Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/1/2008 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 BUDGET WORKSHOP APRIL 1, 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; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 BUDGET - 2ND WORKSHOP CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager for Administrative Services, and Ms. Sherry M. Schurhammer, Management & Budget Director. This is a request for the City Council to review the recommended supplemental requests for the Public Safety Sales Tax Funds, as well as the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for all funds except water, sewer, sanitation and landfill, which will be addressed at the April 15th Workshop. 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. The recommended operating and capital budgets address the Council's strategic goals and key objectives with public safety for our residents and visitors and downtown redevelopment as the highest priorities. Other Council priorities that provide benefit to the community also are addressed. Public Safety Sales Tax Funds In January of 2007, the Police and Fire Chiefs presented staffing and equipment assessments that demonstrated a critical need for additional resources. 1 During the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-08 budget development process in March and April of 2007, the Council decided to refer to voters a proposed increase to the sales tax to address public safety needs. The additional funds expected from the proposed increase would be dedicated to public safety to fund additional positions, equipment and other items necessary for the Police and Fire Departments to carry out their missions. Glendale voters approved an increase to the existing public safety sales tax in the September 2007 election. As a result, the rate was adjusted from one-tenth of one cent to one-half of one cent. With passage of the rate increase, the Police and Fire Departments were able to add 45 new positions as of November 2007. Since the start of FY 2006-07, a total of 126 new positions have been added to the Police and Fire Departments, a significant step forward in addressing the increasing public safety needs of the community. The supplemental requests for the respective public safety sales tax funds are found in the tabs labeled 'Police Sales Tax' and 'Fire Sales Tax' of the budget workbook (pages 19 — 74 and 75 — 121). Also included in each section is a one-page fund balance analysis for the next five years. The analysis for each fund summarizes the anticipated revenue, expenses, and additional funding available for supplementals each fiscal year. The supplemental requests for the public safety sales tax funds reflect the continued implementation of the Police staffing study and the Fire needs assessment report. As discussed during the budget workshops in spring of 2007, the recommendations of the Police and Fire Department studies will be implemented over a 3-4 year period. FY 2008-09 will represent the second year of this phased implementation approach. For the Police Department, 41 additional FTEs are recommended as part of the supplemental requests for the police sales tax fund. Some of the additional positions requested include 16 officers, two motor officers, six detectives, two accident investigators and a victim's assistance caseworker. Other supplemental requests for the Police Department include additional funds for officer equipment and supplies, prisoner maintenance, and vehicle maintenance. For the Fire Department, 11 additional FTEs are recommended as part of the supplemental requests for the fire sales tax fund. Some of the additional positions requested include four firefighters, a fire protection engineer, a community services education captain, an emergency medical services captain and a health/safety division chief. 2 Other supplemental requests for the Fire Department include additional funds for paramedic training, overtime for two medic units, professional standards training and development and computer aided dispatch services. Capital Improvement Plan The FY 2009-2018 preliminary Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is included in the budget workbook. All funds except water, sewer, sanitation, and landfill will be addressed at the April 15 workshop (pages 269 — 350 and 361 — 392). The preliminary CIP reflects the Council's vision for a commitment to public safety, quality economic development, high-quality services for the community, and a vibrant city center. During last spring's budget workshops, the Council expressed concern about how projects move forward, are added to, or are removed from the 10-year CIP. Therefore the capital planning process was revised to more closely address the Council's concerns. Specifically, the capital budget development process was revised to include a reconsideration of the projects in the city's current capital plan (FY 2008-17) based on the Council's strategic goals and objectives. This process also included an assessment of financial considerations regarding increased costs for construction, the affordability of additional debt service, and future operating and maintenance costs. This reassessment resulted in a realignment of capital projects based on the Council's highest priorities and the changes are reflected in the proposed plan for FY 2009-18. The FY 2009-18 preliminary CIP places the highest priority on public safety and economic development. The first five years of the capital plan includes $56M for public safety. Funds for the design work for the new court facility are included in the current budget and funds for construction of the new court facility are included in FY 2008-09 (see page 335 of the budget workbook). Also in FY 2008-09, you will see funds for an engine and ladder replacement program for the fire department to maximize the safe use of front line engines. The replacement plan allows front line engines to be replaced every 7 years or 100,000 miles (see page 336). A new fire ladder truck and tender project was moved from the last five years to FY 2008-09 to align with the fire department's needs assessment (see page 343). Staffing for the new engine is expected in FY 2009-10. Funding for the police department includes additional handheld radios with encryption technology and continued required upgrades to the police digital communication system (see page 343 and 335). 3 The preliminary CIP also incorporates $28.9M for economic development in the first five years of the plan. You will see funding to purchase land for redevelopment and funding to upgrade and repair infrastructure in the downtown area (see page 369 - 371). Lastly, the plan includes continuation of FY 2007-08 projects and other priorities such as funding for the west branch library, flood control and facility infrastructure improvements. The preliminary plan is financially balanced for the first five years, FY09-13. This means it complies with the state's constitutional debt limits and balances the use of incoming revenue streams with the use of fund balances. The financial projections used to develop the CIP are conservative and are based on our best prediction of future bond sales, interest rates, assessed valuation and other relevant variables. For the FY 2008-09 budget, the city's assessed valuation reflects 20% growth based on the 2006 real estate market. The increase is a result of both the rise in property values as well as continued growth in new construction activity in 2006. However, this growth is expected to be counterbalanced by a significant decline in the following fiscal year to reflect the very sluggish housing market we see today. The Maricopa County Assessor's Office predicts a decline in full cash value for single-family residences that would impact our capital plan beginning FY 2009- 10. To accommodate this expected decline, the proposed capital plan incorporates an 8% decline in assessed valuation for FY 2009-10 (based on the 2007 real estate market), followed by conservative growth ranging from 2% to 4% over the following three years (2010-11 through 2012-13). Given this expected decline in assessed valuation, a secondary property tax reduction is not recommended at this time. A stable property tax rate and the use of fund balance will allow the city to weather the decline in secondary property tax revenue, maintain its excellent credit rating and meet the long-term needs of the city. A reduction in the city's property tax rate would not allow the city to do so. The first budget workshop was held on March 25, 2008. The topics covered included an overview of the recommended General Fund operating budget and the recommended FY 2008-09 GF supplemental requests. The Budget Workbook containing the City Manager's recommended budget for FY 2008-09 was delivered to the Mayor and Council on Friday, March 14, 2008 and is available for viewing by the public on the city's website at glendaleaz.com. 4 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. The budget workbook is posted online with the agenda for each budget workshop. Future budget workshops are scheduled as follows: o April 15, 8:30 a.m. — 12 p.m. o April 22 1 :30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. If additional time is needed for budget workshop discussion, a tentative budget workshop is scheduled for April 29, 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 22, 2008. Mr. Horatio Skeete provided a brief summery of the areas that would be covered today. He introduced Ms. Sherry Schurhammer. Ms. Schurhammer said today's presentation would address budget requests for the police and fire sales tax funds and then the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Ms. Schurhammer presented two slides related to the police portion of the public safety sales tax. One slide reflected a projected beginning fund balance, projected revenue for FY2009, the ongoing base budget, the ongoing and one-time supplementals, and the projected ending fund balance for FY2009. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the $9.8 million base budget reflects 77 positions already budgeted in the police sales tax fund. She noted that the ongoing supplemental requests total almost $4.5 million and include an additional 41 positions, while the one-time supplementals total about $1.8 million and include items such as vehicle maintenance, overtime, prisoner maintenance, and other operating costs. Mayor Scruggs commented on Chief Steve Conrad's statements about prisoner maintenance. She stated the city was adding $800,000 to the General Fund (GF) and was not sure why there was an additional $220,000 coming from the dedicated public safety sales tax. She asked Chief Conrad to explain. Chief Conrad said the department needs an additional $1.1 million to cover costs of Glendale's prisoners 5 housed in the Maricopa County jail system. The additional funds will come from the GF and the police portion of the public safety sales tax. Mayor Scruggs asked if the goal for the future was to have all the funds for prisoner maintenance come from the dedicated sales tax. Chief Conrad said he suggests the expense be divvied up between the two funding sources. Mayor Scruggs observed that the percentage of prisoner maintenance costs paid out of the public safety sales tax will increase as the amount of funding from the police sales tax increases in proportion to total Police Department funding. Chief Conrad agreed. Councilmember Frate asked if the replacement fund for vehicles was affected by the budget decision to reduce GF funding for the vehicle replacement fund for FY2009. Ms. Schurhammer said the vehicle replacement fund in FY2008 is funded at 100%. She said it is recommended that the GF contributions be at the 75% level in FY2009, with the enterprise funds still contributing at the 100% level in FY2009. She said critical public safety vehicles would continue to be replaced as scheduled even if they were in the GF. Councilmember Frate noted that equipment for fire and police was in top condition with new equipment arriving as scheduled. Mayor Scruggs whether the compensation increases for officers already budgeted in the public safety sales fund were included somewhere in the $3.5 million worth of ongoing supplemental requests specifically related to staff that the Police Department submitted. Ms. Schurhammer said no. She explained that the proposed increases for all employees, including public safety step employees currently paid out of the police sales tax fund, were included in the total compensation supplemental as shown on page 6 of the council budget workbook. Councilmember Lieberman inquired about the vehicles used today by police officers and discussed the many changes done to the Crown Victoria. Chief Conrad said the vehicles used today have built in fire suppression systems as well as reinforced trunks. Ms. Schurhammer summarized the next two slides about the Fire Department's portion of the public safety sales tax. She said the ongoing base budget totals about $7.9 million and includes the 39 positions already charged to the fund. She said ongoing supplementals total $2.6 million and include an additional 11 positions whereas the one-time supplementals total $1.3 million and address one-time costs associated with adding new positions as well as other operating costs. Councilmember Frate asked about the Fire Department's community outreach programs. Chief Burdick said his department's budget included funding for community outreach. Vice Mayor Martinez asked Chief Burdick about overtime for the two medical units. Chief Burdick said the overtime was for the additional two units at stations 158 and 157. He added that the units stationed at Midwestern University were funded through an agreement with Southwest Ambulance. 6 Vice Mayor Martinez commented on a past discussion about the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center (GRPSTC). He asked why the department was not training new police recruits at that location. He cited a well done report explaining the reasons why this was the case. He said the report explained the plan to implement new police recruit training at the location, which would start in 2014. He suggested planning for that implementation now because, in his view, it was needed. Chief Mark Burdick said other partners needed to be on board for this to move forward per the agreement entered into with the other partners. Vice Mayor Martinez noted that even if those partners were not ready to move forward, the city should make their own plans to be prepared. Mayor Scruggs said she would like to see a copy of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that the city and its partners signed. She asked why the city would limit itself by entering into this agreement. She noted it was incredible to believe that the City of Glendale, owning 75% of the facility, cannot do anything unless the partners were ready and in agreement. She reiterated it was inconceivable that the city had entered into such an agreement. Chief Burdick said there were three levels of governance in the agreement. He stated that the process was to review future phases as a committee and decide to move forward sharing the cost. He said there was consensus among the partners to move back future phases. Mayor Scruggs stated it all came down to money. She said if Glendale decided to move forward with an expansion for new police recruit training, and the partners do not agree with this decision, then the city would not pass any of those expenses on to the other partners. She added each phase could be treated independently. Chief Burdick said he understood Mayor Scruggs' position and added that the attempt had been to help off set the overall cost to Glendale and to have existing cities become full partners. Mayor Scruggs said she understood the efforts and it was a wonderful plan until it interfered with the city's needs. She discussed the plan to execute this project in 2014 or beyond, which literally meant it may never happen. She explained her concern with this project not moving forward because of other cities' possible disinterest. She reiterated her concern and realizes that possibly nothing can be done at this time, however, would like it on the record that this project was important to the needs of the city. Councilmember Knaack thanked Chief Conrad for his in-depth report about new police recruit training. She said she was impressed with how much training was already being done at GRPSTC with fire personnel and advanced police training. She said she appreciated the communication provided to the Council and hopes to start the planning process now, regardless of the other partner's views. 7 Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Mayor Scruggs and Councilmember Knaack. He stated that the 2014 and beyond timeframe was a long time away. He agrees this facility needs to start planning for the future now or it might never get done. He also inquired as to the role being played by Glendale Community College. Chief Burdick stated that Glendale Community College was the only partner involved in police and fire training; all others were only involved to train fire personnel. Chief Burdick said the college was the largest contributor. He discussed the training issues developed, keeping in mind the other partners associated with this project. He said the city could certainly move forward without the other partners, however, all should be aware that the city had entered into an agreement with others that anticipated the use of the facility, which was designed with them in mind. Mayor Scruggs asked Chief Burdick if the phase II capital project meant an expansion of the existing building. Chief Burdick said yes. He said phase I did not include new police recruit training. Mayor Scruggs explained she was aware of that fact, however, wanted further clarification on phase II not being in the planning stages. She added this discussion had to do with the capability of Glendale to proceed with plans for phase II and possibly be the only one of the partners interested. She added this had nothing to do with the fire and police department budgets. Councilmember Lieberman explained that he had assumed the facility would include new police recruit training as part of phase I. Chief Conrad explained the discussions regarding the new police recruit training and his report to Council. He said the plan to date is to use the facility for advanced police training, with plans to expand in the future. Councilmember Lieberman said those plans were not in the identifiable future. Chief Conrad said his report to Council explained that the department's needs will be met for the identifiable future by the Arizona Law Enforcement Academy (ALEA) and the Maricopa County Community College system. Councilmember Clark said this discussion involved the basic issue of whether there is a need at this time to implement phase II of the plan. Chief Conrad said at this time there was not. Councilmember Clark asked if there had been any studies of when the need will occur. Chief Conrad said this kind of study was not done other than to project the ability of ALEA and the Maricopa County Community College system to be able to meet the department's needs. He believes these two entities can meet those needs for the foreseeable future. Councilmember Clark requested a study to be done on when the Police Department projected that this need would become a reality. Vice Mayor Martinez reiterated his desire to start planning for phase II as soon as possible. He related discussions held in workshop meetings stating concerns about the availability of training slots at the academy. He explained he believed the new training facility should starting planning for those concerns. 8 Mayor Scruggs commented on the probability of always having slots available for training. She said this facility was an assurance and security for Glendale should the current facilities change their intent and Glendale be out of a training facility. She said she did not want to be held hostage to someone else's willingness to allow them a space for training. Additionally, she believes it has always been the intent to be able to have basic training at the facility and everyone had agreed, including the Chiefs. Chief Conrad stated that the intent was for it to occur after the completion of all three phases. Mayor Scruggs reiterated the Council's intent to start the planning of phase II to provide them freedom from someone else's control. Mr. Beasley said staff will provide a report should Council decide to move this project up. Mayor Scruggs stated that placing it in next year's budget may not be the best approach. She said there needs to be preliminary discussions before next FY's budget that look at whether the city should continue to rely on ALEA to meet its training needs and whether the city can control the capability to keep its departments fully staffed. She said the discussions should determine if the city needs to move quickly on this issue. Mr. Beasley explained he did not mean to imply he would be putting it into the budget directly, but only to bring forth information for discussions on how it would be funded. Mayor Scruggs said she would like the discussions to occur ahead of next FY's budget workshops. She also stated there had to be recognition of the different philosophies. Councilmember Frate asked if there was any cost to the city for training by using ALEA. Chief Conrad said there was no cost except for firearm ammunition. Councilmember Frate discussed the fire and police issues surrounding this matter and the Council's goals to make public safety a priority. He stated the first priority was fire because fire personnel were being recruited faster. In addition, police priorities for the training facility were scheduled in phase II because of the use of ALEA. He said Council's discussion today was very important because it highlighted the need to have a concrete plan for the future, not just an ambiguous goal. He said the issue was being handled correctly at the moment; however, the city still needed to look to the future. Councilmember Clark said she appreciated the City Manager's offer to hold future discussions. She said she believes there were actually three philosophies on the table. She said the third philosophy involves a discussion of factual information. She commented on Chief Conrad's comment that there was no cost for training new police recruits at ALEA other than the cost of ammunition. If Council approves moving forward with phase II, then the city will increase the cost substantially. Chief Conrad said the projected operating cost for implementing new police recruit training was approximately $600,000 for the first year of operation. Councilmember Clark noted that all of these factual issues need to be addressed as well as Mayor Scruggs' concerns. Mayor Scruggs asked about how ALEA is funded. Chief Conrad said ALEA was partly funded by the Arizona Police Officer's Standards and Training Board known as AZ Post. He said it was essentially a statewide academy run by many entities. Mayor Scruggs said she would like more information about ALEA as well as who owns the 9 academy. She said she was skeptical about it being a free program. She also reported that as far as the sheriffs academy slots, it was at the discretion of Sheriff Arpaio. Chief Conrad stated she was correct. Mayor Scruggs asked what police and fire had to cut in order to achieve the 4.5% reduction in their GF budget. Chief Conrad said both departments were exempt from the 4.5% reduction to GF ongoing operating budgets. Councilmember Goulet asked Chief Conrad if he was sensing whether other communities were facing the same concerns regarding capacity for new police recruit training. Chief Conrad stated he could not speak for all the partners; however, some had some concerns. However, as he explained in his report, ALEA had added a second swing shift to accommodate new police recruits and that has doubled ALEA's capacity. Councilmember Goulet asked if Glendale was always guaranteed a certain number of slots, even if others had a greater need. Chief Conrad said ALEA guaranteed 37 slots for Glendale, along with the other slots for Maricopa Community College, as indicated in his report. He said the department has not had any problems requesting additional slots from ALEA. Mr. Skeete introduced the Capital Improvement Plan agenda item. He said all funds would be addressed today except those capital projects for the water, sewer, sanitation, and landfill enterprise funds, which will be addressed at the April 15 workshop. He said Council expressed concern about how projects are moved forward, added to or removed from the plan when the CIP was discussed last spring. To address those concerns, the CIP development process was changed. He said this time projects were evaluated and their timing realigned based on Council's strategic goals. Ms. Schurhammer said another factor that went into developing the proposed CIP was the ability to fund the construction and operating costs for planned capital projects. She said construction costs have continued to rise and therefore impact the ability to finance projects in the plan. She said the first five years of the plan were financially balanced and in compliance with the state's constitutional debt limits, voter-approved authorization, and truth in taxation requirements. Councilmember Clark said she had several questions about the city court capital project. She asked Judge Finn how many courtrooms are in the current facility. Judge Finn said there are five courtrooms in the current facility although the court has been using other areas of the existing building as temporary courtrooms. Once these other areas are included, the court is operating with the equivalent of six courtrooms. Councilmember Clark asked about the number of judges currently in use. Judge Finn said there were three judges, including herself, as well as a full-time hearing officer and two pro-tem judges. Councilmember Clark asked if those two pro-tem judges equate to two full-time judges. Judge Finn said yes although the cost of their salaries is less than judges in full-time positions. 10 Councilmember Clark said the FY2008 budget for the new courthouse is about $29 million for 89,600 square feet. She said the proposed CIP shows an increase of 600 square feet with the cost rising to over $41.9 million. She asked how this project had increased in cost by 41% in one year. Judge Finn said an internal person in the court had made the initial cost estimates. However, the new courthouse capital budget is now prepared by a construction consultant called IFG. She said cost comparisons with other similar projects were done and it was determined that the budget for the new facility was not adequate. The new cost estimate is $41.9 million. Councilmember Clark said she would like to go over similar projects used for the new cost estimate of $41.9 million. She said she believes this courthouse is going to be over-built for the needs of the city. She discussed Tucson's new 330,000 square foot court building, which includes an underground garage, all with a budget of$55.4 million. She also discussed another project in the City of Chandler that was basically the same size as Glendale's planned courthouse. She said Chandler's 32,000 square foot courthouse has seven courtrooms and handles 50,000 cases a year versus Glendale's 56,000 cases. She said that city's staff was comparable in size to Glendale's and that operating budget was $3.2 million. She asked for clarification on why Glendale's courthouse needed 14 courtrooms immediately. Judge Finn explained that Tucson's courthouse was essentially stalled because it was under funded. She said square footage comparisons were done with other comparable courthouses and Glendale's planned facility was smaller in size. She discussed the Mesa project, which was about the same as Glendale. She said the dollar per square foot cost for Mesa was more than that planned for Glendale. She explained that the new Glendale courthouse at 90,000 square feet included offices for the city's prosecutor's office as well as detention space. She said the normal ratio is about one courtroom per 10,000 square feet, but Glendale's new facility would come in at a very efficient 6,000 square feet per courtroom. She said the initial number of courtrooms to be built was 10, with space of about 12,500 square feet for four additional courtrooms if future service demands require them. Councilmember Clark said she recognizes the need for a new courthouse; however, she questions the need for such a large facility. She asked who would be using the 10 courtrooms. Judge Finn said the plan is to operate seven courtrooms when the new facility opens, with three courtrooms remaining dark. She said she estimates needing one additional courtroom about every two years. Councilmember Clark said she understood planning for the future; however, she still questioned the initial space needed and the cost. Judge Finn reiterated the plan to build 10 courtrooms and Council's decision on how they are to be staffed. She noted the kinds of cases that require additional attention. Councilmember Clark asked Judge Finn if the court's current operating budget was in the $4 million range. Judge Finn said yes. Councilmember Clark said the new court facility's budget showed an operating impact of an additional $1.9 million in fiscal year FY2010 and $3.3 million in fiscal year 2011. She asked if this was in addition to the 11 current operating budget of about $4 million. Judge Finn said she was correct. She said the detention-related costs would become part of the police budget and the prosecutors-related costs would become part of the city's attorney budget. She said there were four different departments that would need additional operating funds as a result of the new courthouse facility. She said the court project included the estimated operating costs for the prosecutors, detention officers, custodial staff and court staff because all of those additional costs are related to the new courthouse facility. Ms. Schurhammer said Judge Finn's explanation was correct and was consistent with the way the operating impact of other capital projects were presented in the past. Councilmember Clark asked if additional personnel would be needed once the new facility opens. Judge Finn said yes. She said the number of employees depended on how many courtrooms were open. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the demolition and architectural cost were also included in that figure. Judge Finn said yes. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that in the last three to four years, the cost of construction materials had more than doubled in many cases. He also commented on the reputable firm of IFG that had examined and researched those figures. He said he believes it was appropriate to plan ahead for future growth and add those additional courtrooms for future use instead of finding out after construction is completed that they were needed. He noted he very much respects the judgment of Judge Finn because of the many positive changes she has implemented. Judge Finn explained to Council that she and other city staff have been meeting with IFG every week since November. She explained the firm has been extremely helpful in building a courthouse costing less per square foot than other comparable facilities, such as in the case of the courthouse being built in Mesa. She added IFG has reevaluated the needs assessment done in 2004 and revalidated the growth expected for Glendale by 2008. She said IFG's recommendation is to open with 8.2 courtrooms based on the volume of cases. She said she believes the number was a bit high. She said she and Mr. Skeete will continue to monitor those figures. Councilmember Frate said a courthouse was not a normal building because it had to be built to accommodate the special needs of a courthouse. He added that he understood those requirements and believes the citizens of Glendale did as well. Councilmember Knaack said she believed the new facility was needed given the recent increases in arrests. Judge Finn said it is important to plan for growth. She said the current courthouse had a 20% increase in the number of visitors coming through the door compared to last year. She stated that one of the questions posed to her when she was appointed was what she was going to do until the city opened the new courthouse. She responded by saying she and her staff will continue to use the space available as efficiently as possible and perhaps go to a night court or Saturday court. She said she and her staff were doing everything feasible for that possibility to occur as late in the process as possible. She discussed how much the courthouse needed additional space. 12 Councilmember Clark reiterated she did not dispute the need for a new courthouse. She said her concerns centered on the cost associated with this project. She added she had concerns with the additional 600 square feet increasing costs by 41% by going from a $29 million budget to a $41.9 million budget. Mayor Scruggs commented that the original figure had been closer to $88 million, which had been an in-house figure. She said since then the court has been assisted by a professional management firm. Judge Finn commented that IFG had provided them with actual figures for construction cost and have been very precise. Councilmember Clark asked if it was known why there was an increase in jury trials. Judge Finn said there were no definite answers to that question other than there were additional prosecutors and more driving under the influence (DUI) charges. Councilmember Clark asked who decides to have a jury trial. Mr. Craig Tindall commented that whether or not there was a jury trial was not an indicator of an increase because they could always settle out of court. He noted what might be occurring was they were getting more aggressive in the way cases were handled. Councilmember Clark asked if they were seeing more jury trials because the defendants were trying to avoid hasher penalties. Mr. Tindall stated it was possible. Mr. Tindall discussed the issue of comparability to other courthouses. He said each had their own challenges. He added the on going process for the new courthouse had been very diligently examined and all costs were scrutinized. Councilmember Clark thanked Judge Finn and stated how much she appreciated everything she had done for the court in Glendale. She stated she will support this item; however, she still believes it will be built with far more capacity than Glendale will ever need. Councilmember Goulet commented there had been previous discussion on the priority for public safety needs and the need for additional officers. He added that he was perplexed when Council's discussions veered off to the city not needing additional courtrooms in the new courthouse when public safety has always been in the forefront. He commended Judge Finn for her innovative ideas in keeping the court up and running with limited space. He explained he did not see a problem with the cost provided to them because of the type of service facility this was. He said the figures given were current and not numbers from four years ago. He added he did not question the need for the number of courtrooms nor the growth anticipated. Mayor Scruggs asked a question about the downtown land acquisition capital project totaling $6.6 million. She stated that figure was very specific and inquired if staff had identified land for FY2009 given the tightness of the budget. Mr. Skeete said the amount represented the funds available for distribution. 13 Mayor Scruggs commented about her ongoing concern with the property tax rate. She stated the Glendale Corridor project was in the early study phase and they were told nothing would occur this year, so as to concentrate on the study portion first. However, this budget shows they are putting away money now, which might be unnecessary. Mr. Art Lynch, Deputy City Manager, said the proposed CIP reflects the land acquisitions and other projects that would be underway should all of the planning come to fruition. The cost would total $10 million. Mayor Scruggs asked if these land acquisitions were in the downtown corridor. Mr. Lynch stated she was correct. He said they have started projects such as redevelopment plan acquisition or for individual locations that have expressed a desire to relocate. He added this does not supersede the process being done with Mr. Bower; however, these were projects which had already been underway. Mayor Scruggs stated she was unaware of any acquisition process being done downtown. She explained there were the kinds of issues limiting the CIP ability to proceed with other projects because funds are being used for these categories, which in turn affect the property tax. She reiterated she was unaware of these acquisitions being handled in the downtown area and was extremely surprised to hear this news. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Mayor Scruggs and cited areas downtown being proposed for acquisition. He stated the Council was not always aware of what staff was planning at times. Mr. Skeete stated they did not have any specific projects to be brought forth now, however, when they do, they will bring forth those projects for review and approval. Councilmember Lieberman explained he could not approve the $6 million to continue this project without knowing more information. Mr. Tindall reiterated Mr. Skeete's comment that any approval of acquisitions would need to be approved by Council when the time comes. He said if any of the properties came to fruition, the Council would need to give their consent. Additionally, any discussions on negotiations should occur in Executive Sessions. Mayor Scruggs restated Councilmember Lieberman's comment on how they could possibly support using city funds when not being fully informed on any potential acquisitions. Mr. Beasley explained there have been discussions and briefings on this issue in past Executive Sessions. He stated when those deals are consummated or come to the point of discussions, they will bring those items back to Council for review. He added these projects had been discussed at one time or another and would not interfere with Mr. Bower's project agenda. He said the direction given by Council was to continue to work on redevelopment. Mayor Scruggs repeated she did not have any knowledge of these projects and at least four other Council members were also unaware. Mr. Beasley stated no decision would have to be made today and he will be providing detailed information in Executive Session. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he was under the impression that these figures were a recommendation to put money aside to proceed only after the study phase was completed on the Downtown Corridor. He also does not remember any specifics on any current land acquisitions. 14 Councilmember Lieberman said he would like more information about the Loop 303 capital project. Mr. Lynch explained that Council's direction had been to move forward and look at underdeveloped land and acquisitions as well as to move forward with 303 developments. As a result, there was a bond election held in 1999 with an economic development proposition approved and authorization to set aside funds for these types of acquisitions. He stated it was the direction they had been following to attempt to identify those issues and meet those goals. He explained they would not issue bonds for a project without the Council's review and consent. He said it would be wise to set aside authorization to carry out those goals under the economic development bond election, as well as goals to redevelop areas. Councilmember Lieberman stated he still will not approve any funds until he is fully informed. Councilmember Lieberman inquired about the figure of $500,000 for the Arts Commission for capital improvement projects. Ms. Schurhammer said the appropriation authority allowed spending of the funds set aside for the one percent for the arts program. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on a new project in the pay-as-you-go category called Repayment to State Aviation, which is found on page 382. Mr. Skeete said these funds repay ADOT for a 1998 grant. Councilmember Clark stated it had been her understanding that they did not have to pay ADOT back for any land acquisition. Mr. Skeete said the conversations with ADOT were to allow the city the flexibility to use the land. He noted the initial position of ADOT was that Glendale would possibly have to pay it back. Councilmember Clark asked why this was not being paid out of the Public Facilities Corporation. Mr. Lynch stated since the grant was made specific to the city, the repayment was the responsibility of the city. Mayor Scruggs said the pay-as-you-go category was funded by the GF. She said this project had increased the cost of the baseball stadium. She said she did not recall any discussions with ADOT about the grant having to be paid back with $702,858 as the first installment. Councilmember Lieberman commented he had asked this question a year ago and was told the city would not have to repay the state. Mayor Scruggs asked a question on the Thunderbird Park improvements projects on pages 301 and 310. She asked for clarification about these projects. Ms. Schurhammer explained the project on page 310 was a project currently underway. The projects on 301 were projects being planned five years out. Ms. Gloria Santiago- Espino provided a summary of improvements and enhancements at Thunderbird Park that are underway. Ms. Becky Benna also provided an update on these projects. Mayor Scruggs asked if these improvements took care of the renegotiation and restoration issues agreed upon with the residents. Ms. Benna stated this was an ongoing process and all issues were being addressed. Mayor Scruggs commented that the Thunderbird Park project was a massive restoration project with extensive needs 15 and decades of neglect. She said she was very surprised and disappointed they were only asking for funding totaling $278,000 for this project when there were millions of dollars being spent elsewhere in the city. Ms. Benna said they have been trying to balance the request of other preexisting projects, as well as being aware of the tight budget this year. Mayor Scruggs commented this park was very unique and very heavily used. She said it was a disappointment that only $278,000 was allocated over the next five years for this project. She asked that further discussions take place on this issue. Mayor Scruggs asked a question about the restoration projects listed on page 307. She said all these items were all very important items in need of restoration and up keep, therefore, she was not clear as to why they had a zero amount for funding in FY2009. Ms. Schurhammer stated the projects on that page were for projects in the last five years of the CIP. Ms. Schurhammer suggested looking at the summary on page 304 where Council could see that there was funding set aside for park enhancements and redevelopment and facilities renovations in FY2009 and FY2010. Mayor Scruggs asked specifically about the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center restoration and the Rose Lane pool restoration projects planned for FY2014-18. She asked if there was any funding for these projects for FY2009. Ms. Schurhammer stated there was not, however, if a problem did arise, staff would work with the Parks and Recreation Department to reallocate existing funds to address those types of problems. She added those types of problems would not be ignored. She said the plans submitted were plans for major restoration projects. Mayor Scruggs asked if specific projects such as the Rose Lane pool were included in the maintenance and rehabilitation work done by the Field Operations Department. Mr. Stuart Kent said they were not, however, should any problems arise they will work with staff to identify funding for any emergency repairs. Mayor Scruggs asked a question about the Park Enhancements capital project on page 308. She asked how staff was able to estimate an operating impact if the type and location of the enhancements to be done have not be clearly identified yet. Ms. Benna said the parks that will receive the enhancements were identified through an assessment. Mayor Scruggs asked how staff came up with $9,000 for an operating and maintenance expense. Ms. Benna said there was a method the staff uses for estimating costs for landscaping, water and other utilities. Mayor Scruggs said she believed there were a limited amount of funds being requested for park renovation and wondered if more should be allocated for this purpose. Ms. Benna said funds are limited as the park projects compete with other general obligation bond projects for a finite amount of funds available. She said the Parks Department was undertaking an update to its master plan in the next calendar year, and this update is intended to identify current and future needs and opportunities. Mayor Scruggs commented on the many new and expanded park facilities that have been or are under construction in Glendale. She expressed her concern that there was no plan to address the long-term operating expenses associated with the new and existing park 16 facilities nor was there dedicated funding set aside for the cost of maintenance. She said this budget shows projects continued to be built with no operating plan. She recommended the department includes in its master plan update a long-term plan for restoration and maintenance of existing and future park facilities projects. Councilmember Knaack agreed with Mayor Scruggs. She said it was imperative that the city maintains and renovates the current park facilities before the city builds new park facilities. She said she felt very strongly that more money should be put into the budget for current park improvements. Mayor Scruggs discussed complaints she has received concerning park maintenance. She asked Ms. Benna how her department had addressed the 4.5% reduction in its GF ongoing budget. Ms. Benna said the reductions were accommodated through reduced spending on professional development opportunities and maintenance contracts as well as the combination of some programs that resulted in reduced operating expenses. Mayor Scruggs asked if the department had decreased the frequency of park maintenance services. Ms. Benne said the department had done so, but only after the issue had been evaluated thoroughly. She added that the Park and Recreations Commission also evaluates the parks and report their findings directly to the staff. She added if any problems do arise, each park will be assessed individually and the problem will be corrected within the department's existing budget. Mayor Scruggs said she hoped to see a plan for sufficient funding for maintenance, restoration and enhancements of existing parks a part of the parks master plan update. Mayor Scruggs and Ms. Benna discussed the western area regional park. Ms. Benna said her department's number one focus is taking care of existing parks. Ms. Schurhammer continued her presentation with additional slides that summarized the proposed 5-year funding levels for various categories within the general obligation bond program as well as the proposed property tax rates for FY2009. Mayor Scruggs said she believed the Council had not decreased the property tax rate sufficiently for the citizens of Glendale. She said the amount should reflect the tremendous windfall the city had previously received as a result of rapidly rising property values. She commented she believes the citizens of Glendale were among the most supportive of any other city. She said the citizens have supported the city with sales tax increase requests as well as supported the water, sewer and sanitation rate increases. She said there was a 59% increase in assessed valuation for her own property, including an additional increase of 9% in 2008 and a 16% decrease in 2009. She said when Council was told there would be a decline in assessed valuation in FY2010 and she had a hard time accepting this because of the property valuation increases of the past few years. She said between 2006 and through 2009, there was a 45% increase. She discussed all the new developments that add significantly to the assessed valuation of the city. 17 Mayor Scruggs said asking citizens to pay 50% more was not a very good way to thank them for all their support. She discussed a meeting she had on this subject. She said she was told if they were to cut property taxes, the city would have to cut the CIP budget, however, she believed it would not be the case because there were other areas that could be cut and reevaluated, such as the land acquisitions capital project that was discussed earlier at this workshop. She said she was told that a three or four cent cut will mean nothing to the citizens; nevertheless, she believes the majority of the citizens believe this would show the city cares and values its residents. She added this was important because of the strained economy and that a rate decrease will demonstrate the Council's commitment to the residents, even if only symbolically. Mayor Scruggs said the recommendation from staff is to actually increase the secondary tax. She said she would like to discuss and recommend a reduction of .05 cents. She said as much as Council brags about all the great things happening in Glendale, Council should show its appreciation to the citizens in the form of a tax break. Vice Mayor Martinez discussed reducing the primary tax rate and not increasing the secondary. He asked if this could be done by reducing it by 2% or 5 cents. Mr. Skeete said he did not know how this would affect the city's credit rating. He said if the tax rate was reduced by 2 1/2 cents, then $6.5 million in projects planned for the first five years would have to be deferred to the last five years. Ms. Schurhammer said the reduction could occur across multiple projects. Vice Mayor Martinez said he could support at least a 21/2 cent reduction, which he believes is owed to the citizens. Mayor Scruggs asked if the $61/2 million would be deferred only if the city did not realize an increase in assessed valuation in the future. Ms. Schurhammer stated she was correct. Mayor Scruggs stated it was very hard to believe that with all the city's development and expansive growth, Glendale had to have the second highest property tax rate in the valley. She questioned the difficulty in finding 61/2 million dollars somewhere in the capital budget over the next five years. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mayor Scruggs and discussed additional growth in the Glendale area. He said the opportunity for increases was greater in smaller areas; however they could easily offset changes in the budget and find additional funding. Councilmember Clark stated that further discussions should occur. However, the discussion should be backed up with actual facts. She said just discussing this issue in general terms serves no real purpose. She reiterated she would like further discussion on this issue with staff bringing forth appropriate information. Mayor Scruggs commented that should this reduction happen, it would occur throughout the next five years, not all in this budget cycle. Councilmember Frate commented he felt comfortable this was achievable and was additionally put at ease knowing this would not affect this year's budget. 18 Councilmember Lieberman agreed they all decided to discuss this issue this year. He agrees there may be enough money to cut from the capital budget over the next five years. However, they need to keep in mind the acceptance of a Super Bowl bid and well as major projects currently underway. He said he agrees with Councilmember Clark in needing additional information to make an informed decision. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that last year's budget was close to $1 billion and believes this budget will be close to that figure. He noted he believes that $6 1/2 to $13 million can be cut from somewhere in the capital budget. Councilmember Knaack stated she had been more hesitant to lower the rate last year as opposed to this year because of this year's commercial growth in Glendale. She also requested additional information to assess the impact of a reduction. Councilmember Clark discussed the impact to the city should the assessed valuation drop. Ms. Schurhammer continued her presentation with a slide containing information about three capital projects that are expected to have significant operating costs not currently in the operating budget. She noted the two projects that will have an impact on the GF, the new courthouse and the west area library. She noted that the staffing for the new ladder truck and tender would be brought forward as part of the Fire Department's portion of the public safety sales tax budget rather than the GF budget. Mayor Scruggs ordered a 10 minute break. Mr. Skeete opened this part of the presentation with an introduction of the Glendale Onboard! (GO!) Transportation capital program. He noted that Council had requested follow-up information about two different capital-related projects, bus shelters and the 63rd Avenue/Loop 101 bike path. Mr. Skeete stated the city had spent $772,000 on bus stops over the past five years. Of the $772,000, 40% came from the transportation sales tax with the remaining 60% from federal funds. He added that the GO! capital program includes $1.3 million over the next 10 years for bus stops and shelters. He said the $175,000 supplemental request discussed at the prior week's budget workshop was for additional funds, on a one-time basis, for bus stop maintenance. Councilmember Frate suggested that before any other bus shelters were built, they should address the current bus stops without shelters. Mr. Skeete stated the decision to shelter the current bus stops was made in conjunction with the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC), as well as the availability of right-of-ways. Mr. Skeete then discussed the pedestrian bridge project at 63rd Avenue and Loop 101. He said the project will be constructed and administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). He said ADOT expects to award the bid for the project in May or June 2008, with completion expected by April 2010. 19 Councilmember Clark said she appreciated the plan for the bus shelters, however, she would like to see further information on future plans. She said this goes back to encouraging ridership when there are no shelters at bus stops. Councilmember Lieberman asked a question on the Grand Avenue access enhancements totaling $8 million on page 272. He asked if this project included any property acquisition in the area. Mr. Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Department Director, said yes. He said the $8.5 million budgeted for FY2009 represented Glendale's portion of the project. He said ADOT's portion was in the range of $25 to $30 million for improvements along Grand Avenue. Councilmember Goulet asked if ADOT will be doing any landscaping on the west side of Grand Avenue and whether the issue of excessive driveways would be addressed. Mr. Mehta said the landscaping will be started in phase III. He said the design concept report underway will identify any excessive driveways. Councilmember Goulet asked if the city had any options if a property owner or business did not want to participate. Mr. Mehta said the property owners to date have been willing to participate. Councilmember Goulet asked if a bridge at Bethany Home Road over Grand Avenue was still part of the discussion. Mr. Mehta said it will be incorporated in phase IV of the plan. Councilmember Clark asked a question about the Northern Avenue Super Street project that shows a $31.9 million budget for FY2009. She said the project description on page 273 states that 'the project cost in FY2009 is $26 million for the region and $5.95 million for Glendale. She asked for clarification of this information. Ms. Schurhammer said the city required the appropriation authority to award a contact totaling $31.9 million as the funds would flow through the city. She said that $26 million would come into the city from other sources and would be used to offset the $31.9 million, with the remaining $5.95 million coming from the city itself. Councilmember Clark also inquired about the $1 million planned for the light rail projects. Mr. Mehta stated that the money provided a seat for discussions and studies along with other interested cities for the rail system. He noted it was to explore additional corridors other than the ones put on the ballot. Councilmember Goulet asked a question about the Bethany Home Road, 59th to 67th Avenue, project shown on page 275. Mr. Mehta said the project is for a median island and street lighting improvements that will facilitate bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Vice Mayor Martinez asked a question about the Loop 101 North Park and Ride Lot capital project shown on page 276. He asked if a site would be identified before FY2014, when funds were planned for the project. Mr. Mehta said staff was in preliminary discussions with interested parties to see if there was any interest in serving both the transit center and the park and ride type facility in that general area. He said current activities revolve around exploring options. 20 Councilmember Lieberman asked a question on the Downtown Park and Ride capital project on page 281. He asked if the old railroad station was under consideration as a possible site or were other sites being considered. Mr. Mehta said future plans depended on decisions made concerning the Glendale Avenue corridor and other transportation and transit opportunities. He said a lot of those funds were tied to federal and regional funds. Vice Mayor Martinez asked a question about the street overlay projects shown on page 281. He asked for additional information on this item. Mr. Stuart Kent, Field Operations Director, explained the overlay procedure for residential and commercial streets. He said these projects represented only one component of the overall street maintenance program. Councilmember Clark asked if the city still performed fog and slurry seal work. Mr. Kent said it depended on the nature of the street and its current conditions. He said streets were done on rotation, as well as priority. Councilmember Clark asked how streets were checked. Mr. Kent said staff conducts a visual inspection every three years. He added the Council had just approved a contract to do a more thorough analysis of the streets, which is expected to take about nine months to complete. Mayor Scruggs asked about the $77 million in voter authorization for pavement management. Mr. Kent referenced page 281. He said the 11.5 million dollars a year reflects the first year of a five year plan for the pavement management program. Mayor Scruggs asked if this work would be funded by the 1/2 cent sales tax. Mr. Kent said yes. Ms. Schurhammer discussed moving the pavement management program from the streets and parking category of the general and obligation bond program to the GO and transportation capital program. This means that the designated sales tax for transportation will fund the pavement management program for five years. Voter authorization is not required for bonds backed by the transportation sales tax. She said the voter authorization for the streets and parking category of the general and obligation bond program remains valid. Mayor Scruggs said she distinctly remembered this bond authorization was for the street pavement management program. Mayor Scruggs and Ms. Schurhammer discussed the specific wording on the election ballet. Mayor Scruggs asked why the pavement management program was moved to the GO! Transportation capital program backed by the designated sales tax. Ms. Schurhammer stated the city had sufficient voter authorization in the streets and parking category of the general obligation bond category. However, to build $77 million over the first five years of the general obligation bond category for streets and parking would have resulted in the inability to do almost any other general obligation bond project. She said they were accomplishing everything desired, but were doing it in a slightly different way. Mr. Skeete added that the authorization received in the bond election will not lapse should there be additional needs. 21 Mayor Scruggs commented on her concerns with proceeding this way. She added this might be a trust issue with voters since this had been approved specifically for street projects. Mr. Skeete stated they were anticipating the street review report and at that time will assess any funds needed to supplement this program and address any needs. Councilmember Frate commented he had seen a lot of pavement work done in his neighborhood. He mentioned a program on the intemet where a person can keep track of street conditions. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Kent how his department accommodated the 4.5% cut in ongoing funding from his GF budget. Mr. Kent said his department reduced costs by changing custodial services and some incremental reduction in several other types of contractual services. She asked if right-of-way maintenance services had been reduced. He said there will be one adjustment in June that will be offset by in-house staff doing the work for that month. He said the contract next year will not be touched. Mayor Scruggs stated citizens did not want any reductions in right-of-way maintenance. Councilmember Knaack asked a question about the speed cushions capital project listed on page 282. She asked if the city would modify the speed humps to make them cushions. Mr. Mehta said this project would result in the modification or replacement of existing speed humps. However, given funding limitations, Mr. Mehta suggested using the funds to add new speed cushions where warranted. Councilmember Knaack asked if this would be a slow down on the conversion. Mr. Mehta stated she was correct. Councilmember Goulet asked how many speed cushions were ready at the moment and about the average cost for a speed cushion. Mr. Mehta said there was a list of residential neighborhoods that are approved for speed cushions in their area but noted that it would be difficult to meet that demand. The cost for each speed cushion is approximately $4,000 dollars. Councilmember Lieberman suggested speed tables instead. Mr. Mehta said speed tables were not being used because they slowed down fire trucks. Ms. Schurhammer presented the next budget agenda scheduled for April the 15th ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. 22