Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/21/2008 *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 OCTOBER 21, 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 Darcie McCracken, Deputy City Clerk 1. FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 FIRST QUARTER GENERAL FUND STATUS REPORT ON REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager, and Sherry M. Schurhammer, Management & Budget Director This is a request for the City Council to review the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-09 first quarter report on General Fund (GF) revenues and expenditures. The first quarter report covers July, August, and September of FY 2008-09. The FY 2008-09 GF first 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. General Fund The bottom line for the GF through the first quarter of FY 2008-09 reflects a net positive of$500,000 as a result of the following: o GF expenditures are $3.7 million or (7.3%) below budget. o GF revenues are $3.2 million or (7%) below budget. o Net budget savings of $500,000. 1 General Fund Expenditures The FY 2008-09 budget expenditures and actuals for the GF operating and pay-as-you- go (PAYGO) capital expenditures are shown in the following table. Expenditures Comparison Budget to Actuals, FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 Amount YTD Budget YTD Actuals Under/(Over) Budget GF Salaries/Benefits $33,581 $33,132 $449 GF Non-Personnel $14,305 $12,376 $1,929 GF Debt Service $826 $625 $201 (leases) PAYGO Capital $1,745 $636 $1,109 TOTAL $50,457 $46,769 $3,688 Overall, the first quarter actual expenditures are $3.7 million or 7.3% less than the amount budgeted. General Fund Revenues • The following table reflects a comparison of the GF revenue budget and GF actual collections for FY 2008-09. 2 YTD Comparison Budget to Actuals, FY 2008-09 (in 000s) FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 Percent YTD Budget YTD Actuals Over (Under) Budget City Sales Tax $16,223 $14,085 (13.1%) State Income $8,672 $9,067 4.5% Tax State Sales Tax $5,875 $5,311 (9.6%) State MV In- $2,511 $2,444 (2.6%) Lieu HURF $4,404 $3,608 (18%) Primary Prop $358 $259 (27.6%) Tax All Other $7,580 $7,637 0.7% e Si $45,623 $42,411 (7%) GF revenue receipts through the first quarter of FY 2008-09 are $3.2 million under budget. GF city sales tax collections are $14.1 million. This amount is $2.1 million under budget. State-shared revenue collections are $16.8 million. This amount is $236,000 under budget. HURF revenues are commonly called the gas tax even though there are several other transportation-related fees that comprise this revenue source. This revenue source is based primarily on the volume of fuel sold rather than the price of fuel. HURF receipts are $796,000 under budget. The All Other category which includes such items as court fees, permit fees, business licenses and recreation revenue is $57,000 ahead. The amount shown for the property tax budget was adjusted to $358,000 to more accurately reflect the collection cycle of property taxes. 3 The following table is a comparison of the first quarter actual revenues between FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09. This comparison is important because it indicates changes in actual collections between fiscal years. Comparison of FY 2007-08 to FY 2008-09 Actuals (in 000s) FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Percent Change YTD Actuals YTD Actuals From FY 2007-08 City Sales Tax $15,313 $14,085 (8%) State Income Tax $8,528 $9,067 6.3% State Sales Tax $5,600 $5,311 (5.1%) State MV In-Lieu $2,558 $2,444 (4.4%) HURF $4,066 $3,608 (11.2%) Primary Prop Tax $183 $259 41.5% All $8,186 $7,637 (6.7%) Other at $44,434 $42,411 (4.6%) GF revenue receipts through the first quarter of FY 2008-09 are $2 million or 4.6% less than the same period in the prior FY. City sales tax collections of $14.1 million, are $1.2 million or 8% less than the $15.3 million collected through the first quarter of the prior FY. State-shared revenue collections, which include income tax, state sales tax and motor vehicle in-lieu receipts, of $16.8 million are $136,000 ahead of the $16.7 million collected through the first quarter of the prior FY. Property tax is $76,000 ahead of last year's collections. 4 The All Other category is running behind last year's collections due to the fact that items such as permit fees, court collections and license fees come in unevenly over the course of a year. Designated Sales Tax Receipts At the end of the first quarter, the transportation sales tax budget to actuals comparison shows that this fund collected $482,000 less than the amount budgeted. YTD Comparison Budget to Actuals, FY 2008-09 in 000s ..� FT 2008-09 FY 2008-09 Percent Budget Actuals Over/(Under) bud get Transportation $6,213 $5,731 (7.7%) Sales Tax The following table shows a comparison of budget to actuals for FY 2008-09 for the two components of the public safety sales tax. YTD Comparison Budget to Actuals, FY 2008-09 (in 000s) FT 2008-09 FY 2008-09 Amount Budget Actuals Over/(Under) Budget Police sales tax $ 3,979 $3,249 (18%) Fire sales tax $1,966 $1,622 (18%) For FY 2008-09, the police component of the public safety sales tax was $730,000 less than the budget and fire was $344,000 less than the budget. Similar to the General Fund, the expenditures of these funds are being paced to match the revenue levels. This is a status report on the General Fund covering the first quarter of FY 2008-09. No Council guidance is requested on this report. 5 Mr. Skeete opened the presentation by providing an overview of the information in the council communication. He noted that the report shows a positive bottom line overall with a net savings of $500,000. He said the city is not immune to the economy's downturn. Nevertheless, the city has planned carefully so it can continue to provide services to the community. Councilmember Lieberman asked a question about the months of retail activity reflected in the first quarter city sales tax figures. Mr. Skeete explained the collection process and said the report reflects the city sales tax received from businesses in July, August and September for retail sales activity in the months of June, July, and August. Mr. Skeete noted that the figures still represent 3 months of activity. Councilmember Lieberman expressed concern about this approach and asked for staff to provide the sales tax information once the October collections are received so he can see the results of retail sales activity in July, August, and September. He noted it was vital given the state of the current economy to have accurate and exact figures. Mr. Skeete agreed to have it done. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Mr. Skeete's explanation of providing city sales activity on a cash basis and said he thought this was the way this information has always been presented. Mr. Skeete agreed. Councilmember Lieberman disagreed and reiterated his previous views. Mayor Scruggs explained that Council had previously requested quarterly updates as soon as possible, which explains the cash basis approach used for the quarterly reports. She said the majority of the Council agreed to go with this approach so the information could be provided in a more timely manner. The other approach (accrual basis) meant that Council had to wait at least another 4 weeks before receiving the quarterly report information. Ms. Schurhammer continued with the presentation and presented the slide that showed expenditures coming in under budget by $3.7 million, revenues coming in under budget by $3.2 million, with a net savings of $500,000 for the first quarter's activities. Mayor Scruggs inquired about the General Fund expenditures that were $3.7 million below budget. She asked what those expenditures were and if they would need to be cut or deferred. Ms. Schurhammer said these were expenditures that have not yet occurred. She said some of the expenditures were related to salaries, vehicle repairs, fuel, office supplies, and other activities. She said these expenditures tend to start off slowly at the beginning of the year and then start to pick-up. She also said the same is true for the debt service and pay-as-you-go categories. Mayor Scruggs wondered if there had been any cost reduction measures implemented this fiscal year. Ms. Schurhammer said none had been implemented yet in FY 2009. 6 Mayor Scruggs asked about the differences in performance for the designated sales taxes and the city and state sales taxes. Mr. Skeete said the differences in designated sales taxes are related to the differences in the sales tax bases for them. However, he said he has asked the Finance Department staff to review how the collections are allocated once they are received and to ensure that vendors are correctly charging the different rates. Mayor Scruggs asked whether the city sales tax figures represent collections before or after debt service is paid for some specific projects. Mr. Skeete said the city sales tax figures in the General Fund are the net figures, meaning they represent the amount left after allocations to the other funds are completed. Mayor Scruggs indicated that once the new budget process begins, she would like to know ahead of time of any anticipated deficits related to debt service. She stated last year they received a big surprise and did not want a repeat. She said they might have to pursue further "expenditure management measures". She commented that although page four looks great, it was offset by the primary property tax rate. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Schurhammer her thoughts on the differences in the city sales tax being down 13.1% from budget while the state sales tax is only down 9.6% from budget. Ms. Schurhammer said the revenue budget was developed last January, which meant they had to make educated guesses about what they thought was going to happen for existing businesses and those businesses expected to open by early FY 2009. She said staff had expected more city sales tax growth than is being realized. In addition, the growth rate in state sales tax figures had begun to slow in late FY2007 and early FY2008 so the expectations for FY2009 were less. There was a question about whether the state sales tax revenue had begun to slow earlier than city sales tax revenue because the state sales tax excludes food such as that sold at grocery stores. Mr. Skeete and Ms. Schurhammer said yes and explained that consumers continue to purchase food at grocery stores during an economic downturn. They also said that kind of food sales activity usually increases during economic slowdowns as fewer consumers go to restaurants. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that questions he had have been answered by the presentation today and feels a little better about the figures. He noted he still believes they will be faced with making tough decisions and adjustments down the road. 2. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST This is the quarterly opportunity for the City Council to identify topics of interest they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda. In the fall of 2002, the Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of special interest to be identified by the Council on a quarterly basis for follow-up by the City Manager. 7 Staff is available to answer any questions regarding information provided. Staff also requests the Council to identify items of interest for follow-up by staff during the next quarter. Mayor Scruggs asked if any Council members had any questions on Tattoo Parlors, Mr. Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director and Mr. Stephen Cleveland, Deputy City Manager, presented this item. Councilmember Goulet asked if staff had any indication if there continues to be an increase or additional request on Tattoo Parlors. Mr. Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director, stated this matter had been discussed at several Council workshops. He explained a map has been provided that indicated the location and number of tattoo parlors. There are 22 tattoo parlors city-wide. Councilmember Goulet asked if there were any pending applications for these businesses. Mr. Froke stated he was not aware of any pending applications. Councilmember Clark commented that between the two maps, there has been an increase of 14 added establishments. She asked if they had instituted a licensing requirement. Mr. Froke replied it was mandated by the state. Councilmember Clark asked if the state was mandating any further legislation. Mr. Froke explained that over the summer, there had been pending legislation; however, it did not move forward. Councilmember Clark asked if in the absence of state legislation are the cities afraid to move forward with their own health and welfare requirements. Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney, stated that the short answer would be the state would likely handle those issues. However, it all depends on what the city was trying to mandate, as well as finding the resources. He added this was typically done by the county since they have all the resources. He noted cities are free to regulate certain issues, such as zoning. Additionally, any regulation by the state, whether it is through the city, county or state, has to have a direct governmental interest. Councilmember Lieberman asked if liability was possible should someone receive an infectious disease at the establishment due to licensing. Mr. Tindall indicated it was possible there could be some liability if the city took on a licensing scheme and then did not follow through. Mayor Scruggs commented on how the perception of tattoos is changing. She related how she had seen many people with tattoos who she thought would never have them. She noted the popular trend is changing and she fully expects this business to expand to spas and possibly go the way of hair and nail salons. She added she did not approve of these facilities not having health regulations; however, she does not see how the City of Glendale could hire health professionals and believes the state should be the one to regulate this business. She noted this business was driven by popular demand and personal choice. 8 Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mayor Scruggs that tattoos have become more socially acceptable. However, he was still concerned with the health and safety issues. He noted piercing was also a business posing a health risk. He believes they should try and enact some sort of directive. Mr. Froke stated this had been discussed at the February workshop and the issue should be dealt with at the state legislative level. Councilmember Knaack inquired as to how staff had located the additional tattoo parlors previously not on the map. Mr. Froke stated a site survey had been done as well checking with tax and license. Councilmember Knaack commented she agreed with Mayor Scruggs on the tattoo issue. She believes it was a cultural issue which seems to have grown in popularity. Vice Mayor Martinez also agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He indicated tattoos used to be associated with gangs and the bad element; however, times were changing and it was not the case anymore. Councilmember Frate agreed that popularity and some social acceptance was driving public demand; however, he would still like some type of legislation at the state level addressing the needles being used for tattoos and piercing. Councilmember Lieberman commented he knows several reputable people who have tattoos. Councilmember Clark stated she still believes these businesses should be regulated. She noted most parlors were in the south end of the city. She characterizes these businesses along the same lines as payday loan facilities, liquor stores and piercing parlors. She added she will continue to associate these establishments with undesirable activities that can characterize and devalue a neighborhood. She said if one was to open in Arrowhead, people would be complaining it devalued their neighborhood. She reiterated she would like them to be regulated so they were not concentrated in one area only. Mayor Scruggs commented they were already using ways to somewhat regulate them. She reiterated her comment that she believes they will see tattoos in spas and even in Arrowhead Ranch. She added she believes the perception and acceptance of tattoos was very different from other generations and they need to keep an open mind, since perception was changing and the public seemed to frequent these establishments. Mr. Froke agreed they are regulated through PAD and development agreements on new development. Mayor Scruggs commented on the Glendale Corridor. She stated Glendale Avenue is concentrated with certain businesses because of the low rent. She explained Council is making this project their number one priority. She said they are committed to reshape the entire city and market around the Glendale Corridor. She indicated that once they enhance Glendale's Centerline, higher value businesses will come in. She stated they 9 were right on the edge of changing things; however, it will not happen immediately and they would need to be patient. Mayor Scruggs asked if any Councilmembers had any questions on the next item, Green Buildings. Mr. Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director and Mr. Stephen Cleveland, Deputy City Manager, presented this item. Councilmember Goulet commented that when reviewing this process, it seemed a very complicated process in which to get involved. He noted it had a very slow return for people that really want to change things quickly. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if solar systems qualify under the incentives being offered. Mr. Froke stated they partner with APS and SRP, which have programs already in existence; however, does not know if the systems qualify. He added they were still in the very early stages on this. He explained part of this program is being confused with the energy element, a state mandate of the General Plan. He recommended staff continue to work with APS and SRP and come back with more data. He explained the process in which staff has been involved with energy saving projects and how they were trying to create links to help citizens obtain information, should they decide to make energy efficient changes to their home. Councilmember Knaack commented she would like for staff to focus on the commercial aspect, not just residential. She stated she would have liked to have had this information when she built her building. Mayor Scruggs called for the next item, Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation. Councilmember Knaack asked Mr. Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Director, to make a presentation on this item. Mr. Mehta stated Council had asked staff to compare traffic mitigation programs with other cities. He said Councilmember Knaack had asked how other cities fund speed hump installations. He explained they had found some similarities and some differences. He said most cities do not charge residents when they ask for an initial study. He said Glendale's minimum threshold for speeding was the lowest in the valley. He explained how they require 70% petition approval from the residents to enact the speed humps. He noted the question of who pays for the speed humps does vary from city to city. He explained each city's requirements. Councilmember Knaack commented that a lot of the speed humps were enacted because of perception, not necessarily accidents. She stated a lot of people do not like them and it seems they are too prevalent. She commented that the purpose of her bringing this up was to see if the process was working for everyone, or if there was a better way to handle this issue. She suggested police enforcement. 10 Vice Mayor Martinez commented this procedure has recently changed. It used to have to be approved by the Fire Department. He believes at times, the perception is real and speed humps were needed, particularly in some neighborhoods. He noted studies have supported this need. Mayor Scruggs inquired about Glendale's threshold being extraordinarily lower than the percentage cited for other cities. She asked if the threshold of 6% of traffic exceeding 35 miles per hour was representative of many other cities. Mr. Mehta stated Glendale's threshold is significantly more generous, although he was not sure if it was a good or bad thing. He said they are addressing speeding much sooner. Mayor Scruggs asked if the 6% threshold was appropriate. Mr. Mehta stated that the 6% figure came from neighborhood residential streets and not primary response routes. He explained that when researching other cities, it was found that Glendale's threshold was not in line with most cities. He stated as a result, they will be looking at efficiencies and at reducing the number of speed humps going in. He noted there was enough information to explore this item further now that they know more of what other cities were doing with speed humps and thresholds. Councilmember Lieberman commented he likes having speed humps in his district. He noted he had not received any complaints. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested further exploration of the thresholds. Councilmember Clark commented that people may not like speed humps; however, they work. She stated they could not rely on having police presence because there were not enough of them. Therefore, they were going to have to rely on physical mechanisms to do the job of the officer. She believes the criteria seems to be working well and does not see the need to explore it any further. Councilmember Lieberman agreed. Councilmember Frate asked what else was available to replace the speed humps. He said many communities had traffic circles and would like to see other alternatives. He noted he would like to see a little bit of everything used. Councilmember Goulet asked if the large number of speed humps throughout the city could impact the response times of the Fire Department. He stated they all need to be conscious of increased speed humps having a negative effect and causing unintended consequences. Mayor Scruggs asked what areas were notified when a petition is started. Mr. Mehta stated it would include all the adjacent properties, as well as cross streets. Mayor Scruggs asked if people several streets down should also be notified, since they might be affected by someone trying to avoid the humps. Mr. Mehta stated the petition notification goes to the adjacent properties on that street, and to any property on a cul-de-sac that connects to the street in question. Mr. Mehta noted the city receives 95 to 100 requests from different neighborhoods, however; only 20 - 25% will be approved because of the criteria used to determine if speed humps should be installed. 11 Councilmember Lieberman reiterated his support of speed humps. He thanked Mr. Mehta for the recent motorcycle signs. He said he has received a lot of positive comments on them. The Mayor stated it was the consensus of the council that Mr. Mehta continue the program and examine the 6% threshold, as well as other types of speed deterrents and their cost. Mayor Scruggs introduced the fourth item, Bus Stops. Mr. Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Director, presented this item. Councilmember Clark thanked Mr. Mehta for the detailed information. She stated she was surprised to find that since 2001, ridership had increased 77%. Additionally, she was surprised they had 500 bus stops. She was dismayed that only 289 of those bus stops have signs only. She asked what percentage of the citizen-approved GO Transportation program is devoted to bus stop improvements. Mr. Mehta said it was hard to break down that figure; however, there is an ongoing component in the CIP. He explained they had spent $772,000 in the past five years on those kinds of improvements. An annual amount is also set aside in the CIP, and nearly $1.3 million will be applied toward bus stop improvements over the next 10 years. Councilmember Clark commented they should be taking a greater look at the GO program and its capacity. She noted the $772,000 divided over five years comes out to approximately $154,444 a year. She estimates that the $1.3 million divided over 10 years is $130,000, a 16% decrease for bus stops. She stated that to help increase ridership in Glendale, they need to make the existing bus stops comfortable and safe. She added she believes there were many opportunities to revisit the bus stop program and make a greater percent of the current bus stops user friendly. Mr. Mehta explained that it all depends on Council's direction and objectives. He said bus stops that only have a sign are stops with little or no ridership until the property adjacent becomes developed, or where adequate right-of-way to build bus-stop shelters is not available until the adjacent development occurs. He stated the GO funds were for shelters and benches at transfer and high activity locations. He said the GO program was not set up to install benches and shelters at every quarter mile stop throughout the city. He added the Council can identify a priority and see what they can accomplish. Councilmember Clark questioned the idea that just because there was a bus stop near vacant land, there was no ridership. She stated she has seen differently while driving around Glendale. She asked if what he was trying to say was that the majority of the bus stops do not have high ridership. Mr. Mehta explained what he was trying to convey was that though there is certainly vacant land where high ridership occurs; the city often waits to make a permanent improvement until land is dedicated for development and not spend money on a temporary fix which will later be destroyed. 12 Councilmember Clark indicated that though she agreed this was true with some locations, she was not sure it applied to all. She asked why they would mimic a bad policy and wait for a developer to put in the bus stop. Mr. Mehta reiterated that with the funds that have been set aside for the bus-stop improvements, they try to prioritize bus stop locations where they can install something permanent. Councilmember Clark stated she believes staff can figure out how to place a shelter where it would not interfere if the land is later developed. Mr. Mehta stated that $1.3 million have been identified to improve bus stops and that cost is not recovered when improvements are made on an undeveloped lot. Councilmember Clark mentioned how disappointed she was when she saw people sitting on overturned grocery carts. She said the $1.3 million may not be enough and would like to find a way to possibly receive additional funds from the GO program. Mayor Scruggs stated this reminded her of an RPTA meeting about the cost to provide bus service. She said most likely that initiative will be dropped because of the rising cost of service. She explained individual cities will be responsible for their own bus shelters, verses using regional funds. She asked if there was a middle ground that could be reached on this issue. Mr. Mehta explained he could come back with some options; however, if there was a deviation from what is being done right now, there might be a cost. Mayor Scruggs commented this issue of ridership was a big concern of hers. She would like to have further discussions on this matter. She explained that Prop 400 funds were down dramatically and they were examining ways to remove things, such as bus shelters. She discussed how there was more demand for ridership because of rising fuel cost. She commented on how the City of Phoenix was proposing cutting hours and frequency, which will have an impact on Glendale. She added the situation was extremely dire and the RPTA subcommittee was looking for ways to keep the buses on the streets. She added there was not only one agency involved, but rather all were interrelated and affected neighboring cities. Vice Mayor Martinez inquired about the criteria for developing the shelters. Mr. Mehta stated that the determination factors were surrounding land uses, as well as ridership frequency and exposure to the elements. He noted that all information is included into their database to determine the score in relation to the 500 locations. Councilmember Frate commented that in his district, there was a route that meets the criteria; however, it still only has a bench, cement pad, and trash bin, but no shelter. He would like to see the route on 59th Avenue at least completed. Mr. Mehta responded that they will look into the cost and implications and explore the current plan. Mayor Scruggs summarized that staff will be looking at the prioritization of existing bus stops and perhaps allocating more funding. She added staff will also explore funding from the GO program and how Prop 400 will affect this project. This will all be brought back in the spring for review. 13 Mayor Scruggs asked for any new Council items of interest. Councilmember Clark suggested incentives for small office developments. She stated that 80% of the nation's businesses were small businesses. She stated she would like to explore the feasibility of developing an incentive program for small business to locate into the many empty office spaces around the valley. Councilmember Clark commented on federal funds to mitigate foreclosures that the state has received. She explained she would like to see policy developed regarding where these funds will be used based on recommendations from staff. Mayor Scruggs commented that staff was already working with the federal government on the economic stimulus program and what Glendale was receiving in foreclosures. She asked for Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager to further explain. Councilmember Clark remarked the public had the right to be informed. Mr. Beasley stated they may be able to provide that information. He explained they were trying to identify where the federal guidelines stated that money can be used. Councilmember Clark remarked that she understood; however, it was important to inform the public. Mayor Scruggs suggested this item be brought back as a workshop item. Mr. Beasley stated he can provide the timeline and information by memo or a workshop setting. Vice Mayor Martinez commented on a related event this Thursday sponsored by Glendale, Phoenix, Surprise, Peoria and Avondale, from 2:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Civic Center to discuss foreclosure prevention. He stated they are expecting about 1000 folks or more, that will be able to talk to lenders or individuals that will be able to help them with their problems, what they can do and where they need to go, at this foreclosure forum. Councilmember Clark commented she was glad Vice Mayor Martinez mentioned this forum. Councilmember Lieberman added this might be a good topic for the next retreat. Councilmember Goulet suggested having a loitering ordinance. He stated if something is created, he would like it to be utilized city-wide. He also suggested bringing back the Movie in the Park at the amphitheater once a month. He stated that other cities were doing it and it could bring people to the downtown area. Councilmember Goulet suggested establishing a Green Committee or to have the Green Committee become part of the maintenance subcommittee. He stated it was appropriate for that move into this area on a city-wide basis. Councilmember Goulet suggested enacting a ban on texting while driving. He said it would send a message to the community just by having it on the books. 14 Councilmember Goulet also suggested a partnership with educational and medical facilities. He said this represented a great opportunity to work with Midwestern University and the Thunderbird Graduate School. He stated this could easily lead to future businesses and economic development. Councilmember Goulet discussed enacting an ordinance prohibiting the storage of diesel fuel and like substances in homes. Mayor Scruggs' suggestion was at the request of the Home Owners Association. She stated they would like to display their pride in their neighborhood by announcing special events by having nylon banners placed on their light poles. 3. COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT & CODE OF ETHICS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Dick Bowers, R.A. Bowers & Associates Pursuant to City Council direction, Richard Bowers will be present to facilitate a dialogue on the draft Code of Conduct for the Glendale City Council and the draft Code of Ethics for the Council and for those appointed to city boards, commissions and other bodies. Additionally, the City Council will continue the discussion, facilitated by Richard Bowers, from the August 26, 2008 Council Workshop and the September 9, 2008 Council Workshop on this item. The recommendation was to provide direction regarding the Council Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics. Vice Mayor Martinez introduced this item. He provided a brief background summary on the previous workshop. Mr. Dick Bowers, R.A. Bowers & Associates, stated they had addressed all the items that were requested at the last meeting. He explained they had modified the language to coincide with the Charter. Additionally, they also improved and updated the sanctions section, as well as the Code of Conduct. He added the City Attorney has reviewed the revised sections as requested. He noted the term "mediator" has been removed since the term had some legal definitions. Mayor Scruggs asked that in the sanction section, when Council retires into Executive Session, it specify the vote will take place in an open meeting and not appear that it takes place in Executive Session. Mr. Bowers agreed. 15 Councilmember Goulet asked a question on the Code of Ethics. He stated that in item two, it states either party may request, but both must agree to have a facilitator. He asked what would happen if both do not agree. Mr. Bowers explained that in the original language, one could simply ask for a facilitator; however, it was deemed more appropriate that one could ask, but both must agree. He said the language meant both parties must agree in order to move forward. Councilmember Goulet asked if they should determine what the word "sanction" meant. He suggested modifying it to state a "letter of reprimand" instead since some might think it was just a monetary fine because of bad behavior., Mr. Bowers stated the word sanction throughout the document is meant to be a penalty in a sense that is associated with this type of action. He added some of this language was drawn from and used in other cities, which seemed to be common place. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Bowers to define "censure". Mr. Bowers explained it was an expression by the body that the individual's conduct is not consistent with the norm and consequently separated the person from the good will of the rest of the body. Mayor Scruggs thanked Mr. Bowers and Councilmember Martinez for their hard work on this item. She indicated this item will come forward at an evening meeting for a formal vote. Mr. Bowers agreed. Mayor Scruggs inquired where the documents would be kept. Councilmember Clark suggested it be put up on their website. Mayor Scruggs stated there will be a copy in the clerk's office for anyone who requests it, as well as one for every Commission and Board member. Vice Mayor Martinez thanked the Mayor and Council for their patience on this journey. He stated it was good to have something in writing. He also thanked Ms. Kristin Krey and Mr. Bowers for their assistance on this project. Mayor Scruggs suggested having a small handbook made. She recommended Vice Mayor Martinez explore this further and have information at the next budget meeting. Councilmember Frate thanked Vice Mayor Martinez for taking this on and working the many hours it took; it was greatly appreciated. Councilmember Clark stated she too wanted to publicly thank Vice Mayor Martinez for his hard work on this item, regardless of their disagreements. As no further comments were made, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 16