Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/15/2008 *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 APRIL 15, 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. REGIONAL PARATRANSIT STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jamsheed Mehta, AICP, Transportation Director; and Ms. Cathy Colbath, Transit Administrator This is a request for the City Council to provide guidance on the Regional Paratransit Study being proposed for acceptance by the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). This study was initiated to address issues involving paratransit service in the Valley. The study reviewed existing local paratransit services and proposes a regional paratransit system. One of the Council's goals is to provide high-quality services for citizens. Providing transportation options within the city will assist in achieving this goal. The RPTA study to consider the feasibility of providing a regional paratransit system was conducted in 2007. It proposes a regional system that will use contractors to provide service in three sub-regions in the Valley. A regional call center is also proposed which would handle all calls for paratransit service. The original study proposes full implementation in the East Valley and Phoenix to include service for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and non-ADA. Service for the West Valley would initially provide only ADA service. At the September 2007 RPTA Board meeting, action was taken authorizing the RPTA to become the lead agency to regionalize only ADA paratransit, dependent upon the recommendations of the regional paratransit study, the approval of the RPTA Board and the approval of local city councils as needed. 1 The Council was presented this item initially in October of 2007. Staff was guided to continue working with the RPTA to refine the study prior to considering the cost and service delivery impacts of participation in a regional paratransit system. A number of questions regarding the RPTA study and potential impacts were submitted by RPTA member cities, including Glendale. Responses to the questions were provided by the consultant in February of 2008. While there is no material change in the recommendations of the RPTA study, concerns from RPTA member cities and revenue shortfalls in the RPTA's 20-year Transit Lifecycle Program has shifted the focus away from full implementation of all the study recommendations. On February 15, 2008 the Valley Metro Operating and Capital Committee (VMOCC — an RPTA committee comprised of staff from RPTA member cities including Glendale) approved acceptance of the study and the responses to questions and concur the Regional Paratransit Technical Advisory Committee use the Study as a tool to identify and bring recommendations to VMOCC for consideration of incremental steps toward improvements to paratransit in the region. Any steps recommended by VMOCC will be referred to the regional Financial Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) when appropriate. On April 2, 2007, Transit Management Committee of the RPTA voted to add additional conditions to the recommended motion: Any incremental recommendations brought forward through the RPTA committee process are to be fully funded regionally. If a recommendation has an adverse effect on a member agency's budget, then the recommendation will not be approved without the approval of the affected member agency. These revised recommendations are slated for RPTA Board of Directors approval on April 17, 2008. Participating in a regional service will provide residents using a regional ADA service the ability to travel outside Glendale without needing to transfer, and will provide consistent service policies. However, some proposed changes such as in-person medical evaluation of disability and increased ADA fares are expected to impact some ADA riders. Regional non-ADA service will limit the ability of residents to travel on the day of service requested as same day service will not be guaranteed. The study information was presented to the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee on September 6, 2007 for information only. Comments included concern for difficulty experienced by residents needing to transfer and concerns about potential loss of quality of service and cost impacts by participating in a regional system. 2 Costs for participating in this system are estimates and will depend on the participation of each city, and the level of service provided. The RPTA proposed using regional funds to pay for the regional call center. It was recently determined that regional funds are not available to fund this facility. The 20- year Regional Transit Lifecycle Program now does not include funding to implement the Regional Paratransit Study as recommended at the September RPTA Board meeting. Costs would need to be shared by cities or other funding sources would need to be identified. A Regional Framework Study for statewide transportation funding has been initiated and funds for regional ADA service have been requested. This could be a potential benefit if a continuous funding source is identified for regional ADA service. Staff is requesting guidance from the Council to continue working with the RPTA and member cities to coordinate and improve regional ADA services within funding limitations and continue to identify regional or statewide funding sources for a fully regionally-funded ADA component of paratransit services. Mr. Jamsheed Mehta presented a brief update. He introduced Ms. Cathy Colbath to briefly describe the system as originally proposed in the study. Ms. Colbath provided a brief summary. She said the term "paratransit" was used to describe specialized transportation. These services include dial-a-ride, ADA, taxi subsidy and special transportation services. The RPTA conducted the study to evaluate the feasibility of regional paratransit. The regional service proposed by the study has not changed from the information presented in October. She said the study proposes a regional system which would use contractors to provide services to sub- regions in the valley. The objective of the study is to provide residents using ADA service the ability to travel outside Glendale, without needing to transfer and to provide consistent service policies. She stated certain changes proposed in the study are expected to increase ADA cost to some riders. She added that the cost for participating in the system will vary depending on the participation of each city and the level of service. The cost estimates are higher than would be paid if the regional system was not implemented. Mr. Mehta stated this study has been reviewed and evaluated by several committees. It has been identified that the RPTA is a lead agency to regionalize ADA paratransit. He said at the time, it was the intent to implement all recommendations pertaining to ADA regional paratransit. However, in the last few months the agency and its member cities have realized revenue short falls. He added that member cities continue to have questions about the true cost to each jurisdiction to implement the study recommendations. In February of this year, several working committees within the RPTA approved the study to be used only as a tool to identify incremental steps which will be brought forward for consideration and review. He noted additional language has been added which states any incremental recommendations brought forward through 3 the RPTA committee process are to be fully funded regionally. However, if a recommendation requires local participation, and if that has an adverse effect on a member agency's budget, then the local jurisdiction would have the option to approve the use of local funds from its local budget. He added this was a new change to the program. He stated the acceptance of the study will not cause any significant changes to the quality or cost to Glendale's service today. Councilmember Clark asked what was meant by no significant changes. Mr. Mehta stated any change would have to be reviewed and elevated by the board for implementation. Councilmember Clark asked if this change provided veto power to the agency for anything that comes forward. Mr. Mehta stated this was not necessarily a veto, but an opportunity for the city to consider its level of participation in what is being proposed by the RPTA sub-committee process. Councilmember Clark reiterated this might not work because it does give the power to veto any recommendation as a result of funding. Mr. Mehta stated Councilmember Clark made a good point. He said that very issue has been a source of discussion and the RPTA has now proposed clarification language as to what was meant. Councilmember Clark asked how many cities were participating. Mr. Mehta said he believed there were approximately 14 or 15 participating member jurisdictions. Councilmember Clark asked if this program dealt with organizations dedicated to transit, along with some valley cities. Mayor Scruggs responded, no. She said there was no Valley Metro Rail on the board. This comes from cities that have fixed route service. Councilmember Clark asked if all cities with fixed routes were participating. Mayor Scruggs stated each city was participating to the extent of providing information. She said the intent is to have regional ADA transportation service that travels inter- jurisdictionally. She responded to Councilmember Clark's earlier question in regards to veto power. She said in the RPTA, weighed voting is used so the larger cities control most of the voting, however, those cities cannot decide for the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs reiterated Mr. Mehta's statement that language being added for any incremental recommendations brought forward through the RPTA committee process is to be fully funded regionally. She explained if a recommendation has an adverse effect on a member agency's budget, then the recommendation will not be approved without the approval of the affected member agency. She related an instance where it has been proposed that all students ride the bus for free, which has been voted down several times. She explained that should this proposal come forth again and passed; only the cities that voted for it will incur the cost, not cities such as Glendale which will not vote for it. Mayor Scruggs commented it was very likely that regional ADA service will be implemented inter-jurisdictionally. She explained the Council would have to make the decision whether to have regional service as well as Glendale's own ADA service for people who don't need to go outside of Glendale. She added usage for outside the city 4 was only 3%. She noted the cost allocation would have to relate to the usage. Mr. Mehta agreed. Councilmember Clark asked how this compares with the service now offered. Mayor Scruggs stated the overall answer is that this no longer applies to all paratransit. The initial study applies to all riders, not just ADA; however, that has been dropped. She added she hopes Glendale keeps their ADA service. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was a set of goals originally desired to be achieved in this study. Mayor Scruggs stated there was. She said originally the RPTA was to handle all paratransit service; however, it has been scaled back. Councilmember Lieberman inquired if all participants have their own service or bus routes. Ms. Colbath explained the transit system for each city. Councilmember Lieberman asked how the crossing of city borders was handled. Ms. Colbath stated they provide transfers and have contracts with Maricopa County who provides service for someone riding from Glendale to outside Glendale, without having to transfer. This makes the process easier for people who find it difficult to transfer. Councilmember Lieberman asked how this study was funded. Mr. Mehta stated it was funded out of the operating funds of the RPTA and Proposition 400. Councilmember Frate commented when this project was first brought forth, he had concerns this would change how Glendale provided service and lower the service already provided; however, it does not seem to be the case. He said he supports this project. Mayor Scruggs asked if everyone was comfortable in moving forward and continue to work with the RPTA on this project. All Council members were in agreement. Mayor Scruggs thanked the staff for their work on this project. 2. 2008 STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Jessica Blazina, Intergovernmental Programs Director; Mr. Greg Montes, Deputy Intergovernmental Programs Director, and Mr. Ryan Peters, Legislative Coordinator This is a request for the City Council to provide guidance on proposed state legislation, consistent with the approved 2008 state legislative agenda. The purpose of the state legislative agenda is to affect state legislation and regulations as they relate to the interests of the city and its residents. The 2008 state legislative agenda provides the policy framework by which Intergovernmental Programs staff engages on state legislative issues. 5 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 report that was presented to the Council with the meeting materials. 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 the 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. On February 19, 2008, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2008 State Legislative Update and 2008 Federal Legislative Agenda Development. 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. Staff is requesting the Council to provide policy guidance on the proposed state legislative issues. Ms. Jessica Blazina presented a brief summary. Ms. Blazina stated they were at the 93rd day of session with no agreement on a fiscal year 2008 budget fix, or the fiscal year 2008/09 state budget. She said experts were predicting a $2 billion deficit for fiscal year 2008/09. She added the Governor has now become involved in the negotiations. She noted while budget negotiations have continued to occur daily, the deadline for House Bills to be heard in the Senate and Senate Bills to be heard in the House has passed. The Governor to date has been sent 63 bills and has taken action on only 38. She discussed House Bill 2066 — Sign Walkers and how it has been signed into law. She stated this bill was a vast improvement over pervious versions. 6 Ms. Blazina discussed HB 2638 - Municipal Tax Incentive Penalties application. She said last year's bill inadvertently exempted the city of Peoria; however, this year's bill corrects it. Mr. Montes provided an update on transportation. He stated discussions continue to occur regarding the opportunity to bring forth a statewide transportation election to voters in November to address the state transportation needs. He added it was still unknown if this will come forth in November; however, stakeholders are exploring all options. He also discussed HB 2094 - Highway Project Advancement. He stated this raises the cap to $300 million and authorizes counties to issue HPANs and extend the terms to 15 years. The HPAN program was created by the legislator in 2000 and allows municipalities to generate revenue through the sale of HPANs to accelerate state highway construction. Mr. Peters discussed the Strike Everything Amendment, SB 1037, which allows the courts to order a juvenile's parent or guardian to help the juvenile perform community restitution if the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent of a second or subsequent graffiti offense. This applies if the guardian had knowledge of the act or supplied the materials. Mr. Peters also presented HB 2413. HOA Privately Owned Amenities which states that regardless of any provisions in community documents, an HOA shall not impose an assessment or other mandatory fee for the construction, use, operation or maintenance of improvements facilities or real estate that is not owned by the HOA. He added this bill has been held in committee and is effectively dead, however, they were watching it closely to insure the bill does not come back as a Strike Everything Amendment. Councilmember Clark asked if the medians would become the responsibility of the city. Mr. Peters stated she was correct. Mr. Peters discussed HB 2766 and HB 2615, both energy bills. He stated HB 2766 establishes energy efficiency goals for residential and commercial construction, schools and state buildings. SB 2615 addressed solar construction permits. He said both energy bills are awaiting a hearing in the senate committee on rules. Ms. Blazina discussed HB 2155 transfer of development rights which states that before any transfer of development rights occurs, a municipality shall adopt an ordinance providing for the right of a municipality, at its discretion, to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with another municipality for the transfer of those development rights between jurisdictions. This was a League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution. Councilmember Frate inquired if this was already being done now. Ms. Blazina stated it was and this bill was only codifying it in statute and serving as a means to protect the development around Luke Air Force Base. 7 Ms. Blazina provided information on SB 1406 municipal development fees procedures. This bill changes the assessment of municipal development fees. This includes prohibiting the assessment of a new or increased development fee against a development within 24 months after final approval of the development. She said they were appealing for a moratorium on future discussions regarding development impact fees for a minimum of two years to allow last year's legislation to become fully effective. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on the issue of the 2 year limit. Ms. Blazina explained this was subject to only the first two years. Mayor Scruggs commented this bill was trying to address developers wanting final approval so as to avoid paying new impact fees, even if they were not planning on building in the immediate future. Ms. Blazina agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Ms. Blazina discussed the HOA median issue. She said this bill will prohibit the HOA from using any of their fees or dues to maintain the city's right-of-ways or medians, thus giving the responsibility back to the city. She added this bill was currently dead; however, they will continue to watch this bill. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 8