HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/27/2007 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
March 27, 2007
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
Yvonne J. Knaack, and H. Phillip Lieberman
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City
Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City
Clerk
1. FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 BUDGET: 1ST WORKSHOP
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms, Sherry Schurhammer, Management and
Budget Director and Mr. Art Lynch, Deputy City Manager. Police Chief Steven Conrad
and Fire Chief Mark Burdick also presented portions of this item.
This is a request for the City Council to review the two budget scenarios explained in
the City Manager's memo included in the workbook containing the City Manager's
recommended budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-08.
This is also a request to review the recommended FY 2007-08 supplemental requests
for the following departments, work groups, and areas:
o Police Department
o Fire Department
This item incorporates the Council's strategic goals and key objectives, while ensuring
the city's financial stability by presenting realistic analyses about the provision of city
services and future revenue expectations.
Both budget scenarios address the Council's strategic goals and key objectives with
public safety for our residents and visitors as the highest priority. Other Council
priorities that provide benefit to the community also have been addressed in both
scenarios.
1
Two budget scenarios are being presented for review and evaluation. Both budget
scenarios are financially balanced as required by Arizona state law and are fiscally
responsible. Both include a cushion above the required contingency amount to provide
the Council with flexibility to address unexpected issues that might arise during the
course of FY 2007-08.
For both budget scenarios, the starting point for the FY 2007-08 base budget is the
current fiscal year's base budget. One-time appropriations and credits for the
staggered hiring of new staff are removed. By removing these credits, the full cost of
the positions added as part of the FY 2006-07 budget is reflected in the FY 2007-08
base budget. The FY 2007-08 base budgets (and carryover requests) for the
departments are contained in the Appendix section of the council budget workbook.
The starting point for the FY 2007-08 transfer budget is the current fiscal year's transfer
budget. One-time appropriations are removed as with the base budget. Some items in
the transfer budget include known changes that must be accommodated. One such
item is related to debt service for municipal property corporation (MPC) bonds that is
covered by the General Fund (GF) operating budget. Based on the payment
arrangements agreed upon when the MPC bonds were sold, there may be increases or
decreases to the annual debt service payments for various projects. These changes
are built into the transfer budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
The total amount of additional GF ongoing capacity available for FY 2007-08
supplemental requests, after accounting for changes in the base and transfer budgets,
is approximately $12.5 million for both scenarios.
There are several priority supplemental requests that are important to fund on an
ongoing basis. For example, new capital amenities that attain the Council's strategic
goals will be opening later this spring/summer or sometime in the next fiscal year and,
therefore, the operating and maintenance costs of those new amenities must be
covered.
The GF ongoing priority supplemental requests to be covered first by the $12.5 million
in additional GF ongoing capacity are summarized below. These ongoing supplemental
requests are funded under both budget scenarios and are found in the "Priority Items"
tab of the budget workbook (pages 2-23).
2
PS Training Facility Operations* $1,213,892
Media Center/Convention Center/Parking Garage $1,326,840
Operations (page 3)
Downtown Beautification/Promotion (page 21) $328,739
Downtown Parking Garage (page 5) $156,400
Stadium Activities (after revenue offsets) (pages $1,952,673
185-205)
Fuel Increases (page 19) $370,000
Total Compensation (page 9) $3,947,355
Health Benefits Increase (page 13) $661,000
Retirement Increases (page 11) $236,231
Subtotal $10,193,130
The additional staffing and related items required for the operation of the PS Training
Facility were presented to the Council at the February 27, 2007, evening meeting. This
item is not presented as a supplemental request and is shown here only to illustrate
that these ongoing GF costs are included in the FY 2007-08 operating budget.
The one-time priority supplemental requests are also included in the "Priority Items" tab
(pages 24 — 51). These requests do not impact the $12.5 million in GF ongoing
capacity.
Scenario 1
The remaining $2.3 million in GF ongoing capacity is allocated as follows in Scenario 1:
o $1,476,000 is allocated for Police (plus $2,184,000 one-time funds.)
o $569,000 is allocated for Fire (plus $1,223,000 one-time funds.)
o $291,000 is allocated for other GF departments to address additional Council
goals (plus $53,000 one-time funds.)
This scenario allocates a total of approximately $2 million in GF ongoing capacity to
address the Council's goal of one community focused on public safety for citizens and
visitors. The funding would be used to:
o Add positions for Police and Fire.
o Address increasing costs occurring in base budget items such as prisoner
maintenance, vehicle repairs, supplies and equipment (forensics chemicals,
crime scene equipment, etc) and the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) contract
with the City of Phoenix.
3
This scenario also allocates a total of $899,000 additional Public Safety (PS) sales tax
ongoing capacity to address the Council's goal of one community focused on public
safety for citizens and visitors.
The total number of additional public safety positions funded under Scenario 1 is as
follows:
o 14 positions for Police (five paid from the GF and nine paid from the PS sales
tax fund), which is consistent with the annual average number of officers
added over the last few years
o Six positions for Fire (three paid from the GF and three paid from the PS sales
tax fund)
Under this scenario, the implementation timeframe for the Police and Fire needs
assessment reports is unknown. Fluctuations in economic conditions, as well as the
opening of additional capital projects such as the new court facility, will influence the
number of years it would take to implement the Police and Fire needs assessments. In
addition, the implementation timeframe would be impacted by other demands on
additional GF ongoing capacity such as cost increases for electricity, fuel, and rising
costs for health benefits and retirement contributions.
The remaining $291,000 in GF ongoing capacity is allocated as follows in Scenario 1 to
address additional Council goals:
o Add a new signature special event called Fiesta Glendale that speaks to the
Council's goal of a vibrant city center;
o Add one special events position to continue the high level of service expected
in implementing the city's signature events that, by drawing hundreds of
thousands of visitors to downtown Glendale, address the Council's goal of a
vibrant city center;
o Add two Code Compliance inspectors to address the Council's goal of strong
neighborhoods; and
o Continue with the neighborhood focus program on an ongoing basis to
address the Council's goal of strong neighborhoods.
This scenario also allocates a total of approximately $6.7 million in GF one-time
capacity to address the Council's goals.
4
o Approximately $3.4 million would be allocated for public safety to address one-
time costs associated with adding positions and to address some of the base
budget cost increases mentioned earlier, as well as overtime costs for
emergency medical services (EMS), fire station building repairs and
maintenance, and the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment for
police staff.
o Approximately $53,000 would be allocated for the one-time expenses
associated with the addition of one special events position and two code
compliance inspectors.
o Approximately $3.2 million would be allocated to address other Council goals.
These one-time priority supplemental requests are included in the "Priority
Items" tab (pages 24 — 51) of the Budget Workbook. Some examples are
provided below:
• $700,000 for the Neighborhood Improvement Grants program and
$32,000 for implementation of neighborhood revitalization strategies,
both of which address the Council's goal for strong neighborhoods;
• $1.3 million for contractual building inspectors that address the Council's
goal for high-quality city services; and
• $105,000 for the annual contract with the Greater Phoenix Economic
Council to address the Council's goal of quality economic development.
Scenario 2
A second scenario was developed to address the Council's stated desire to implement
the public safety needs assessments over a three to four-year period. The second
scenario relies on an adjustment to the existing public safety sales tax rate.
This scenario assumes all Police and Fire supplemental requests would be funded with
additional public safety sales tax funds raised as a result of adjusting the existing public
safety sales tax rate from 1/10th of one cent (0.1) to one-half of one cent (0.5), an
increase of 4/10ths of one cent.
A 4/10ths of one cent increase equates to an additional 4 cents on every $10.
In terms of revenue generated, the existing 0.1 rate is expected to generate about $5.6
million in FY 2007-08, whereas a 0.5 rate is expected to generate about $28.1 million.
The additional $22.5 million in revenue would be allocated solely to address public
safety supplemental requests.
5
Consequently, this scenario allocates more resources to substantially strengthening
public safety services and, therefore, accommodates implementation of the Police and
Fire needs assessments over a three-to-four-year period. A summary comparison of
the two scenarios is provided below.
o Under Scenario 1, a total of 20 new positions could be allocated to the Police
and Fire Departments.
o Under Scenario 2, a total of 67 new positions could be allocated to the Police
and Fire Departments.
The public safety supplemental requests funded are found in the "Police" and "Fire"
tabs of the budget workbook, pages 52-123 and 124-181 respectively.
As a result of funding Police and Fire supplemental requests with the public safety
sales tax funds, this scenario provides 22.5 new positions for other GF departments to
address critical needs in providing support services to the Police and Fire Departments
and other valuable city services.
The supplemental requests that could be funded for other GF departments are found in
the "General Fund" tab of the budget workbook, pages 357-426.
Glendale's public safety sales tax rate of 1/10th of one cent (0.1) was implemented in
1994 after a voter-initiated ballot proposition was approved. This rate has not changed
in 13 years.
The allocation of public safety sales tax funds was specified in the voter-initiated
proposition, with 2/3 allocated to Police and 1/3 allocated to Fire. The purpose of the
public safety sales tax was stated as:
o Reducing response times and protecting neighborhoods by implementing
community-based policing, combating gangs and violent crime, and providing
backup for officers in dangerous situations; and
o Improving fire protection and EMS by reducing response times.
Currently there are 33 police positions (23 officers, 6 detention officers, and 4 police
communications specialists) and 18 fire positions (14 firefighters and 4 fire engineers)
charged to the public safety sales tax funds.
Four other valley cities have a public safety sales tax. A comparison of those rates and
the revenue generated in FY 2005-06 is shown in the following table.
6
CITY RATE FY2005-06
Phoenix 2.10* effective 1993, 2005 $49.4M
Mesa .25 effective 2006 $13.3M
Scottsdale .10 effective 2004 $9.97M
Avondale .50 effective 2003 $6.4M
Glendale .10 effective 1994 $4.6M
* Phoenix has two taxes that are designated for public safety. One is a 0.1
component of the city's general sales tax rate and became effective in 1993.
The other is a 2.0 city sales tax on the utilities with franchise agreement and
became effective in 2005. It should be noted that Phoenix is considering an
increase to its public safety sales tax component, although it has not issued an
official confirmation.
The election results for implementation of a public safety sales tax in Glendale and
other valley cities are shown in the following table.
ELECTION RESULTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
SALES TAX
CITY DATE VOTE PERCENT NUMBER
Glendale 3/15/1994 YES 79.31% 4,400
NO 20.69% 1,148
Avondale's Proposition 9/9/2003 YES 77.34% 2,706
400 NO 22.66% 793
Mesa's Question 1 5/19/1998 YES 56.46% 14,918
NO 43.54% 11,502
Scottsdale's Question 3 5/18/2004 YES 62.80% 19,825
NO 37.20% 11,742
Phoenix's Proposition 301 10/5/1993 YES 74.524° 117,000
NO 25.48/0 40,000
As Glendale continues to expand its reputation as a sports and entertainment
destination market for Arizona and points beyond, the opportunity to attract more
visitors greatly increases. Increased tourism in Glendale will directly result in more
public safety sales tax dollars to the city. Increased tax revenue will directly contribute
to and supplement services provided to the community, including public safety funding.
7
Some of the marquee national events that Glendale will host include the annual Fiesta
Bowl events, the 2008 Super Bowl events, and the periodic Bowl Championship Series
events, all of which will draw visitors from across the country. Other features of the
sports, entertainment, and retail destination market include Westgate, Cabela's, and
the Arrowhead regional mall, all of which are already drawing visitors from outside the
Glendale community. These destination points also include significant office space that
brings employees from outside of Glendale who are likely to shift a portion of their
spending to areas near their respective employer.
The current general city sales tax rates of Glendale and other valley cities are shown in
the following table.
General City Sales Tax Rates
City Rate
Avondale 2.50%
Surprise 2.20%
Goodyear 2.00%
Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Tempe 1.80%
Mesa 1.75%
Scottsdale 1.65%
The Budget Workbook containing the City Manager's recommended budget for FY
2007-08 was delivered to the Mayor and Council on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.
Glendale's budget is an important financial, planning and public communication tool. It
gives residents and businesses a clear and concrete view of the city's direction for
public services, operations and capital facilities and equipment. It also provides the
community with a better understanding of the city's ongoing needs for stable revenue
sources to fund public services, ongoing operations and capital facilities and
equipment.
The budget provides the Council, residents and businesses with a means to evaluate
the city's financial stability.
All budget workshops are open to the public and are posted publicly per state
requirements.
Future budget workshops are scheduled as follows:
o April 3, 8:30 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
o April 10, 1:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
8
If additional time is needed for budget workshop discussion, a tentative budget
workshop is scheduled for April 17, 1:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
Today's workshop is for information only. Decisions on the proposed budget will not be
requested until the final balancing workshop, scheduled for April 3, 2007.
Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Management and Budget Director, said two budget
scenarios would be presented regarding the General Fund. She explained that both
scenarios are financially balanced, fiscally prudent, and consistent with sound financial
management practices. She also said the two scenarios address Council's strategic
goals and key objectives because Council's strategic goals were the foundation for
prioritizing the General Fund supplemental requests, with the highest priority given to
public safety. She said both scenarios also address additional Council goals that
benefit the community, as well as several new capital facilities that help attain Council's
strategic goals. She explained that no decisions were needed until the final budget
meeting in April.
Ms. Schurhammer said the starting point for both scenarios was the $12.5 million of
additional General Fund ongoing capacity available to fund supplemental requests. She
said the ongoing priority supplemental requests totaled $10.2 million, which meant $2.3
million was left to address other General Fund supplemental requests.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked about the health benefit and retirement increases which
didn't appear to be listed. Ms. Schurhammer said that topic will be covered in the total
compensation discussion scheduled for the April 10 budget workshop.
Ms. Schurhammer summarized the General Fund priority supplementals that total
$10.2 million. These supplementals included ongoing operating costs for new capital
amenities such as the public safety training facility, downtown parking garage and the
convention/media center/parking garage in the west area. The priority supplemental for
downtown beautification and promotion addresses Council's strategic goal related to a
vibrant city center. Other priority supplementals included ongoing costs related to city
services provided for ongoing stadium activities, fuel cost increases and total
compensation.
Mayor Scruggs had questions on pages three and four related to the supplemental
requests for the convention/media Center/parking garage. She conveyed concerns
regarding the ongoing requested amount of $853,300 for a management contract that
Council had not yet approved. She also added that she saw no revenue offset.
9
Mr. Art Lynch, Deputy City Manager, highlighted the background on the project. He
stated that one of the Council's goals was to bring a four star hotel destination
development to the city. He said one of the benefits of such a project would be the
revenues to fund city services, as well as citizens being able to enjoy the amenities that
a four star hotel would bring. He explained that the start up funding was significant for
this type of venture; however, it was similar to other facilities around the country. He
said the revenue and expense numbers were comparable to facilities in other parts of
the country.
Mr. Lynch discussed the impact the facility would bring to Glendale. He stated that they
had invested $150 million in assets. The hotel was a 12-story, 320-room luxury hotel
that will be in excess of $75 million. He noted that the city was not investing anything in
the building of the hotel but will receive revenues from tax receipts that would be
generated. He said the other facilities [convention center, media center, and parking
garage] were city owned. He said the negotiations, as of now, would require the
contract manager to pay 30% of the debt service for the facilities. He said the
management contracts will be presented to Council for review when the terms are
finalized. He said proposals from other management companies that run conference
centers, hotels, and other similar facilities have been obtained in order to compare
costs. He said the costs reflected in those proposals were far higher than Mr.
Hammond's proposed cost. He said the costs brought forth today were estimates
based on ongoing negotiations and could be adjusted to reflect any changes that might
occur.
Mayor Scruggs asked about the start up cost of $3.6 million. Mr. Lynch said there were
start-up fees and operating expenses for all of the publicly owned facilities. Mayor
Scruggs asked for further clarification on the start-up costs. Mr. Lynch stated that there
were monthly operating and maintenance costs. Mayor Scruggs asked if Mr.
Hammonds would incur any of the costs listed on page four. Mr. Lynch responded yes.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the projections of $2.3 million in revenues were the projections
of the total revenue that would be coming in for FY 2007-08. Mr. Lynch said the
revenues would be generated by rental of the conference center, other space rental,
food and beverage services, parking fees, and media center rentals, with the revenues
to be allocated based on the proposed percentages. Mayor Scruggs asked if Mr.
Hammonds would receive all of the hotel revenues while the city would receive lodging
and sales tax only. Mr. Lynch said she was correct. He said the sales tax revenues
would be generated from many different areas.
Mayor Scruggs said she needed clarification on who would receive the majority of the
revenue and how would it be allocated. She said the contract with Mr. Hammonds
states the city would be paying his firm $853,000 a year for hotel management. Mr.
Lynch said the proposal under discussion would split revenues so that 40% of food and
beverage receipts would go to the city while 60% would be allocated to pay
management contract fees. He said the anticipated revenue of $2.3 million would be
applied towards the $3.6 million in total cost. He added that the $853,000 management
10
contract figure included custodial, utilities, as well as other cost for operations.
Mayor Scruggs inquired if the $1.3 million in the supplemental request accounts for all
of the revenues and costs associated with running the facilities. She asked if this figure
had the potential to grow in the coming years. Mr. Lynch stated that traditionally the
numbers will shrink as a function of the facility opening and operating.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the contract prepared with Mr. Hammonds was structured to
have a lower expense in the beginning or will it be escalating each year. Mr. Lynch said
that it should stay consistent other than when salaries, wages and utilities are being
adjusted.
Councilmember Clark needed clarification regarding information on page three. She
said the supplemental states that $845,000 in ongoing funds were allocated in the FY
2006-07 budget to cover six months of operations. She asked if the $1.7 million figure
[in the first paragraph of the supplemental request on page three] was the estimated
contract with Mr. Hammonds. Mr. Lynch stated that the $845,000 referenced in the
written description of the supplemental represents the cost for operating those facilities
for 6 months of this year because it did not open until mid fiscal year. The $845,000
was approved as part of the FY 2006-07 budget. Councilmember Clark asked if the
supplemental request was in addition or part of the $2.17 million figure that Mr. Lynch
mentioned earlier. Mr. Lynch stated that it was part of the figure. Mr. Lynch clarified
that the information had been updated as an annual operating basis. He noted that the
$1.3 million requested in the supplemental for the FY 2007-08 budget was actually the
remaining net amount needed to operate the facility.
Mayor Scruggs asked if they would need an additional $853,000 because of it being
funded for only half a year. Mr. Lynch clarified that the operating revenues for FY 2007-
08 would be $2.3 million, with expenses being $3.6 million, for a difference of $1.3
million. He estimated that in 2009 the revenues would go up to $2.5 million with the
expenses being $3.9 million.
Councilmember Clark inquired if the $1.7 million on page three was included in the $3.6
million toward the Hammonds contract. Mr. Lynch stated that those costs were
included.
Mayor Scruggs was still uncertain on the figures being presented for FY 2008-09. She
said the cost of $1.7 million, which was given for all management contracts, seems a
very low estimate with it only going up $300,000 over the cost in FY 2007-08, which
was half a year's projection. Mr. Lynch stated that the $3.6 million was for a full
operating year. He noted that the confusion stems from the supplemental being written
two months ago whereas the information he is presenting today represents an update
based on the current contract negotiations.
11
Mr. Lynch said the facilities would open at the end of August or September. Mayor
Scruggs said she was skeptical that both would open in September. Mayor Scruggs
was still not satisfied with the management contract not showing $1.7 million for a full
year as stated on page three. Mr. Lynch said he will bring in the actual comparative
cost for them to review. He reiterated that the numbers in the supplemental request
represent earlier estimates that do not reflect current negotiations.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he too was confused with the numbers
presented today.
Ms. Schurhammer continued her presentation. She said they started with $12.5 million
in additional General Fund ongoing capacity. Once $10.2 million for priority
supplementals was subtracted from that amount, the remaining ongoing capacity in the
general fund was $2.3 million. Under scenario one, $2 million [of the $2.3 million] was
allocated to public safety to address base budget needs in both police and fire, with the
remaining $291,000 allocated to address additional Council goals.
Police Chief Steven Conrad stated that scenario one allows his department to address
critical base budget needs and add 14 new employees. He referenced several of the
department's supplemental requests. He said he believes scenario two addresses the
department's needs more completely.
Councilmember Goulet asked how needs were addressed under any scenario when the
assessment implementation time line was stated as being unknown in the city
manager's memo of the budget workbook. Chief Conrad said staff is not able to make
any kind of projection for implementation under scenario one because it relies on
growth in General Fund revenues that also must fund other needs in the city. Chief
Conrad said the number of additional positions would be based on the resources
available.
Mayor Scruggs asked how many people would have to be replaced due to attrition in
FY 2007-08. Chief Conrad said the department loses 24 sworn officers and 20 non-
sworn officers a year based on the average attrition rate of the past few years. Mayor
Scruggs said he would be able to hire 14 new police officers under scenario one;
however, in reality 38 would be hired to replace the 24 that would be lost. She said the
chiefs assessment noted that 310 people had applied but only 30 people were hired.
She asked Chief Conrad to explain how the department would recruit more people
given the attrition rate and the addition of new positions.
Chief Conrad said his department is always looking for new ways to recruit because of
the fierce competition between cities here in the valley. He said the hiring pool was
very limited so he was expanding the department's recruiting efforts to focus not only
regionally but nationally. He said his department would attempt to attract officers from
other cities as lateral transfers, which means they would be on the street more quickly
than someone who had to be fully trained as a new officer.
12
Chief Conrad also stated he is looking into signing bonuses. Mayor Scruggs
commented that he had spoken publicly against the policy. Chief Conrad noted that he
had because it might create problems related to the compression of pay levels,
however he would let the unions address those issues if they develop. He added that in
order to meet the hiring goals he needs to look at all alternatives for filling positions.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he was glad Chief Conrad was considering signing bonuses.
He said other cities in the valley have signing bonuses and Glendale should have them
in order to stay competitive. He asked Chief Conrad about recruiting nationally and
thought that Glendale was already doing so. Chief Conrad said the department is doing
so on a limited basis, but not to the extent he was proposing.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked about the use of salary savings in the General Fund to fund
some of the police department supplemental requests. Ms Schurhammer said good
budgeting and financial management practices call for matching ongoing revenue to
ongoing expenses. She said salary savings are one time in nature each year as the
vacancies that generate the savings would be filled eventually. Therefore, those
savings are not guaranteed the following year. She did not recommend tying a one
time savings to an ongoing expense. She said the police department uses most of its
salary savings to address cost overruns in other areas such as overtime and vehicle
maintenance.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked what would happen if there was a considerable surplus of
savings. Ms. Schurhammer the savings is returned to the General Fund fund balance
to fund one time items in the following year. Vice Mayor Martinez asked about savings
in the public safety sales tax funds. Ms. Schurhammer explained that savings in those
designated funds are returned to the fund balance of those designated funds. Vice
Mayor Martinez said he understands the dynamics but he would like to explore all
options before considering a tax increase.
Mayor Scruggs said it was suggested to approve the tax increase as a Council action
rather than in an election process because it would be tied in to public safety; however,
she was still unclear where the surplus would end up being designated.
Councilmember Lieberman said the police needs assessment called for 57 people for
this year alone. He said the police department needed a total of 99 sworn personnel
and 75 non-sworn personnel based on the assessment. He said the Council's job was
to help fund the process not to tell them how to recruit. He explained that police is
always playing catch up in recruiting. He added he still had not made up his mind on
which scenario he would approve. He said he respects and admires Chief Conrad for
his dedication. He said it was Council's job to help the City Manager get Chief Conrad
what he needed to accomplish what was necessary to control the crime rate in
Glendale.
13
Councilmember Knaack said she would like to get back on track with the information on
the scenarios. She asked if the police department would hire a recruiter to help fill
positions. Chief Conrad said staff would be in charge of recruitment. He noted it was
important to pursue recruitment efforts by presenting a positive image with a diverse
work force.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he does not doubt Chief Conrad's assessment process, but is
looking for ways to facilitate it becoming a reality. He said the Council had said publicly
many times that it considers public safety a top priority. He suggested possibly looking
at all programs to see where they might streamline programs instead of only looking to
add a sales tax.
Mayor Scruggs stated that she would like to stay on topic for scenario one before
beginning scenario two. She also agreed with Vice Mayor Martinez in working to find
the best way to fund public safety, which was everyone's top priority.
Ms. Schurhammer introduced Fire Chief Mark Burdick, who started his presentation by
thanking the Mayor and Council for their support in the accreditation process. He said
the department had passed and it would be good for the next five years. He said the
department's scenario one requests address the need for additional core, critical
services that the Fire Department provides. He said the needs were related to
additional personnel, cost increases for the CAD contract with Phoenix (computer aided
dispatch), over time costs for medic units and maintenance for fire station buildings and
vehicles.
Councilmember Clark asked if there was a line item for fuel increases. Ms.
Schurhammer said this issue was addressed in a priority supplemental. She also said
about $438,000 in ongoing funds and the same amount in one-time funds were built
into the current fiscal year's budget to address the fuel issue, and those funds have
been allocated to different departments as needed.
Councilmember Lieberman asked for clarification on the $225,000 request for building
maintenance. He said he recalled previously approving monies for this purpose. Chief
Burdick said Council had approved $30,000 in ongoing funds for building maintenance
in 2004. However, that amount is not adequate to do large scale repairs that are
needed.
Councilmember Lieberman asked how many buildings need major maintenance. Chief
Burdick stated that currently they operate nine fire stations. Councilmember Lieberman
asked if the smoke trailer was in the vehicle replacement fund. Chief Burdick said that
it was not.
14
Councilmember Goulet asked about the six additional fire positions that would be
funded under scenario one. Chief Burdick explained how the additional positions would
be used. He also stated his department loses about seven personnel each year due to
attrition. He said the department does not have the same recruitment problems as the
Police Department. He said the Fire Department typically sees 1,200 applications a
year.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he had gone over the assessment information in
detail and believes it is a well thought out plan.
Councilmember Frate congratulated Chief Burdick on the accreditation. He stated the
department does a wonderful job with the many calls it receives. He said he was
concerned with people getting burned out too quickly. He said the Fire Department has
an easier time than the Police Department in hiring and training personnel.
Ms Schurhammer continued her slide presentation on scenario one. She said the
remaining balance of funds available for supplementals, after addressing the priority
and public safety supplementals, was approximately $300,000. Those funds would be
used for additional supplemental requests that address Council goals. Those additional
requests include ongoing funding for a Fiesta Glendale event, an additional special
events FTE, two code compliance inspectors and the neighborhood focus program.
The remaining amount of ongoing General Fund capacity was $8,000. After addressing
one-time requests related to priority supplementals, and police and fire supplementals,
there were one-time monies remaining to address Council goals. Specifically, the
remaining one-time funding would be used for a half-time courtroom, a domestic
violence contractual employee, two operations and training officers for the Emergency
Operations Center, and one contractual code compliance prosecutor. The remaining
one-time surplus was $78,000.
Councilmember Goulet commented on some of the items that he believes could be put
on hold such as the Fiesta Glendale event and the additional special events FTE, so
more ongoing funds could be allocated to public safety. He said he would like to hold
off on approving any supplemental requests until Council evaluates everything. He
explained that he would like to see six code compliance inspectors hired.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he believes Council should take a closer look at all programs.
He said he would be disappointed if the Fiesta Glendale request was not funded. He
said the Council did not need to make a decision today.
Mayor Scruggs asked to discuss the vehicle replacement funds. She said the
replacement funds in FY2007 were funded with ongoing funds for 75% of the General
Fund contributions and one-time funds for 25% of the General Fund contributions. She
said the one time supplemental request equated to $505,606, and the ongoing expense
out of the General Fund was $1.5 million. She also discussed the Technology
Replacement Fund with the same 75% ongoing and 25% one-time split, which equates
to $1.2 million and $403, 626 respectfully. Ms. Schurhammer stated that she was
15
correct.
Mayor Scruggs asked about what appeared to be conflicting information relative to the
contribution funds. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the General Fund made no
contributions to the replacement funds for 19 months during an economic slowdown
that began in FY2003. The enterprise funds, however, did continue to make 100% of
the scheduled contributions for equipment used in enterprise fund operations. Since
FY2005, General Fund contributions to the replacement funds have been phased back
into place with the current fiscal year being the first time they were funded at the 100%
contribution level since FY2002. Ms. Schurhammer said the replacement funds
represent a sound business practice for operating, maintaining, and replacing critical
tools that employees need to carry out their duties. She also explained that technology
and vehicle needs in the police and fire departments comprise a significant portion of
both replacement funds. She said the range of equipment covered by the technology
replacement fund include legally required software licenses, maintenance contracts for
primary hardware and software systems, and virus and security maintenance contracts.
Mayor Scruggs said she would like the Council to consider replacing some of the
existing ongoing General Fund monies allocated to the replacement funds with one-
time General Fund monies. Then the ongoing monies could be reallocated to the police
department. There was some discussion among Councilmembers regarding this idea,
but no consensus was reached.
Ms. Schurhammer presented scenario two to the Council. She said Council asked how
the police and fire needs assessments could be implemented over a 3-4 year period.
Pursuant to Council's request, a second budget scenario has been presented. The
second scenario would allocate more resources to public safety to implement their
needs assessments over a three to four year period. For example, under scenario one,
20 positions for police and fire could be added. Under scenario two, 67 positions could
be added for police and fire.
Ms. Schurhammer explained that scenario two relied on an adjustment to the public
safety sales tax rate from 1/10th of one cent (0.01) to one-half of one cent (0.05), an
increase of 4/10ths of one cent. She said the 4/10ths of one cent increase equates to an
additional 4 cents on every $10 spent. Ms. Schurhammer also said Glendale's public
safety sales tax has not changed since it was implemented by voter initiative in 1994.
Chief Conrad said scenario one would address some of his department's critical needs,
but it does not fully address the needs identified in the police needs assessment
presented to Council at the January 30, 2007, workshop. He said scenario two would
allow implementation of his department's needs assessment in a 3-4 year period. He
noted that scenario two provides the funding needed to directly support the
department's mission of protecting the lives and the property of the people they serve.
16
Vice Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney, if Council could approve a
4/10th& of one cent increase or must the issue go to the voters. Mr. Tindall said Council
could increase the tax without going to the voters; however, Council could put the
measure on a ballot.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Lynch if there had been any discussion about
variations other than the 4/10th& of one cent increase. Mr. Lynch said the 4/10th& of one
cent increase is based on implementation of the police and fire needs assessments
over a 3-4 year period. He added that different scenarios and strategies were
discussed.
Chief Burdick said scenario two would allow implementation of year one of fire's needs
assessment in FY 2007-08. He explained that this would allow the department to
increase the level of service to Glendale's citizens and improve response time by
increasing staffing levels and providing the resources needed to provide excellent
customer service.
Councilmember Lieberman said it was always difficult to raise taxes; however, Council
had not raised taxes in sometime. He will give great consideration to both scenarios.
Ms. Schurhammer said all police and fire supplemental requests in the budget
workbook would move to the public safety sales tax funds under scenario two. By
doing so, approximately $2.3 million would become available in the General Fund to
address Council's goals as well as other organizational and community related needs.
She listed some of Council's goals that could be addressed in the General Fund under
scenario two.
Councilmember Clark said Glendale views itself as a first class city. She said the city
should have first class public safety services and should not always be trying to catch
up. She believes Council should approve the tax increase for public safety. She said
she believes the citizens would approve it.
Vice Mayor Martinez complimented staff on bring forth two scenarios. He said this had
been a good conversation. He said the ultimate goal for all was to have a top notch
public safety department with high quality services.
Councilmember Goulet agreed with Vice Mayor Martinez's comments. He stated he
would like to see further information on different scenarios, strategies and options
before committing to an increase.
Councilmember Frate said this was a very important budget meeting. He reiterated that
Council had made public safety a top priority. He noted that this was only the first
budget meeting, and he would hold off on any decision being made until further
information was given.
17
Mayor Scruggs asked what kind of costs would be covered by the additional revenue
proposed under scenario two. She also asked how long the increases would last
before it would be revisited. She noted that she would like to see a yearly analysis as
to what these funds would be used for and how long they would last. These and many
issues would be discussed at the next budget meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
18