Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/17/2009 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. ' 'i III I GLENDr MINUTES Of the GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue March 17, 2009 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, and H. Phillip Lieberman ABSENT: Councilmember Yvonne J. Knaack ALSO PRESENT: Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Nick DiPiazza, Deputy City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. STATE BUDGET UPDATE AND FEDERAL STIMULUS UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Jessica Blazina, Intergovernmental Programs Director; Jenna Goad, Intergovernmental Programs Coordinator; and Ryan Peters Intergovernmental Programs Coordinator The purpose of this is to provide a State Budget Update and a Federal Stimulus Update. The 2009 state and federal legislative agendas provide the policy framework by which Intergovernmental Programs staff engages on state and federal legislative issues. The President signed a federal stimulus package to provide assistance to state and local governments. The Intergovernmental Programs staff is working with the Management Team to identify uses for these funds in the City of Glendale. On March 3, 2009 the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update and 2009 Federal Legislative Update. On February 3, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update. 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. Development of a 2009 federal legislative agenda provides the venue for the city to identify and engage on federal issues of concern to the community, which will enhance the ability of the city to deliver superior services and to address quality of life issues for the residents of Glendale. Staff is updating Council on the recent developments of the state budget and federal stimulus package. Ms. Blazina provided the update. She stated that this marked the 65th day of the legislative session. As discussed before, the Senate has heard no bills relating to any policy issues and will continue this trend until budget issues are resolved. She explained that some committee chairs have continued to hold stake holder meetings on various pieces of legislation in the hopes that once Senate committees do start meeting, the bills can move forward quickly. In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee is conducting final agency hearings this week. She indicated it has been reported that the House and the Senate leadership have begun holding small group meetings with caucus members to provide updates on this fiscal year 2010 budget. She reported that on Thursday, the legislature passed and the Governor signed a supplemental appropriation bill. This bill addresses several fund sweeps made during the FY 2009 budget fix earlier this year. This includes restoring funding for childcare services which was necessary in order to draw down federal stimulus funding for the program. Early discussions and drafts of the supplemental appropriations bill included a rate of approximately $17 1/2 million in shared revenue distributions to municipalities. She stated that several legislators saw this as bonus money when in actuality, it was a repayment of funding from an earlier agreement to reduce the shared revenue distribution from 15% to 14.8%. She indicated that another dilemma associated with the proposal of sweeping the $17 1/2 million was that this was the entire amount of repayment rather than a pro-rated amount for the remainder of this fiscal year. The balance due to municipalities for the remainder for this fiscal year is approximately $4.3 million. She explained that staff was successful in getting this address through a floor amendment in the Senate and a Committee amendment in the House. She stated they were very grateful to those legislators, including President Burns who removed the provision from the bill. Ms. Blazina stated that it was learned this week that tax collections for the state for the month of February, were continuing to come in short of expectations. This is resulting in the continuing 2 state budget deficit of between $400 and $500 million dollars for fiscal year 2009. She indicated that the Intergovernmental Program Staff is working closely with a team to ensure they are active and in front of opportunities for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. She stated that they continue to participate in meetings at local and federal levels to learn more about requirements for use of the funding. Staff is also learning about when deadlines are set to apply for funding. In addition, they are working to ensure they submit those projects that meet the criteria for funding, and have the best possible chance of receiving the stimulus funding. Ms. Blazina reported that the state was certified to receive its share of federal stimulus aid when the Governor sent a letter to the President pledging that the state would request its share of the federal funding. Arizona is expected to receive approximately $4.2 billion in stimulus money over the next two years. She stated that they will continue to work this issue very closely and pledge to keep the Council updated as the ever changing process moves forward. Councilmember Clark commented on a newspaper article concerning the federal stimulus funds and the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She stated that in the article, it also talked about money being allocated to various departments that could be pursued though the grant process. She noted one particular funding had a large amount of money for airport grants. She asked if staff was making an effort to pursue departmental grants for things such as airport upgrades. Ms. Blazina explained this was a unique situation when dealing with the stimulus funding; therefore, they are working closely with the city management team as well as department heads in order to be aggressive in the funding they pursue. Councilmember Clark asked if it was possible for her to discuss any areas they were pursuing. Ms. Blazina explained that they were looking at transportation, public safety, CDBG and community developments as well as many other areas. Councilmember Goulet expressed concerns about possibly having to repay stimulus funding for projects applied for which could not be kept up in the future because of the economy. Ms. Blazina explained that each grant had a different set of criteria and circumstances that went with it. She noted that the management team is evaluating grants to determine which should be applied for and which have ongoing cost associated with them. Councilmember Frate commented that in January, the legislator swept funds from the State Transportation Acceleration Needs (STAN) fund. He asked if the funds would be made whole with the stimulus funding since that program had been ready to go out for bids. He explained that the project was for the widening of I-10 and I-17. Ms. Goad stated that the State Department of Transportation received money through the stimulus package to be used on highway projects throughout the state. The Department of Transportation decided to not backfill the funding before making the distributions. She noted that the I-10 and I-17 projects will still move forward; however, the funding will be coming specifically from money allocated for this region instead of money that had been previously allocated. Councilmember Frate asked if it was known how much money was allocated for this region. Ms. Goad said the region was receiving $130 million of the statewide money and $74 million will be going to the project on I- 10 and I-17. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the I-17 project. He remarked that the funding will pay for two more lanes on each side, north bound and south bound, from where the present 3 project ends, to the road into Anthem. He also stated the widening of I-10 which will be on a much lower scale. Ms. Goad clarified that the I-10 project was from Sarival to Verrado. Mayor Scruggs commented on her Regional Council Meeting. She stated that the Maricopa County Mayors were not happy with the distribution of funds. She explained that when the STAN funds were swept by the legislature, there had been an understanding that when the federal stimulus dollars came in, that funding will go for those two projects. However, the State Transportation Board unanimously, including the two representatives from Maricopa County, went against the recommendation from the director of ADOT and staff. The Transportation Board instead decided to divide the total state money according to their normal formulas. The Transportation Board essentially said that Maricopa County could build the road project out of their allocated stimulus dollars. She reiterated that the agreement had been that those projects would come off the top of the transportation dollars because those were replacement funds and after that disbursement, the distribution would begin. She explained that this had been a tremendous hit of$40 million dollars to Maricopa County. She noted that after the two projects were funded, it left only $56 million for the rest of the county. Mayor Scruggs reported that tomorrow she will be representing the City of Glendale at the MAG Transportation Policy Committee meeting. This meeting is where decisions will be made regarding the rest of the stimulus funds and how they will be disbursed. The amount they will be discussing will be approximately $104 million; however, the funds do not have to be obligated until next year. She added that on Thursday, they will be discussing what to do with the $66 million for transit. Mayor Scruggs indicated that the Proposition 400 Regional Transportation Plan which was voted on in 2004 was already $6 billion dollars short. She added that $1 billion was for transit and $5 billion for highways and arterials. She stated that there were different approaches being talked about in terms of how to use the money. She explained that one approach was to apply the money to the shortfall and thereby build the project that the voters have already voted upon. In addition, having those projects that are ready to move forward built would free up more Prop 400 money and bring up projects that are further down the scale. However, there is now a strong push that the money should be divided up among each member community. The City of Phoenix's proposal is that everyone would receive $500,000 and the rest be divided up by population. She added that there was a counter proposal from some cities that they will require $1 million instead of$500,000. She explained that in this morning's briefing from staff, it was indicated to her that the decision was moving toward accepting Phoenix's proposal. She stated that the people that are pushing this agenda are the people who stand to benefit the most. Unfortunately, with this plan, there will be money redirected away from Prop 400 projects which have already been voted on. She noted that this would make the plan have a greater deficit and it was already $6 billion short. She added that for most communities the amount of money they will receive will be negligible with there only being a couple of big winners in the end. Mayor Scruggs stated that she will continue to hold to the position that the money should be used to create jobs which could be created in construction projects. She added that the money should not be used to further personal agendas nor pet projects. She explained that the money 4 should be spent to create infrastructure which then can be used to generate further economic activity and growth. She said that this was a golden opportunity that most believe was being wasted and squandered by self interest. She stated that she will be sending them a report of the two meetings, as she always does, after they occur. Councilmember Clark commented that this all sounded like trickle down "pork" to her. She explained that they had seen it on the federal level with almost nine thousand pet projects. She noted that it seemed that there was a whole group of people that could not see what was in everyone's best interest. She agreed with Mayor Scruggs that the stimulus money can be used to further regionalism and regional projects. These projects can improve accessibility to areas and open them up to further economic development. She indicated that it was very sad to see this going on, however, it did not surprise her and added for the record - "shame on Mayor Gordon". Vice Mayor Martinez asked Mayor Scruggs if she had received any support from other cities. Mayor Scruggs explained that she had received a lot of support from other cities but somehow things always shifted and the wheels came off. She stated that there had been several meetings conducted in order to sway thing away from Prop 400. She remarked how some Mayors were focusing on how much money they were receiving rather than how they would be using it to create jobs and put people back to work, which was Glendale's goal. She explained that the citizens of Glendale would like to see the stimulus money go to create jobs and see improvements in their area. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that it was a sad state of affairs and thanked Mayor Scruggs for explaining it all very well. He indicated that the money was not being used the way it was intended. He stated that it was very sad that one city will be receiving most of the money. He commented on a meeting he had with staff in regards to the stimulus money. He stated that a team was in place to oversee the stimulus issues to determine which money the city should accept and which will be most beneficial to the city. Mayor Scruggs commented and asked Ms. Blazina to concur to, that the money in the Regional Transportation Plan could not be swept over and used in other areas, other than for transportation projects. Ms. Blazina responded that she was correct. She added that most of the stimulus language has a supplanting clause that would prohibit that option. Mayor Scruggs asked the Council if they were all comfortable with the direction she was taking on this issue. The Council was in agreement with the Mayor's proposed direction. 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ron Short, FAICP, Historic Preservation Officer; Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director; and Stephen Cleveland, Deputy City Manager This is a request for City Council to hear a presentation regarding an update of the Historic Preservation Program. 5 Staff will provide information on the National Register of Historic Places, current historic districts, Myrtle Avenue Residential Historic District, the Ranch House Survey and ranch house district nominations, and the bronze interpretive plaque program. The Historic Preservation Program implements City Council's key objective of, "One Community with a Vibrant City Center". It is consistent with the 2003 Historic Preservation Plan, and the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. The National Register is this nation's official register of historic properties that are deemed worthy of preservation. There are 87,000 properties listed on the National Register. Properties are eligible to be listed and considered a contributing property if they are at least 50 years old, have kept the integrity of the facade and are historically significant with regard to architecture, people, place or event. It is a great honor to be listed. There are no restrictions to the property relative to any changes to the property, including remodeling or even demolition. Being listed as a contributing property provides several benefits including the reduction of property taxes, higher home values compared to comparable non-historic areas, the ability to participate in the Heritage Grant Program for restoration, and provision of a bronze National Register plaque for placement on the front of the house. As part of the implementation of the 2003 Historic Preservation Plan, the Historic Preservation Commission has been working on a program to designate historic properties on the National Register. The most recent historic district listed on January 22, 2009, is the Myrtle Avenue Residential Historic District. This district, located on the south side of Myrtle Avenue from 6305-6423 West Myrtle Avenue, includes the Lehman house built in 1896, two national folk- style houses built in 1935, and one large adobe house built in 1935. The irrigation ditch, built in 1896 is also part of the historic district. As part of the Historic Preservation Work Program, the City of Glendale received a Certified Local Government Grant that enabled the city to prepare a survey of two ranch house historic district nominations for eligibility to be listed on the National Register. The bronze interpretive plaque program has placed 27 large plaques at historic sites to tell their story. A walking and driving tour pamphlet was prepared for the plaques. On November 25, 2003, Council adopted the Historic Preservation Plan and the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. The placement of historic districts on the National Register is an honor and prestigious for the community. The historic district provides physical evidence of Glendale's heritage. The historic districts will help to attract visitors to downtown Glendale, and provides residents with a sense of history. Property owners in the Myrtle Avenue Residential Historic District were contacted and provided copies of the nomination. Property owners in subdivisions where nominations are being prepared will receive a letter informing them of the proposed nomination. A meeting will be held with each potential historic district property owner to explain the findings of the historic survey and what being on the National Register means. 6 The Historic Preservation Commission incorporated the Ranch House Survey and nominations as part of the approved annual work program. The Commission has continually been updated on the project at each Commission meeting and is supportive. The historic preservation presentation is for information only. Mr. Short provided a brief update on the Historic Preservation Program. On November 25, 2003, Council adopted the Historic Preservation Plan and the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. He stated that this program provides direction as to the focus of the Historic Preservation Program. He explained that one focus is support and awareness. He said that this was accomplished through the Annual Ruth Byrne Historic Preservation Award, The Annual Historic Preservation Bus Tour, The National Historic Preservation Month Proclamation and The Historic Preservation Booth at the Chocolate Festival. In addition, there were articles in the newspaper and television shows, such as Glendale's Hidden Treasures and Pamphlets which provide further awareness. He reported that the second area was capacity building. The Commission has a speaker related to Historic Preservation at each monthly meeting held on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00pm. He noted that all Commission members and staff attend the Annual State Historic Preservation Conference. He indicated that the third area of the plan was designations. Additionally, the major direction in the plan was to accomplish a mass register of Historic Preservation designations. The National Register is this nation's official register of historic properties that are deemed worthy of preservation. There are 87,000 properties listed on the National Register. Properties are eligible to be listed and considered a contributing property if they are at least 50 years old, have kept the integrity of the facade and are historically significant with regard to architecture, people, place or event. There are no restrictions to the property relative to any changes to the property, including remodeling or even demolition. However, such changes can result in losing the contributing property status and removal from the National Register. Being listed as a contributing property provides several benefits including the reduction of property taxes, higher home values compared to comparable non-historic areas, the ability to participate in the Heritage Grant Program for restoration, and provision of a bronze National Register plaque for placement on the front of the house. Mr. Short commented on the five Historic Districts in Glendale. They include Glendale Court Town site Historic District (205), The Floralcroft District (59), The 59th Avenue Residential Historic District (8), The Glendale Track Historic District, and The Myrtle Avenue Historic District (4). He provided historical information on the Myrtle Avenue Historic District which is the newest addition in Residential Historic District. This district, located on the south side of Myrtle Avenue from 6305-6423 West Myrtle Avenue, includes the Lehman house built in 1896, two national folk-style houses built in 1935, and one large adobe house built in 1935. The irrigation ditch, built in 1896 is also part of the historic district. The Historic Preservation Commission has been working on its next project, the Ranch House Survey and nominations as part of the approved annual work program. He explained that the city received a 2008 certified Local Government Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to survey ranch house subdivisions built before 1959 and prepare two Historic District 7 nominations. The ranch house style is a unique American domestic architectural style which was a popular post World War II housing style in the 1940's to the 1970's. He discussed other areas that were being considered and their criteria. Mr. Short explained the bronze interpretive plaque program. He stated that the Historic Preservation has placed 27 large plaques at historic sites to tell their story. He noted that with help from the marketing department and tourism office, staff prepared a bronze interpretive plaque walking and driving tour pamphlet. He noted that this project had been at the direction of the Council. Councilmember Frate remarked that this had all been done extremely well. He remembered when it had first been discussed that there was nothing to inform them where a historic property was located or its history. He reiterated what a great job they had done and stated that he had enjoyed reading the plaques when touring. He stated that these pamphlets were at the tourism office for travelers to enjoy. Councilmember Goulet also confirmed his appreciation for the work done on this project. He asked a question regarding the Myrtle properties and the irrigation ditch. He stated that in the past, they had made it a point to try to improve or cover old ditches. He asked if this would prohibit anything from being done to the ditch. Mr. Short explained that they could not prohibit any improvements; however, it would mean it could no longer be listed in the National Register. He noted that he hopes that the ditch remains as is because it has been there a long time and tells a very important part of our agriculture background. However, should the Council decide to remove the ditch, this would not have an effect on the overall district itself. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if there were any properties south of Glendale Avenue that might be in the Historical category. Mr. Short replied that there were some area properties; however, a lot of restoration and alterations had been done to their exterior which would make it difficult for them to be considered for a Historic District. However, they do assess individual properties and make recommendations to National Register Nominations. He added that they would still be looking at individual houses south of Glendale. Councilmember Clark commented that a lot of these subdivisions that were under consideration were plotted in the 1950's. She asked if anyone had taken a look at the O'Neil Ranch Area as well as similar areas. She stated that the area had been the first annexation ever done by the city of Glendale and represents the World War II era. She explained that assessing these types of areas and providing them with some kind of historic designation, can create reinvestment in that area. Mr. Short replied that the surveyor had evaluated the entire city's properties from 1940 to 1960. He believes those areas were not eligible because of extensive exterior renovation. However, he will be happy to go back and look further into those subdivisions. She said that she knows many people who had done extensive interior renovations in those houses, however, had done nothing to change the exterior. Mr. Short stated that he will be looking into the matter and get back to the Council. Mayor Scruggs congratulated Mr. Short and staff on a great program and presentation. She stated that not every city was as proactive in identifying historic areas. She thanked staff for their work on this project. 8 Councilmember Lieberman stated that Mr. Short and staff had done an outstanding job. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 9