no, explaining $504,000
of the $2 million represents the market increase that the partners have agreed to help
pay, making Glendale's portion $1,496,000. She stated the $150,000 that was in the
$11.9 million Glendale received from the Federal Government is being used to offset
the budget. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the $504,000 is included in the Phase
I contributions. Ms. Skabo answered yes.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Skabo clarified they need to
increase the figure by $1,496,000, not $2 million, because $504,000 of the $2 million is
already included.
Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Skabo if she will come back to Council during the
budget process to request an additional appropriation of $1.49 million. Ms. Skabo said
it was her understanding the increase in market materials was already approved.
Councilmember Clark said Council approved the $33 million, but staff is now saying
there is a $2 million increase for the cost of materials of which Glendale's share is $1.5
million. She asked if staff will return to Council with an additional appropriations request
of $1.5 million. Ms. Kavanaugh stated it will come through this year's CIP budget
process. Councilmember Clark asked if the Council will have to once again shift
priorities within the CIP. Mr. Beasley deferred the question to Ms. Schurhammer,
pointing out it was Council's unanimous decision to do what was necessary to move
forward on the project. Ms. Schurhammer said they will add the additional
appropriation to next year's budget, explaining it will not come out of the General
Obligation Fund component because there is not sufficient additional capacity. She
stated, therefore, they will not have to reprioritize projects.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out all of the city's projects will experience cost increases due to
the increased cost of construction materials. She said they will likely need to have
similar discussions throughout the budget hearings.
Councilmember Lieberman said, according to his figures, they need $1,261,053. Mayor
Scruggs agreed.
Councilmember Martinez noted the recreational aquatic center will be delayed 30 days
due to the shortage in steel.
Councilmember Clark pointed out, however, the Council realized the cost increase was
inevitable and agreed to incur the additional cost.
Mayor Scruggs said last year's CIP took into account the additional costs incurred from
3
the time they started talking about building the aquatic center to when construction
actually began. She stated they are now seeing increases due to other factors that
were not present when they did the CIP last year.
Councilmember Martinez agreed, pointing out since that time the country was hit by two
catastrophic hurricanes and China and India have consumed the majority of steel and
concrete resources.
Mayor Scruggs directed staff to bring the IGA to a regular Council meeting for
consideration.
2. UTILITIES NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Roger Bailey, P.E. Utilities Director and
Mr. Ken Reedy, P.E., Deputy City Manager
This is an update to the City Council on Glendale's Utilities Needs Assessment.
Timely expansion, replacement, and rehabilitation of the city's utilities infrastructure is
consistent with the Council goals of managing growth and coordinating exceptional
service delivery by assuring that the city will continue to provide uninterrupted water and
sewer service to its customers while remaining in compliance with regulatory standards.
Evaluations of the water and wastewater systems were completed in late 2003 in order
to provide staff a comprehensive, detailed report on the future needs of the city's
utilities. The evaluations included a series of recommendations for the design and
construction of new facilities and infrastructure and the rehabilitation of existing facilities
and infrastructure.
At the April 5, 2005 Council Workshop, Utilities Department staff presented an update
on the comprehensive infrastructure needs assessment of the Utilities Department.
The needs assessment focused on improvements that are necessary in order to meet
projected demand on the system due to growth within the city; the replacement of aging
infrastructure; and improvements necessary to remain in compliance with existing and
proposed federal regulations. As a part of the discussion, staff presented a summary of
the city's current and projected water supply and demand. In addition, a proposed
schedule of new water treatment facilities was outlined to demonstrate how the city
would utilize its water resources to meet future demand on the system.
The Council was provided a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the city's water
and wastewater treatment services and infrastructure needs on the following dates in
2003: October 7, November 4, December 2, and December 16. At the December 16,
2003 workshop, the Council directed staff to present a Utilities Needs Assessment
update on an annual basis.
The expansion, replacement, and rehabilitation of the utilities infrastructure will ensure
that Glendale maintains its long history of providing quality water and wastewater
services to its residents and businesses, while complying with all local, state and
federal regulations.
4
This is a status report on Glendale's Utilities Needs Assessment. No Council action is
requested.
Mr. Bailey stated the Utilities Department is able to meet its current and projected
demand by utilizing every aspect of the city's water resources, including SRP water,
CAP water, and the city's ground water credits. He noted, last year, the city was able to
meet its maximum daily demand of 63.8 million gallons by relying on the treatment
capacity at Cholla and Pyramid Peak and the city's existing well water supply.
Councilmember Clark asked why the CAP portion seems to diminish. Mr. Bailey
explained the city currently has excess capacity at the Pyramid Peak treatment plant;
however, the city's access to that excess water will decrease over time. He pointed out
$10 million gallons of that plant is owned by Peoria. Councilmember Clark asked why
Glendale's access to the capacity will decrease. Mr. Reedy explained Glendale has
essentially been renting water resources from other parties who have not fully utilized
their credits. He said, as they approach build-out, they will find that that excess water is
no longer available. Councilmember Clark asked how much excess water rental rights
the city is currently using. Mr. Reedy said about 3,000 to 4,000 acre feet per year. He
stated the city will eventually be restricted only to the water rights it owns.
Councilmember Clark commented it will become more and more imperative that the city
develop recharge facilities to bank credits. Mr. Reedy agreed, stating the groundwater
treatment plants will also allow the city to bring back into operation some wells it used to
use that no longer meet regulatory requirements.
Councilmember Lieberman noted the Indians have several hundred thousand acre feet
of available water resources. He asked staff if they anticipate eventually getting into a
bidding war for those Indian allocations. Mr. Reedy said he does not believe so,
expressing his opinion the city has planned very well for its water resources. He stated
there will be opportunities as they move forward to compare the cost of Indian water to
other resources, but, for now, they have established a fairly large number of credits and
are creating more credits by recharging ground water. Councilmember Lieberman
pointed out a meeting between the five states that take water out of the CAP is
scheduled for next month, stating they will be discussing allocation rights. He asked if
Arizona will lose any water allocation in the next three years. Mr. Reedy said it remains
to be seen, particularly since the upper basin states have had some fairly significant
snow packs. He stated the current drought situation did not have as much impact as it
could have because Arizona had an opportunity to fill it's reservoirs. He said the goal is
to balance all three water resources to provide the resources they need in every given
year. He stated they also plan for worst-case scenario droughts. Councilmember
Lieberman noted Lake Powell is down 66 feet at the dam, stating it could take many
years for a normal water level to be restored. Mr. Reedy said Lake Powell and Lake
Mead are both very large. He explained last year, as lakes filled up, the Colorado River
system continued to drop, stating they hope to see a reverse situation this year. He
commented Arizona will always have to monitor its water resources.
Councilmember Martinez said they need to do everything they can to conserve water,
5
asking if they should consider reinstating the Stage 1 Drought alert. Mr. Reedy said
they will monitor the situation, explaining their goal is to use a consistent application of
analysis to ensure the terms are used appropriately. He pointed out Arizona is in a
much better situation than it was one year ago, with considerably more storage in its
reservoirs. He stated, while there has been a lack of rainfall and snow pack this winter,
they do not believe it is an appropriate time to call for a drought. He said they also
need to be consistent throughout the region, to prevent one city from declaring a
drought when other cities do not. He stated water conservation should always be
emphasized, stating it has great benefits even during non-drought years.
Councilmember Martinez referenced a recent article in the Arizona Republic that
pointed out rural areas do not have to abide by the same rules and regulations as
municipalities. Mr. Reedy said Glendale is in a very good position from a water
resources standpoint, but that is not necessarily true of all other cities in the valley or
state. He stated the city has prepared for Glendale's General Plan needs and
upgraded Glendale's ability to meet those needs. He said the Active Management Area
in Central Arizona has required a 100 year assured water supply for 20 years and the
City of Glendale has acquired the resources to meet that requirement in its planned
development areas. He stated, however, other cities outside the Active Management
Area are not required to have a 100 year assured water supply and many cities have
had significant water shortages that were not entirely drought related. He expressed
his opinion growth in those communities needs to be looked at from a different
perspective and statewide requirements need to be put in place that require
communities to prove they can provide water on an ongoing basis. Councilmember
Martinez noted a community in northern Arizona actually had to truck in water. Mr.
Reedy agreed, stating both Showlow and Heber have had to take such measures in the
past.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out one out of every 8.3 people in America live in
California, giving them the largest group of representation in the House of
Representatives. He expressed concern that political pressure will result in the 1928
Colorado River Compact being altered in favor of California.
Councilmember Clark asked if the city recharges 4.9 million gallons daily. Mr. Reedy
said they actually recharge about 10 million gallons per day at the Western Area Water
Reclamation Facility. Councilmember Clark asked if they draw the exact same amount
of the wells on a daily basis. Mr. Reedy said they are banking credits.
Mr. Bailey continued his presentation, stating, while they are currently meeting demand
utilizing all three resources, they are concerned about meeting projected demand. He
stated it is very important that they build flexibility into the system from an operational
standpoint so they can make adjustments if something goes wrong during the year. He
reviewed the schedule of planned projects, noting they have taken into consideration
their projected demand, water quality concerns and existing and projected capacities of
the facilities. He stated the new surface water treatment plant should be operational in
2008 and the groundwater treatment plant will come online in 2010. He said, after that,
6
they will reassess their situation to see if it makes more sense to do centralized well
water treatment as opposed to well head treatment. He said the information they obtain
from the pilot study they are conducting for the ground water treatment facilities will help
them assess whether centralized treatment, well head treatment, or a combination of
both makes more sense.
Councilmember Clark asked if groundwater treatment plants 2 and 3 are dependent
upon the pilot study. Mr. Bailey said the need for groundwater treatment will remain,
but they need will consider the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the three options.
Mr. Reedy explained they are trying to retain a level of flexibility. Councilmember Clark
asked if the project schedule should be revised to say "Groundwater Treatment Plant 2
or Well Head Treatment". Mr. Reedy agreed, noting the timing may change since they
come dangerously close to the demand line in 2015. Mr. Bailey stated staff will look at
the plan on an annual basis and will come back to Council if modifications are
recommended in the future.
Mr. Bailey said the increases in cost of construction are due primarily to a 50 percent
increase in the cost of concrete and a 100 percent increase in the cost of steel. He
stated the project schedule has shifted slightly and staff feels the original schedule is
unrealistic. He stated the security master plan has been completed and the
recommendations set forth in the plan have been factored into the CIP. He stated,
while a few projects such as the ground water treatment plant 2 have been delayed a
year or two, the facilities essentially remain the same, at least for the time being. He
said they will reassess the projects on an annual basis to see if any changes are
necessary. Mr. Bailey reviewed cost increases, noting, for instance, the original
guaranteed maximum price for the Zone 1 Oasis Water Treatment Plan was $56 million
and the new cost is set at $79 million. He stated the first ground water treatment plant
in Zone 4 was estimated at $32 million, but the current estimated cost is $60.8 million.
He said they will have to readdress the issue to ensure the numbers continue to be
consistent with what is happening in the market. He said the numbers need to be
factored into the CIP and the rate program.
Councilmember Clark asked how many wells will be used for the demonstration project.
Mr. Bailey responded two. Councilmember Clark asked how many wells Glendale
currently uses. Mr. Reedy said about six are used regularly, but some of the them are
owned by SRP. Councilmember Clark said, when looking at water treatment plant
costs, well head treatment appears to be much better economically. Mr. Reedy said
one of the reasons for the demonstration project is to find out the operating cost
differences between well head treatment and a central facility. He pointed out the
demonstration facility will provide the city with more water immediately. Councilmember
Clark asked why the city is not considering well head treatment to be more viable when
it is prepared to use it right now. Mr. Reedy stated they are evaluating the issue to
ensure the right decision is made. He assured Councilmember Clark they have not
discounted the well head treatment solution, explaining the problem is that there is not
enough room at some of the city's well head sites for a treatment facility.
Councilmember Clark asked if it would be cost prohibitive to drill a second well at a
7
location near a well that has insufficient room for a facility. Mr. Reedy explained the
second well would have to be drilled within 600 feet of the existing well or they would
have to file a completely new application. He explained the best approach is to find a
well that produces the water they need and a well site that is big enough to
accommodate well head treatment. He expressed his opinion they will have the most
trouble siting the Zone 2 water treatment plant, explaining the cost of piping to
aggregate wells in the area may be cost prohibitive. Councilmember Clark asked if it is
possible that geography will limit their options. Mr. Reedy said they will have to look at
each well site in terms of its configuration, size and available room. He explained, if
they later decide they cannot proceed with the Zone 2 Groundwater Treatment Plant,
they may have to take another look at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant upgrades to se
if that facility should be expanded instead. Mr. Bailey noted the city does not own the
well head treatment facilities it currently utilizes, explaining they have two year leases
on the facilities. He stated the costs would be dramatically different if the city owned
the facilities. He pointed out the operating cost of the facilities, which staff believes total
about $400,000 per year, are not factored into the figure. He clarified staffs priority is
to ensure the effectiveness in removing nitrates, stating cost issues will be the second
driving force of their discussion.
Councilmember Clark asked if the two wells in the pilot program are low in nitrates. Mr.
Reedy said they will have well head treatment to remove the nitrates that are in excess
of the regulatory requirements. He noted one well measures 14 and the other 18,
stating the regulatory standard is 10.
3. COUNCIL SALARY REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney
This is a request for the City Council to receive public input in response to the findings
and recommendation of the Council Salary Review Commission ("Commission") and
provide direction to staff.
The City Charter provides that a salary commission may be convened to review Council
salaries and recommend any changes to the Council. The Council may reject, modify
or accept the Commission's recommendations and thereafter place any suggested
changes to the Council salaries on the ballot of the next city election.
The annual salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Glendale were last
reviewed in 1996, which resulted in a recommendation for an increase. This
recommendation was accepted by the Council and referred to the voters on May 19,
1998. The current annual salary of the Mayor is $35,000 and a councilmember is
$17,500.
On October 25, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 3899, New Series, that
convened a Commission; appointed members; and set forth instructions and charges.
The five (5) members of the Commission are:
8
Leonard Fulcher, Chairman
Albert Cordova, Commissioner
Robert Erdmann, Commissioner
Joy Gomez, Commissioner
Sally Reynolds, Commissioner
The Commission met five times. To assist in its deliberations, the Commission asked
staff to supply information and prepare a report containing job evaluation information
and salary comparison data.
At its last meeting on January 3, 2006, the Commission finalized its report and voted
unanimously to recommend to the Council that it place two questions on the ballot at
the next primary election in September of 2006 proposing the following: (1) set the
salary of Mayor to $65,000; and (2) set the salary of Councilmembers to $45,000.
Chairman Leonard Fulcher, Commissioners Gomez and Erdmann were present at the
Council Workshop on January 17, 2006 and presented the Commission's report and
recommendation.
On October 25, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 3899, New Series,
convening the Commission; appointing members; and setting forth instructions and
charges.
On January 17, 2006 the Council was presented with the Commission's report and
recommendation. The Council requested that this item be brought back to them at the
February 21, 2006 Workshop in order for the public to comment on the Commission's
recommendation.
There are no budget impacts or costs for this current fiscal year. Should the voters
approve a salary increase, that increase will be implemented when the newly-elected
members are sworn in and will be accommodated through the budgeting process.
Staff is seeking direction from Council about whether to bring the following items
forward to an evening meeting:
1. A resolution to place this item on the September 12, 2006 primary election
ballot.
2. Providing the language for two questions for the primary election ballot:
a. Request to raise the Mayor's salary to $65,000; and
b. Request to raise the Councilmember's salaries to $45,000.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there will be two separate propositions will be placed on the
ballot if the Council decides to move forward, one regarding the Mayor's salary and a
second regarding the Councilmembers' salary. Mr. Tindall said, according to state law,
the ballot cannot address two separate questions in one proposition. He said the safest
9
and most conservative approach would be to have the two issues separated into two
separate propositions.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the City Charter says the power of the city is
invested in the Council, which includes the Mayor and six duly elected officials. He
asked how they can be two separate issues when the Mayor is part of the Council. Mr.
Tindall explained the Mayor is paid in a separate manner than Councilmembers. He
stated the issue does not relate to the powers of each of the individual offices.
Mayor Scruggs said, in reviewing the salaries for Mayor and Councilmembers in other
cities, she noticed those cities that do not have a district form of representation pay
their Councilmembers at 50 percent of the Mayor's salary and those that do have a
district form of representation pay their Councilmembers at 67 to 70 percent of the
Mayor's salary. She expressed her opinion the difference is reflective of the increased
work that comes to Councilmembers when they have a district form of representation.
She noted the only exception was Goodyear who has an at-large form yet pays 70
percent of the Mayor's salary to Councilmembers. She recommended Glendale's
Council salary be set at a minimum of 70 percent of the Mayor's salary; noting, to date,
it has been at 50 percent.
Mayor Scruggs said her position remains unchanged; explaining, while she appreciates
the Salary Commission's hard work and their recognizing the tremendous amount of
work she and the Councilmembers do, she does not believe that recognition will
transfer out to the general public. She agreed there need to be increases in the salary
ranges because the positions are no longer part-time in nature. She said, however, it
would be difficult for the public to understand an 80 percent increase in the Mayor's
salary and a 200 percent increase in the Council's salary. She stated she took a very
modest three percent cost of living increase, over ten years, using her salary, which
came up to $47,037. She said extending it for two additional years would raise the
salary for the Mayor to $49,000. She stated 70 percent of her proposed figures for the
Mayor's salary would place the Councilmembers' salary at $32,000 or $34,000. She
said her proposed salaries track Tempe's who uses a cost of living basis; although
Tempe is not a district city and its Councilmembers are paid 50 percent that of the
Mayor's salary.
Councilmember Martinez thanked the Salary Review Commission for their hard work.
He stated, regardless of the outcome, they owe a debt of gratitude to the Commission
because they have brought to light the work of the Council and the hours that are put in
by the Mayor and Councilmembers. He stated there is a perception that the positions
are part-time in nature. He said at a previous workshop he suggested the salaries be
increased to $49,900 and $29,900 because he felt the Commission's recommended
increases were too large for the public to support. He noted the Arizona Republic
conducted a survey asking if the Mayor and Council should receive a 65 percent and 45
percent increase, explaining 44 percent responded yes and 66 percent responded no.
He stated the people who called the city to voice their opinion on the matter represent
those who know the Councilmembers and know what they do. He said he would
support the Mayor's suggested salaries.
Councilmember Lieberman also thanked the Commission, stating the vast majority of
those who responded to his survey felt their recommendation was justified. He agreed
a district form of government places much more responsibility on the Councilmembers.
He said, unfortunately, it is not a matter of what the Commission recommended or what
the Councilmembers believe they are worth, but what the public will find acceptable.
He said in doing his own calculations he arrived at $50,000 and $35,000 for the Mayor
10
and Council salaries, respectively. He pointed out it is not uncommon for his day to
begin before 8:00 a.m. and for him to attend meetings well into the evening hours. He
thanked staff for their support, stating it is also not uncommon for staff to be at those
late hour meetings. He reiterated he feels the Salary Commission's recommendations
are justified, but he does not believe the general public will agree. He said he can
support the Mayor's proposed salaries. He pointed out a number of city employees are
paid more than $100,000 per year. He quickly read through several of the responses
he received to the survey he conducted, all recognizing the hard work of the
Councilmembers and indicating their support of the Commission's recommendations.
He stated, while he received a few responses that did not support the recommended
increases, the vast majority did.
Councilmember Clark expressed her appreciation to the Commission. She said the
size of the salary does not matter, explaining everyone who serves on the Council is
committed to public service. She stated, however, she could not perform her public
service if she did not have the financial support of her husband. In response to those
who argue the Councilmembers knew what they were getting into when they ran, she
stated at some point the city needs to attract younger people to the Council. She said
people who serve as Mayor and Council need to make a livable wage. She noted she
also took a cost of living increase approach to the issue. She said the city needs to
create a mechanism that allows for salary reviews on a regular basis, expressing her
opinion it is a crime that they have gone nine years without looking at the issue. She
reiterated those who serve on the Council do so because they get the chance to help
people on a daily basis and to develop policy direction for the city.
In response to comments she received suggesting they vote in the salary increases, but
that they not take affect until new members are elected, Mayor Scruggs pointed out the
City's ordinance says that upon approval of a salary increase, it shall take affect
immediately. Mr. Tindall agreed, stating a Charter provision dictates when a salary
increase is to take affect.
Councilmember Goulet said the Commission's recommendation is greatly appreciated.
He stated in running his own calculations he came up with figures similar to those
proposed by Mayor Scruggs. He agreed a specific review period should be built into
the ordinance. He said in the last five years alone the Council has changed the city in
more dramatic ways than any other Council will have the chance to do. He stated those
who follow will have to have a certain level of skill to maintain the city's level of success.
He said that fact alone should justify a salary increase. He pointed out the number of
jobs in the city has increased over the past five years from 4,000 to 8,000, stating it is a
remarkable accomplishment and a huge testament to what the Council has done. He
said, however, it will be incumbent upon the people who serve on the Council in eight,
ten or twelve years to maintain the quality of life the present Council has brought to the
city. He said, while he believes the Commission's recommendations are justifiable and
supportable, he believes the Mayor's salary recommendations will be easily accepted
by the public.
Vice Mayor Eggleston thanked the Commission for the time they spent on the matter
and the citizens who responded to the Council's survey. He said he can support the
Mayor's recommendation. He agreed the salaries need to be sufficient enough so as to
attract younger people to the positions.
Councilmember Frate said what surprised him most when looking at the issue was how
long it has been since the Council received a raise. He stated the city is on the mind of
the Mayor and Councilmembers 24 hours a day. He said he calculated a raise of three
11
percent over the ten years, but he had not considered increasing the Councilmember's
pay ratio to 70 percent that of the Mayor. He agreed Councilmembers in a District
system put in more time. He pointed out, while he will benefit from the pay raise, those
who follow him will benefit the most. He said they need to pay the Mayor and
Councilmembers a living wage so they can do the job without having to hold a part-time
job on the side.
Mayor Scruggs recapped their discussion, stating there appears to be consensus for a
salary range of $47,000 to $50,000 for the Mayor and $32,000 to $35,000 for the
Councilmembers. She proposed a compromise of $48,000 for the Mayor and $34,000
for Councilmembers.
Councilmember Martinez said he prefers $47,000 and $32,000. He commented the city
had an excellent Salary Review Commission. He agreed something needs to change
to ensure the city does not go another 10 years before looking at the issue of pay
raises. He proposed the Salary Review Commission look at the Charter as it relates to
the process for setting salaries.
Councilmembers Clark, Goulet, and Frate agreed with the Mayor's compromise of
$48,000 and $34,000.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Tindall to read the section of the ordinance that relates to the
timing of the increase. Mr. Tindall said the City Charter requires that the salaries voted
on by the voters become effective immediately after the vote's final canvass by the
Council. Mayor Scruggs suggested the Council that established the wording of the
Charter recognized that to put part of the Council on one rate of pay and another part
on another rate of pay would create tension. Mr. Tindall pointed out salaries for public
officials are a constitutional matter and there have been constitutional cases that
prevent that from occurring.
Mayor Scruggs directed staff to move forward with placing the issue on the September
2006 ballot. Mr. Tindall said the next step will be to propose ballot language for Council
approval. He said the language will have two propositions calling for a salary of
$48,000 for the Mayor and $34,000 for the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
12