Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/3/2009 *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 FEBRUARY 3, 2009 PRESENT: Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, and H. Phillip Lieberman ABSENT: Mayor Elaine Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmember Knaack ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL HUD GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Erik Strunk, Community Partnerships Director; and Gilbert Lopez, Community Revitalization Administrator OTHER PRESENTERS: Mrs. Erin Hart, Community Development Advisory Committee Chairperson Mr. Strunk began the presentation by thanking Mr. Beasley & Chairman Frate and Council for the opportunity to present the FY 2009-10 Community Development Block Grant funding recommendations. He also thanked the Community Development Advisory Committee and Chairperson Erin Hart for the time they invested over the past 3 months to conduct their reviews of the various CDBG applications and formulate their recommendations. This is a request for City Council to review the Community Development Advisory Committee's (CDAC) funding recommendations for the FY 09-10 CDBG funding process. The funds are used to provide public services that assist low to moderate income persons and to assist with the redevelopment of our community. Examples would include services to our senior and disabled population, assistance for the homeless and those experiencing domestic violence, emergency rent & foreclosure assistance, assistance to the local food bank, programs for youth, emergency home repairs, the construction of new single family homes on vacant infill parcels, and the removal of 1 blighted property through the voluntary demolition program. This year, the City can expect to receive approx. $2.9 million to provide and administer these programs. The City is also fortunate in that those we are able to fund also bring additional resources to table in the way of other revenue and volunteerism. This year, the City received a total of 41 different funding requests that were reviewed and considered for recommendations. In total the CDAC, conducted 5 public hearings/meetings over a two week process and is recommending 34 applicants for funding. He then introduced Ms. Erin Hart, CDAC Chairperson, who shared the specific funding recommendations of the CDAC and indicated Mr. Lopez, Community Revitalization Administrator, was also available if there were any specific detail questions about the process or requirements related to the recommendations. Mrs. Hart provided a brief summary on this item and asked for any questions. Councilmember Goulet thanked both Mrs. Hart and the committee for all their work on this item. He asked if since the grants highlighted in blue have a two-year contract, that meant the amounts awarded were for two years and do they receive the same amount the next year without reapplying. Mrs. Hart stated that after the second year, they would need to reapply. Councilmember Goulet asked if it was known when the city might be receiving funding for this application process and how much. Mr. Lopez stated March was typically when they find out and when the government releases these numbers. Councilmember Goulet asked if the amount of allocation turned out to be smaller than anticipated, would they need to review all the applications again. Mr. Lopez indicated the committee had previously agreed on a prorated adjustment of all applications. Councilmember Clark discussed the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG). She stated in the past, this process has been excellent in prioritizing the Council's recommendations. However, she believes those priorities have changed because of hard economic times. She indicated what they needed to be doing as a city and as a community, was to focus on how to keep people in their homes and provide basic supplies to people in need, utilizing food banks. She noted she hopes they can make some adjustments in the programming of the funds available. She added that an expedient way to do so would be using Glendale's Community Action Program, which makes direct allocations to Glendale residents facing financial problems. She asked Mr. Strunk if any adjustments can be made to reprogram more money in the direction of the CAP program or food banks. Mr. Strunk responded there was always that opportunity; however, when allocations are changed, the application process will start over again and there is a concern the application might be denied. Councilmember Clark inquired if there was still time to reapply for this process. Mr. Lopez responded yes; however, they could not modify the ones already awarded for the two years. Councilmember Clark reiterated that these were hard economic times and it was critical they help people 2 stay in their homes and have the availability to obtain food. She remarked eventually things will readjust and they can continue helping these other organizations. Councilmember Frate commented he agreed with Councilmember Clark in that people are suffering in this economic climate. He stated he serves on two committees serving the community and has seen firsthand that the need has increased. However, he still believes they should stick to their five year plan. He noted even with this window of possibly changing allocations, it was very difficult to go back and reapply for a non-profit organization. Councilmember Lieberman thanked staff for the tremendous amount of work and time spent on investigating this item. He stated he wanted to make it clear he supports Habitat for Humanity; however, did not support giving them more funding since they were a national organization which receives funding nationwide. He noted he would be more supportive of providing to a smaller organization. Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Strunk the reason they had supported Habitat for Humanity more so than smaller organizations such as the West Valley Child Crises Center, which does not receive funding nationwide. Mr. Strunk explained that these two organizations have two different pots of funding. He stated that by law, they can only set aside 15% of the total money received from the federal government to fund public service. He noted Habitat for Humanity and like agencies are part of the fiscal improvement portion of the CDBG and are held at different standards. Mrs. Hart explained the home investment partnership program. She noted that four additional agencies have also requested funds and by law, they are required to provide these funds to the agencies that can acquire and rehabilitate housing for the city. She informed them of their assessing process when approving funding requests which centered on how it benefited the city and the valley. Councilmember Lieberman commented on an Orlando conference which offered help for mortgages in trouble. He asked if that funding went through this commission. Mr. Strunk stated he was correct. Mr. Strunk explained what he was referring to was the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which has already been applied for and is awaiting their decision. He stated the process was an entirely different process from this one. He added they were unable to use any of that funding for foreclosure prevention; it can only be used for vacant foreclosed homes. Councilmember Goulet commented he did not disagree with Councilmember Clark's assessments regarding housing and food; however, has had many people voice their concern over the city getting involved in the mortgage business. He inquired if they were to move forward with modifications, would it put the city in an untenable situation and possibly disqualify them from all or part of this funding. Mr. Strunk stated the answer was a bit technical; however, they do at times self administer funds to different programs. He added the rules do allow them to do this in certain areas. Councilmember Goulet commented that the city is looking at many different ways to provide services and assistance for people in need. 3 Councilmember Clark commented that she recognizes there is no support for her suggestion; however, times have changed and they all need to be more flexible. She reiterated the crises situation and commented on all the many people who are suffering. She explained that by using the CAP program to assist homes in foreclosure, they can help keep people in Glendale. She stated the Neighborhood Stabilization Program does not help the person keep their home; it is only available after someone loses their home. She noted they need to finds ways to help people now and should go back and start with the basics. Councilmember Frate commented on the mortgage crises. He explained most people in this situation were several months behind in mortgage payments, not to mention utilities. He noted that although they would all like to somehow help these people who were in these dire situations, economically it was not feasible because of the amount of money needed. Councilmember Frate stated that the consensus of the Council was to approve the plan presented. He thanked staff for their work on this item. He noted that under this plan, they will be funding 34 out of 41 requests. He added he recommends this be forwarded to an evening meeting for Council approval. 2. 2009 STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Jessical Blazina, Intergovernmental Programs Director This is a request for the City Council to provide guidance on proposed state legislation, consistent with the approved 2009 state legislative agenda. The purpose of the state legislative agenda is to affect state legislation and regulations as they relate to the interests of the city and its residents. The 2009 state legislative agenda provides the policy framework by which Intergovernmental Programs staff engages on state legislative issues. Throughout the 2009 legislative session, policy direction will be sought on proposed statutory changes which fall under the adopted Council policy statements relating to the financial stability of the city, public safety issues, promoting economic development, managing growth and preserving neighborhoods. The Intergovernmental Programs staff recommends prioritizing the state legislative agenda to a few key issues to allow the city to have a stronger, more consistent message on the items of greatest priority. The proposed key priority issues for consideration are described in the report that was submitted to the Mayor and Council at the meeting. 4 The legislative agenda defines the city's priorities for the upcoming session and will guide the city's lobbying activities at the Arizona State Legislature. The Intergovernmental Programs staff will update the Council on a regular basis throughout the session for guidance on bills and amendments that may be introduced. The city's legislative agenda is a flexible document and may change, based on activities at the Legislature and Council direction. On January 20, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update and 2009 Federal Legislative Update. The priorities and principles of Glendale's 2009 state legislative agenda provide the venue for the city to identify and engage on state legislative issues. The key principles of the state legislative agenda are: to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver quality and cost-effective services to citizens and visitors; to address quality-of-life issues for Glendale residents, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve the community by retaining local decision making authority and maintaining state legislative and voter commitments for revenue sources. Staff is requesting the Council to provide policy guidance on the proposed state legislative issues. Ms. Blazina presented this item and provided a brief overview. She stated today they would be discussing the legislative programs and the 2009 budget fix. She explained the 2009 legislative session was underway and this year, unlike most, the focus was on addressing major budget deficits. She noted many committees have still not met and those that have only considered a small number of bills or conducted educational hearings. She stated that to date, 874 bills and resolutions have been introduced. The Senate's last day to introduce bills was yesterday; however, the House still has until February 9, 2009 to introduce legislation. She indicated that since many committees have been suspended, it is expected there will be fewer numbers of bills introduced this year. Ms. Blazina explained that Governor Brewer convened a special session of the legislature to address a fix for the fiscal year 2009 budget. The legislator reached an agreement on Saturday morning approving the measures and sent it to the Governor's office. Governor Brewer signed the 2009 budget fix. The budget was passed largely along party lines. This 2009 budget fix can serve as a precursor to addressing the estimated $3 billion deficit predicted in the fiscal 2010 budget. The budget fix addressed the $1.6 billion deficit through agency cuts and fund sweeps. She added there was some debate if these cuts would become permanent. She explained education took one of the harder hits with the three state universities seeing their funding cut by $141.5 million dollars and K through 12 cuts totaling $133 million dollars. Agency cuts totaled $584.5 million dollars while fund sweeps included $597.8 million dollars. She stated that the 2009 budget fix does assume $500 million dollars coming into the state from the federal government in the form of an economic stimulus package. She indicated that although cities did fare well in the fiscal year 2009 budget fix, there 5 has been some impact. She discussed how several agencies had been cut back. Ms. Blazina explained they will be keeping a watchful eye on state shared revenues as discussed earlier. They will also keep tabs on fee increases or program cuts that could impact the city's ability to deliver a quality and cost effective service to city residents. She commented on the senate holding firm on their commitment not to hold committee hearings until the budget process is completed. Councilmember Clark commented on the news that the state Supreme Court had upheld the League of Cities' suit to overturn the $30 million that was to go to the state legislature. Ms. Blazina responded she too had become aware of it this morning; however, had no real details. She referred that question to Mr. Tindall, City Attorney. Mr. Tindall explained that the Supreme Court had found the appropriation the legislature intended to make was unconstitutional because it was an appropriation bill and did not identify the funds or where the money was to come from. He noted by way of caution, the Supreme Court did not say that what the legislature did was unconstitutional, but that they did it wrong. Councilmember Clark remarked that at least at this point, the $750,000 was still at hand. Mr. Tindall stated she was correct. Councilmember Clark commented on an article in the newspaper regarding the legislature looking at re-shifting tax policy. She inquired if the legislature indicated any particular direction in which they intend to proceed with regards to tax policy. Mr. Blazina explained that was a discussion evolving in the legislature now. She stated there were many who believed our dependence on construction growth will not serve well as we move into the future. She noted it was believed they needed to become a more business friendly state through tax credits. She noted she anticipates this discussion will continue until they come to an agreement or some kind of resolution. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Blazina if she anticipates seeing a move away from reliance upon sales tax to more reliance upon property tax. Ms. Blazina stated there has been a lot of discussion at this point; therefore, it was very hard to predict. Councilmember Clark inquired how much Glendale's dollar portion was regarding the sweeps she spoke of earlier and how this might impact the city. Ms. Blazina explained that Glendale's amount was $55,132 and they were still working on how others might impact the city of Glendale. She will be forwarding the information as soon as it becomes available. Councilmember Goulet commented on the $500 million contribution from the federal government. He asked if it was a certainty and what would happen if they received less. Ms. Blazina stated it was not a certainty, and stated arguments had been made regarding the deep cuts proposed and what can be done if that scenario were to happen. She explained the cuts were everyone's best guess on what should be done and believes the crafters of the budget had relative certainty of the number that will come forward. Councilmember Goulet asked when it would be determined. Ms. Blazina responded they were expecting it in the next couple of weeks. 6 Councilmember Frate commented they should continue keeping an eye on the state shared revenues, Luke Air Force Base, Transportation, Neighborhoods and Land Use Planning. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 7