HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/19/2008 MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
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. FY 2007-08 SECOND QUARTER GENERAL FUND STATUS REPORT ON
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager;
and Ms. Sherry M. Schurhammer, Management & Budget Director
This is a request for the City Council to review the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-08 second
quarter report on General Fund (GF) revenue and expenditures.
The FY 2007-08 GF second quarter report is consistent with the Council's goal of
ensuring the city's financial stability by conducting timely reviews of expenditures and
revenues.
In response to Council requests, staff committed to providing quarterly reports on the
GF beginning with FY 2003-04.
Second Quarter General Fund
The bottom line for the GF through the second quarter of FY 2007-08 is as follows:
o GF revenue is about $2 million or 2% below budget; and
o GF expenditures are $6.3, million or 7% million below budget.
The GF's second quarter revenue budget and actuals, as well as a comparison with the
second quarter of last FY, are as follows (in 000s):
1
FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 % Over =,.v FY 2006-07 % Change
Annual 2nd 2°a (Under) �' 2"d Quarter FY 2006-07
Budget Quarter Quarter Budget Actuals to
.. r7
Budget Actuals ? FY 2007-08
City Sales $67,552 $33,776 $31,133 (8%) $32,776 (5%)
Tax
State $34,141 $17,070 $17,055 $13,762 +24%
Income Tax
State Sales $24,583 = $12,292 $11,041 (10%) $11,074
Tax
State MV $10,862 °i $5,431 $4,948 (9%) $4,998 (1%)
In-Lieu
HURF $16,986 $8,493 $8,198 (3.5%) $8,257 (1%)
Primary $3,888 $1,944 $2,094 +7.5% _ $2,001 +4.5%
Prop Tax
All $30,318 .'_ $15,159 $17,728 +17% $15,586 +13.5 %
Other
4larICE7Ma, $188,330 $94,165 $92,197 (2%) $88,454 +4%
The FY 2007-08 GF revenue budget of $188.3 million is $11.2 million (6.3%) more than
FY 2006-07 total GF revenue collections of$177.1 million.
GF revenue receipts through the second quarter of FY 2007-08 are $ 3.7 million (4%)
more than the same period last FY.
GF revenue receipts through the second quarter of FY 2007-08 are about $2 million
(2%) less than budgeted.
The last three years of collections show us that receipts for the first half of the FY
represent approximately 49% - 50% of a fiscal year's total GF revenue collections. The
$92.2 million collected through the second quarter of this FY represents 49% of the FY's
total GF revenue budget. The $88.5 million collected through the second quarter of last
FY represented 50% of the total GF revenues collected in FY 2006-07, $177.1 million.
City sales tax collections are $31.1 million. This amount is approximately $2.6 million
(8%) less than budget. City sales tax receipts through the second quarter of last FY
were $32.8 million.
2
The strongest months for city sales tax collection, based on a 3-year average expressed
in percentages, are December, March, April, May, and June.
State-shared revenue collections are $33 million. This amount is approximately $1.7
million (5%) less than budgeted but $3.2 million (11%) ahead of the $29.8 million
collected through the second quarter of last FY. The increase over the same time
period last FY is attributable to increased income tax receipts, which were expected and
planned for in this FY's GF revenue budget. The three components of state-shared
revenue are shown below:
o State income tax receipts came in as expected through the second quarter
of FY 2007-08;
o State sales tax receipts are $1.2 million (10%) less than expected; and
o Motor vehicle in-lieu receipts are $484,000 (9%) less than expected.
Approximately 20% of the total revenues collected for the licensing of
vehicles are distributed to incorporated cities and towns. The amount
distributed is based on an incorporated city's population in relation to the
total incorporated population of the county.
HURF revenues are commonly called the gas tax even though there are several other
transportation-related fees that comprise this revenue source. Much of this revenue
source is based on the volume of fuel sold rather than the price of fuel. HURF receipts
are $295,000 (3.5%) less than budget.
The All Other category is doing very well primarily because of increased revenue
receipts for community development fees such as building permits and plan check fees,
strong interest earnings, and better than expected gas and electric franchise fees.
Compared to budget, this category is $2.6 million (17%) ahead.
The FY 2007-08 second quarter budget expenditures and actuals for the GF operating
and pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) capital expenditures are as follows (in 000s):
FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 FY 2007-08 Amount
Annual 2nd Quarter 2"d Quarter Under/(Over)
Budget Budget Actuals Budget
GF $118,227 $59,113 $56,798 $2,315
Salaries/Benefits
GF Non-Personnel $55,350 $27,675 $26,934 $741
GF Debt Service $2,841 $1,420 $1,420 $0
(leases)
PAYGO Capital $7,713 $3,857 $606 $3,251
3
TOTAL $184,131 $92,065 $85,758 $6,307
Overall, first quarter actuals were $6.3 million or 7% less than the amount budgeted.
The FY 2007-08 first quarter report on the GF was presented to Council on December
18, 2007.
This is a status report on the General Fund covering the second quarter of FY 2007-08.
No Council guidance is requested on this report.
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, said the second quarter report for FY 2007-08 shows
the General Fund is $6.3M or 7% below budget on the expenditure side and $2 million
or 2% below budget on the revenue side. He said other cities are experiencing
economic difficulties, but Glendale has fared better because of City Council's direction
to emphasis commercial development rather than residential development. This
strategic direction means the city is in a more stable position than some other valley
cities during the current economic downturn.
Mr. Skeete said the second quarter report covers July through December 2007, or 50%
of the fiscal year. He said history shows we usually collect about 50% of the GF
revenue expected for the FY by the end of the second quarter. He reiterated the
expenditure and revenue numbers presented by Mr. Beasley. He said the city had
planned for overall growth of 6% in GF revenues but is experiencing a more modest 4%
growth rate. He said staff was monitoring the budget on a monthly basis and was
prepared to make adjustments if necessary.
Ms. Schurhammer presented the slides on GF revenues noting that the city is $3.7M or
4% ahead of collections through the second quarter of last FY, with the growth primarily
attributable to state income tax revenue and development related fees. For other major
revenue sources like state sales tax, motor vehicle in-lieu revenue and HURF monies,
collections show the city is holding steady with last FY's collections.
When compared to this FY's revenue budget, collections are about $2M or 2% less than
budgeted, with the second quarter budget figure representing 50% of the annual budget
amount. History shows the city normally collects about 50% of a FY's GF revenue in
the first six months.
Councilmember Lieberman said other cities are reporting reduced state shared revenue
returns. Ms. Schurhammer said Glendale anticipated an increase in state shared
revenue because of increased income tax receipts, the distribution of which lags two
years. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Glendale had an indication of Glendale's
state shared revenues for next year. Ms. Schurhammer said information was available
about income tax receipts but not other state-shared revenue sources.
4
Councilmember Lieberman questioned Ms. Schurhammer regarding the time frame of
the figures presented. Ms. Schurhammer said the figures addressed July through
December 2007 not just the second quarter.
Mayor Scruggs said the labeling of the report suggested the figures were only for the
second quarter. She asked for this labeling to be fixed for the next report so that it is
clear the numbers represent year-to-date amounts through the quarters under
discussion.
Mayor Scruggs said history shows that the highest city sales tax revenue months are
December, March, April, May and June. Mr. Skeete confirmed that was the historical
pattern. Mayor Scruggs said the city's sales tax for this fiscal year hadn't peaked yet.
Councilmember Clark said she was most interested in seeing the second quarter
figures separately from the first quarter figures. Mr. Skeete responded that staff did not
have these figures immediately available but could provide them to everyone after the
meeting. He commented quarterly reports traditionally have been reported in a
cumulative format. Councilmember Clark noted that December would provide an
indication of revenue patterns.
Mayor Scruggs requested staff submit quarterly and year-to-date figures to Council in
the future
Councilmember Lieberman noted that the third quarter would have the Super Bowl
figures and a comparison could be done between this year and last year.
Councilmember Clark asked about the 5% decrease in city sales tax when compared to
last FY. Councilmember Clark asked if we expect to see a decrease in city sales tax in
the next quarter. Mr. Skeete noted there are fluctuations in sales tax, particularly in this
economy, but staff was monitoring the expenditures and revenues monthly and will
make adjustments if necessary in the FY2007-08 budget and FY 2008-09 budget
projections.
Mayor Scruggs stated that Glendale's sales tax was doing better than some other cities
because of the new commercial development at Westgate Zanjero, and the surrounding
area. She said she believes the businesses in that area have exceeded their revenue
projections. Also, she noted the "All Other" revenue category was 17% ahead of
budget, primarily because of better than expected revenue due to development related
activities like commercial construction. Ms. Schurhammer said the "All Other" revenue
category is expected to come in at the present pace through the rest of the FY. Mr.
Skeete commented on City Council's efforts to diversify the city's economy and its
benefit to the city.
5
Mayor Scruggs noted that the state sales tax and motor vehicle in-lieu tax revenues are
coming in 10% and 9% less than expected. Ms. Schurhammer said state shared
revenues were about one-third of the city's GF revenue budget, with state income tax
being the largest component. She said many other cities depend on state shared
revenues to an even greater degree.
Mr. Skeete said it was important to restate a few key points. He explained that when
the city sales tax was compared to last year's numbers, it was where the city benefited
from the decisions made about future development in Glendale. Councilmember
Lieberman said commercial development in Glendale is helping the city fare better than
other valley cities during the current economic fluctuations.
Councilmember Lieberman commented that state shared sales tax collections in the
current FY are 10% less than expected, but when compared to last FY's collections the
current FY receipts are almost the same. Mr. Skeete said he was correct. He said that
it was 10% under what staff had projected to receive from the state. However, even
with 10% less than was anticipated, it was still almost identical to last year's numbers.
Mayor Scruggs said she wanted to clarify the discussion. She said the current FY's
budgeted expenditures are based on the budgeted revenue for the FY, not last FY's
revenue collections. She asked for further explanation on how the revenue budget
amounts for state shared revenues are established. Ms. Sherry Schurhammer said the
Department of Revenue provides each city with an estimate of the state income tax and
state sales tax revenue expected in the upcoming FY. That information is received in
late June. The information provided in June 2007 was consistent with the revenue
projections included in the current FY's revenue budget for those sources.
Mayor Scruggs asked how the revenue projection was derived given that the state does
not provide estimates to the cities until June. Ms. Schurhammer said the revenue
projection is based on past history; forecasted personal income growth and population
growth and the estimated impact of inflation on consumer spending for necessities; etc.
All of these factors are taken into consideration when establishing a revenue projection
for the upcoming FY. In addition, the forecasts by experts on the Arizona economy are
evaluated and incorporated into the revenue projection. She said the state sales tax
and motor vehicle and in-lieu tax receipts are distributed based on the population of
Glendale. She added that as Mr. Skeete had mentioned, the state collects the state
taxes as a whole and then distributes the revenue based on population. She reiterated
that the city's revenue projection for these two revenue sources was consistent with the
estimates the state provided in June 2007.
Mayor Scruggs commented that the city missed the state sales tax budgeted amount
by only $1.2 million dollars through the second quarter. She said the key topic of
conversation in the country is how bad the economy is performing. She noted articles
that had been written about the revenue situation in other cities such as Goodyear being
$12M dollars in deficit and Phoenix being $67M dollars in deficit. She said the
tremendous growth in Glendale has kept Glendale from being in the same situation.
6
She suggested staff prepare a separate comparison for the same quarter last year, to
be reported on a different page so that the focus would be on where the city is in
comparison to the goal that was set for the current FY.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he was pleased to see the figures and how they compared to
other cities. He said he believes the city was very fortunate to be in its current situation.
He added that the city had yet to collect city sales tax for April, May and June, which
were historically the best months for city sales tax collections.
Councilmember Clark stated said she agreed with everything that had been said. She
said they were in a strong position and the hit that was taken in revenue loss was
minimal compared to other cities. However, they could not ignore the fact that the city
did take a hit. She said that in planning for next year's budget, it was critical they
understand they could possibly take another hit.
Mr. Ed Beasley said he did not want to minimize the situation, and that staff will be
planning accordingly for next FY's budget. He said the city will continue to plan and
focus on commercial business per Council's direction instead of only housing. He said
the city was in a good position with revenue collecting being only $2M or 2% less than
budgeted through the second quarter.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Mr. Beasley and stated that she was extremely
pleased with the results; however, she still wanted to prepare for the future.
Mayor Scruggs asked for an update on expenditures. Mr. Skeete said the city was
$6.3 million below budget on the expenditure side. He said the expenditure side will be
closely monitored through the rest of the FY. He said he would communicate to the
rest of the department heads that they had to be more aware of their expenditures.
Mayor Scruggs said she had some additional questions about expenditures. She said
her question was about the savings for salaries and benefits totaling $2.3 million. She
asked if a large portion of the $2.3 million was related to positions held during the
summer programs or unfilled positions. Ms. Schurhammer stated the salary savings
resulted from unfilled positions across all GF departments.
Mr. Skeete stated that last year, Council had asked for an update on projected
expenses as staff became aware of them. He said the city is expecting a $1 M increase
for utility bills like electric, natural gas, and water services as a result of rate increases
and increased usage. This amount will be incorporated into next year's budget.
He said staff was currently working on a reevaluation of the city's benefits package, with
bids from several vendors being reviewed. He said Council will be provided a report on
those issues as soon as they are completed.
7
Mayor Scruggs asked if Council could be provided a running total of expenditures. Ms.
Schurhammer summarized the amounts discussed at the first quarter report in
December. There was the step plan increase for public safety employees totaling $2.5
million which included both the general fund and public safety sales tax. The general
fund portion is $1.8 million. She said the first quarter report also included an estimate of
operating and maintenance expenses for new capital projects coming on line next FY.
In December, that amount was reported as $730,000. She said that amount had been
reduced to $336,000. She also discussed general fund items that were approved at the
October workshop as well as the fuel issue. She noted that regarding the fuel issue, it
had been determined that sufficient funds exist as the fuel budget has been increased
almost $1 M over the last few FYs. .
Mayor Scruggs asked about salaries for other general fund personnel not in public
safety. Mr. Skeete stated those numbers would be presented as part of the budget
workshops in March and April 2008.
Mayor Scruggs said she envisioned a chart that would add each additional quarter on to
it. She said the information she has gathered today was that they needed just under
$3.5 million to satisfy the increase in expenditures.
Ms. Pam Kavanaugh said the budget workshops would begin on March 25, 2008. She
said an evaluation of next FY's budget needs was underway with the goal of
recommending a budget that is consistent with the direction given by Council. She
added that staff was working to provide the information to Council 10 days prior to the
meetings to provide sufficient time to review the material.
Councilmember Lieberman commented on a chart from November 1st to the end of
December 315t on public safety. He said there was a comparison on the quarter budget
public sales tax coming in at 10% less than was anticipated. Mr. Skeete stated he was
correct.
Mayor Scruggs asked for any further comments. There were none.
2. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL HUD GRANTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008-09
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Erik Strunk, Community Partnerships
Director; Mr. Gilbert Lopez, Revitalization Administrator; and Ms. Barbara Garland,
Community Development Advisory Commission Chairperson
This is a request for the City Council to review the Community Development Advisory
Committee's (CDAC) funding recommendations for Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream
Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program funds
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition to
staff, Ms. Barbara Garland, CDAC Chairperson, will present the recommendations to
the Mayor and Council.
8
The CDAC recommendations reflect the priorities of the 2005-2009 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan, which was reviewed and adopted by Council in 2005. These
priorities consist of: housing rehabilitation programs; programs that benefit seniors and
youth; programs that prevent homelessness; programs addressing social needs;
programs related to quality of life issues; clearance and demolition of blighting
conditions; programs or projects that help revitalization efforts throughout Glendale, with
an emphasis in the redevelopment area.
The CDAC conducted an extensive review process for the use of FY 2008-09 CDBG,
HOME, ADDI, and ESG Program funds. This process included the review of 43
applications, formal presentations by each of the applicants, and the CDAC's funding
recommendations.
This year, the city has been allocated $2,201,030 in CDBG funds; $658,808 in
HOME/ADDI funds and $97,881 in ESG funds. Although separate programs,
collectively, these funds will be used for activities that benefit low/moderate income
persons; aide in the elimination of slum and blight; improve the supply of decent, safe,
sanitary and affordable housing; and provide assistance to families in danger of eviction
or foreclosure by funding existing, successful programs that prevent homelessness.
The City Council previously reviewed and approved the process by which the CDAC
determines the city's community needs and prioritizes its recommendations. This
resulted in the official adoption of Glendale's Five-Year Consolidated Plan for Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2009.
Since 1977, Glendale has been allocated approximately $56 million in CDBG,
HOME/ADDI and ESG funds to assist thousands of homeowners and individuals.
As a result of this funding, residents in Glendale have benefited from programs such as
the Emergency Home Repair Program; new single family "infill" housing construction by
Habitat for Humanity and Chicanos Por La Causa; emergency food boxes from the St.
Mary/Westside Food Bank; the roof repair program; homeless prevention services
provided by Central Arizona Shelter Services, St. Vincent del Paul, and Glendale
Human Services, Quality of Life; assistance for senior citizens by the Arizona Bridge for
Independent Living; programs and services for youth and the disabled populations;
numerous "bricks and mortar projects that have helped to revitalize older
neighborhoods and the City Center; and the removal of blighted and underperforming
properties in our redevelopment area.
The FY 2008-09 funding recommendations were developed after extensive public
notification (August — September 2007), an orientation session for interested applicants
(September 2007), and five CDAC public hearings and public meetings conducted
January of 2008.
The CDBG, HOME, ADDI, and ESG programs are federally funded. The CDBG
program does not have a match requirement. The HOME program does require a 25%
match from non-federal funds and the ESG program requires a 100% match.
An annual match allocation of $25,000 is provided in the General Fund budget as a
supplement towards the required 25% match requirement for HOME projects
administered by the city. The total match needed for the city's projects could exceed
$152,716, depending on the projects. Even so, no additional general funds are
necessary as the additional match needed will be provided by match carryover and
9
other eligible in-kind resources such as donated materials or volunteer hours. Outside
agencies that apply for HOME funds are required to provide a portion of their own
matching funds.
The ESG funding will be allocated to outside agencies. Agencies that receive these
funds are required to provide a 100% in matching funds.
Grants Capital Expense One-Time Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
CDBG X $2,201,030
HOME X $651,591
ADDI X $7,217
ESG X $97,881
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number
Community Development Block Grant Fund 1320
HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fund 1300
American Dream Downpayment Initiative Fund 1300
Emergency Shelter Grants Program Fund 1830
General Fund Fund 1000
The recommendation was to review the funding recommendations from the Community
Development Advisory Committee and provide guidance.
Mr. Erik Strunk presented a summary on this item. He introduced Mr. Gilbert Lopez and
Ms. Barbara Garland to further explain this program.
Councilmember Clark inquired as to what ADDI stood for. Mr. Strunk stated that it
stood for the American Dream Downpayment Initiative which was funds received from
the federal government approximately four years ago to assist individuals with
becoming first time home buyers.
Councilmember Clark asked how much money was received from the government. Mr.
Lopez stated that they were receiving $7,217 which was based on the home program
allocation and believes that in time it would be fazed out because of other available
home programs.
Mr. Lopez reviewed past projects which the Council had previously approved. He cited
the Saint Mary's Food Bank, Emergency Shelter grants and the Air Condition Repair
summer project which helped 200 people.
Ms. Garland stated that the recommendation process had started last summer. The
staff had a workshop for applicants and reviewed the applications for technical issues.
The applications were then passed on to the committee to be evaluated. Three public
hearings were held this year, as well as two additional meetings to formulate the
recommended findings. She said the committee followed the recommendations and
priorities set by Council. In addition, the committee also considered other issues such
as duplication, availability and partnerships of services. She said it was important to
10
note that the committee members were comprised of people with many different
backgrounds and experiences, however came together to easily form a consensus on
the recommendations. She publicly thanked the committee members.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented on the Community Development Block Grant receiving
$2, 201,003, which was available and had only received 34 applications. He asked if
any more funds were being allocated. Mr. Lopez stated all the funding had to be
allocated in order to move forward. Vice Mayor Martinez asked a question on the
homeless program, which had been funded for several years. He said they had
requested $25,000, however, were denied. Ms. Garland stated they had received
funding instead under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program. She commented on the
discussions that centered on duplication of services.
Councilmember Clark asked what UMOM stood for and cited that they had applied in
two separate categories, receiving nothing. She inquired if it was because of the same
issue of duplication of services. She asked for further clarification on how grants were
decided. Ms. Garland stated that UMOM stood for United Methodist Outreach
Ministries. She added they had been denied because their service area was in East
Phoenix.
Councilmember Clark thanked the staff and the committee for their outstanding job on
this issue. She also inquired on the Green Architecture project and its status. Ms.
Garland stated it had been discussed at the public hearing. She said at present, it was
only a program in planning and after finalized plans were made, they would go back and
evaluate the project for funding.
Councilmember Lieberman also thanked them for all their hard work on the many
worthwhile charities.
Mayor Scruggs thanked them for their presentation.
3. 2008 STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND 2008 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE
AGENDA DEVELOPMENT
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Greg Montes, Deputy Director of
Intergovernmental Programs, Mr. Ryan Peters, Intergovernmental Program Coordinator.
This is a request for the City Council to provide guidance on proposed state legislation,
consistent with the approved 2008 state legislative agenda; and to also provide
guidance on the 2008 federal legislative agenda development that will form the
foundation of the 2008 federal legislative agenda.
The purpose of the federal and state legislative agendas is to affect federal and state
legislation and regulations as they relate to the interests of the city and its residents.
The 2008 state and federal legislative agendas provide the policy framework by which
Intergovernmental Programs staff engages on state and federal legislative issues.
11
Throughout the 2008 legislative sessions, policy direction will be sought on proposed
statutory changes which fall under the adopted Council policy statements relating to the
financial stability of the city, public safety issues, promoting economic development,
managing growth and preserving neighborhoods.
The Intergovernmental Programs staff recommends prioritizing the state legislative
agenda to a few key issues to allow the city to have a stronger, more consistent
message on the items of greatest priority. The proposed key priority issues for
consideration are described in the reports provided in the Council packet.
The legislative agenda defines the city's priorities for the upcoming session and will
guide the city's lobbying activities at the Arizona State Legislature. The
Intergovernmental Programs staff will update Council on a regular basis throughout the
session for guidance on bills and amendments that may be introduced. The city's
legislative agenda is a flexible document and may change, based on activities at the
Legislature and Council direction.
The Intergovernmental Programs Department has conducted a city-wide assessment of
potential federal funding opportunities to be included in the 2008 Federal Legislative
Agenda. Based on this assessment, staff recommends pursuing federal funding
opportunities, including grant opportunities, line-item appropriations, earmarks and
regulation revisions in the areas of: transportation, public safety, homeland security,
historic preservation, libraries, youth workforce development and economic
development initiative projects.
The Intergovernmental Programs Department will return at a spring 2008 workshop to
present the comprehensive 2008 federal legislative agenda inclusive of funding
requests and policy areas for engagement.
On December 4, 2007, the Council approved the 2008 State Legislative Agenda, which
included policy statements on municipal legislative priorities and principles.
The priorities and principles of Glendale's 2008 state legislative agenda provide the
venue for the city to identify and engage on state legislative issues. The key principles
of the state legislative agenda are: to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver
quality and cost-effective services to citizens and visitors; to address quality-of-life
issues for Glendale residents, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve the
community by retaining local decision-making authority and maintaining state legislative
and voter commitments for revenue sources.
Development of a 2008 federal legislative agenda provides the venue for the city to
identify and engage on federal issues of concern to the community, which will enhance
the ability of the city to deliver superior services and to address quality-of-life issues for
the residents of Glendale.
Staff is requesting the Council to provide policy guidance on the proposed state
legislative issues and federal legislative program development.
12
Mr. Ryan Peters stated that the Governors had recently revised their budget shortfall,
which was now estimated to be $1.1 billion in a deficit for FY 2008 budget. This
estimate was higher than the previously estimated shortfall of $870 million. The
Governor has proposed addressing the shortfall by increasing agency reduction to
$151.6 million, increasing fund sweeps to $298.4 million and shifting $323 million from
the budget stabilization fund, which is also known as the raining day fund. The
Governor has continued to hold cities and towns harmless, while protecting shared
revenue distributions. Legislators will be holding meetings on this issue. Staff will
continue to monitor the situation and work with members to address the issues and
concerns of cities and towns.
Mr. Greg Montes stated they were proposing to preserve the preservation of state
shared revenues either directly or with the creation of exemptions. He stated they
would be presenting bills that deal directly with this issue.
Mr. Peters stated Assembly Bill 1254 and House Bill 1241 are identical bills, which will
provide a 15% income tax credit to those citizens residing outside the boundaries of an
incorporated city or town. Staff recommends not supporting those two bills.
Mr. Montes discussed additional bills that would impact Neighborhood Preservation
such as the Grill Bill, Sunset Extension, Sex Offender Legislation and Payday Lending
Bills. He discussed House Bill 2643, Liquor Restaurant Licenses, which would have
eliminated the Sunset provision for the Grill bill. He said with Sunset expiring this year,
an amendment was offered and adopted increasing the Sunset Extension for five years.
Staff's recommendation is to continue to monitor this bill.
Mr. Peters reviewed the Senate Bill 1011, Sexual Predator Restrictions, which expands
the list of persons prohibited from living within a thousand feet of a school or childcare
facility to include those who have been convicted of a crime committed in a jurisdiction
other than Arizona. Staff recommends approval of this bill. He also reported on House
Bill 2148, Payday Lending Regulations, prohibiting loans of less than $3,000, unless
done through a charter bank or otherwise permitted by law. Staff recommends approval
of this bill. He noted that House Bill 1239, Payday Loans Regulations Sunset Extension
extends the repealed date of the deferred presentment licensing program to two years.
Staff's recommendation is to continue to monitor this bill.
Mr. Peters reviewed Senate Bill 1492, Payday Loan Repeal Termination Date. This bill
repeals the Sunset statutory provisions related to Payday Loans, thus making the
authorization for this type of lending permanent. Staff recommends not supporting this
bill.
Mayor Scruggs asked if anything was being done about the interest rate issue on
Payday Loans because that was were the problems started. Mr. Peters stated Senate
Bill 1239 dealt with reviewing the interest rate over the past years; however, he was not
aware of any additional regulations.
13
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that the regulation limits of $3,000 would probably put
them out of business. Mr. Peters agreed.
Councilmember Clark asked why staff was recommending support of House Bill 2592,
Economic Recapture Districts. She asked for clarification as to why the city should
send 15% of net new sales tax from municipal and state shared revenues to a newly
established State Capitol Restoration Program. Mr. Montes explained that it was 15%
of a net new tax, which would not impact the current tax revenue being received and it
was also a new economic development tool. Councilmember Clark asked how this
program was any different from what Glendale was currently doing today in tourism and
entertainment and how had it all come about. Mr. Peters stated that the idea was
brought forward by the Tourism Alliance and several other cities. He noted Glendale
had not been totally involved in this issue; however, they had been monitoring and
assisting on this item without having the City of Glendale take an official position.
Councilmember Clark asked if they were to have an economic recapture district, would
it impact sales tax revenue that went into the general fund. Mr. Montes stated that since
it was only for net new tax, it would only impact the additional amount. Councilmember
Clark explained that Westgate and West Glendale was slated for new development
opportunities and the sales tax would be considered net new sales tax which would
typically flow into the general fund. She reiterated she was not clear on why they
should be recommending this bill. Mr. Peters stated that Ms. Jessica Blazina had been
working on this issue and would be glad to report back to the Council once she returns.
Mayor Scruggs suggested Mr. Beasley come forward and explain, if possible.
Mr. Beasley stated that regarding this issue, they wanted to be supportive of the overall
efforts other cities might have on this bill. He said this had originated out of Tucson. He
explained that Glendale had not taken a position other than to be supportive of the cities
on this issue.
Mayor Scruggs clarified for Councilmember Clark that this would not be Glendale's
revenues, but the new tax which would normally be shared under the State Shared
Revenue Plan. She said they were proposing it go into a separate new program
instead.
Councilmember Clark asked if they were recommending, monitoring or supporting this
issue. She said she was still not clear. Mr. Montes stated their recommendation was to
support, however it was up to Council to ultimately decide.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Montes if they were asking Council for a recommendation of
support, rather than staying neutral. Mr. Montes responded, yes. Councilmember Clark
stated that based on where the money came from; she was in agreement to support.
14
Mr. Montes discussed the Federal Legislative Agenda. The Intergovernmental
Programs Department conducted a city-wide assessment of potential federal funding
opportunities to be included in the 2008 Federal Legislative Agenda. Staff recommends
pursuing federal funding in homeland security, economic development, transportation
and public safety.
Councilmember Clark commented that she needed clarification on Federal categories
that were being recommended for support as stated in their packets. Mr. Montes said
they were only being asked to focus on the eight categories. Councilmember Clark
asked if the consultants were also focusing on those same eight items as well. Mr.
Montes stated she was correct. Mr. Montes reiterated that they would be focusing on all
eight, however, at the moment only four were being considered for funding purposes.
Councilmember Clark commented that within those eight categories, it would be wise
not to ignore any of the other categories for funding such as parks and recreation. Mr.
Peters stated she was correct and they would leave all options open.
Mayor Scruggs commented that it seemed a little late in the game for them to start
thinking of options. She said it would seem they should already be working on a plan or
agenda with flexibility, that they could incorporate one year to the next. She noted
Council had not seen any plans so far. Mr. Peters stated that Ms. Blazina had been
working very closely with them and would provide a full report. Mayor Scruggs asked
them to reschedule this item and bring it back again when Ms. Blazina was available.
Mr. Beasley stated that they would be happy to bring this item back, as well as a written
report on these issues.
Mr. Montes stated that Luke Air Force Base continued to remain a top priority. He said
they were a member of the Coalition of West Valley Cities who had retained a separate
consultant, who focused specifically on only Luke Air Force Base matters. He added
they would be coming back with additional information on the Federal Legislative
issues.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Beasley to have Mr. Steven Methvin come to a workshop and
discuss their dealings with the other consulting group. She noted she believes that they
were better prepared.
Councilmember Clark reiterated that she hopes they do not ignore funding for other
categories such as economic development, the environment, neighborhood
revitalization, parks and recreation and telecommunications in addition to the other
areas that were cited to pursue funding.
Mayor Scruggs asked Council if all agreed with staff's recommendation on these items.
All were in agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
15