HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/2/2010 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the
Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
ih
GLENDE
MINUTES OF THE
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION
Council Chambers—Workshop Room
5850 West Glendale Avenue
March 02, 2010
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark,
Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, and H. Phillip Lieberman
ABSENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs and Councilmember Yvonne J. Knaack
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager;
Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. UTILITIES RATE RECOMMENDATIONS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Kenneth A. Reedy, Deputy City Manager and Roger
S. Bailey, P.E., Utilities Director
This is a request for City Council to review the rate recommendations for the water, sewer, and
irrigation funds. This rate adjustment is necessary to maintain financial resources to ensure
compliance with local, state, and federal water quality regulations.
An annual review of the Utilities Department rates is consistent with Council's goal of one
community that is fiscally sound. To ensure Utilities operations are financially sound, all
revenues and expenses are accounted for in Enterprise Funds. These rate adjustments provide
revenues to meet expenses while keeping rates as low as possible for residents.
In January 2010, Red Oak Consulting updated the assessment of the existing rates, fees, revenue
generation, and full cost recovery for the city's water, sewer, and irrigation operations.
1
Rate increases for water, sewer, and irrigation services are required in order for the Water and
Sewer Enterprise Funds to pay for the cost of operations and the cost of improvements to the
system necessary to remain in compliance with water quality regulations.
On June 9, 2009, Council conducted a public hearing and adopted the resolution implementing a
water, sewer, and irrigation rate adjustments effective with the October 2009 utility billing.
On March 31, 2009, the results of Red Oaks Consulting water and wastewater rates analysis and
recommendations were presented at the Council Workshop.
The expansion, replacement, and rehabilitation of the utilities infrastructure will ensure that
Glendale maintains its long history of providing quality water and wastewater services to its
residents and businesses, while complying with all local, state, and federal regulations.
Prior to any formal action by Council on adjusting utility rates, public notice is given and public
hearings are held.
Provide direction on the Utilities rate recommendations provided by staff.
Mr. Kenneth A. Reedy, P.E., Deputy City Manager, provided a brief summary. He stated the
utility systems in the enterprise fund were not in the general fund and is strictly supported by the
revenue received from rates they charge customers. He noted that since the trash collection
volume has decreased about 10%, fewer trips need to be made to the landfill and therefore fuel
costs have not gone up for sanitation and recycling services. Therefore, those rates will remain
the same for residential sanitation. He explained that on the utility side, they continue to see
increasing requirements to meet federal and state regulations at every level. In addition, to the
city must protect customers by providing them the safest water they can provide and meet the
demands for supply every day of the year. They also have to rebuild parts of the system that are
aging to keep the system in good working order. He explained that the economic situation has
had some impact. The city has seen a drop in water demand and attributes it to empty buildings
around the city, both commercial and residential. This has reduced revenues over time. As a
result, staff has implemented a number of alternatives this year, including cost saving strategies.
Staff is proposing to sell some of the water resources on a one-time basis and augment their
budget with about $1.2 million in sales from those water resources. He remarked that revenue
being down and the demand to consistently meet the regulatory requirements makes for a
difficult situation. However, staff is assessing every available practice to meet the goals set by
the city and the regulators.
Mr. Roger Bailey, P.E., Utilities Director, reiterated the fact that they were a highly regulated
government industry. He explained the procedures which have to be implemented in order to
comply with the new Stage 1 and 2 disinfectants and disinfection byproduct rules. He noted they
have also made significant improvements on the waste water side in order to comply with federal
requirements. To comply with water quality regulations, they have constructed improvements to
the water and sewer systems, including improvements to existing water plants, replacing aging
pipelines and adding water and wastewater capacity to the current system. Additionally, they
have made serious security improvements to the system based on the vulnerability assessment
2
mandated by the federal government, which cost the city quite a bit of money. He explained it
was very costly to build, operate and maintain the water and sewer systems. Nonetheless, every
effort has been made to reduce cost to both the Capital Improvement Plan and Operation &
Maintenance budget. He added they have also delayed several projects because of the economic
slowdown, which translates into a significant savings of $37 million over the five year capital
plan. He reiterated their plan to generate revenue by selling some long term ground water
storage credits. In addition, the city will benefit from an amended agreement between regional
water partner cities and Palo Verde's generating station which will allow the city to collect over
the next four years approximately $600,000 per year. Additionally, the department operates as
an enterprise fund which means that all services are funded by fees collected for those services.
In order to provide the financial resources required to build, operate, and maintain the utility
system and remain in compliance with water quality regulations, they recommended adjusting
water, sewer and irrigation revenues by 12%, effective July 1, 2010. The recommended increase
for a single family dwelling using 9000 gallons of water per month and who discharges 6000
gallons into the sewer system is $6.86 per month. He presented a chart which showed the block
adjustments recommended.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked a question regarding the increases shown on the chart from 2011 to
2015. He noticed that in 2011, there is an increase of 12% with the rest of the years leveling out
to 6%. He inquired if anything can be done to even out the increases so as to not have such a
high jump in 2011. Mr. Reedy stated that because of the current economic slowdown, 12% was
the absolute minimum they can do to balance the year. He explained that in previous years,
Council has asked staff not to raise rates anymore than necessary and as a result, they do not
have a cushion on which to fall back. He indicated that they absolutely must have a 12% rate
increase or they will not make their budget this year.
Councilmember Goulet asked if aside from the economic shortage facing them, were federal
guidelines forcing much of the cost increases. Mr. Reedy stated that the changes to regulatory
guidelines were driving some of the demand for additional revenue. He explained new water
regulations and the procedures that had to be implemented at city treatment plants which are very
costly.
Councilmember Frate asked about penalties and fees for non-compliance. Mr. Reedy indicted
that the fees depend on the violation. He noted some cities have been fined millions of dollars
for regulatory compliance issues in their water systems. He remarked that their goal was to not
have any compliance issues. He noted the City of Glendale has a long standing history of never
having a compliance violation. Councilmember Frate remarked on the high water standards in
the United States and how it was the best in the world; however, it came at a cost. He explained
how maintaining the system was an essential factor to keeping cost low rather than having the
system collapse, which would cost ten times more. Essentially, he wanted the public to know the
city was doing a good job and all they could to keep cost down while providing the best quality
product available. He explained every city across the nation was in the same position of having
to raise rates because of rising cost. He explained it was important they not defer cost since they
might pay a much higher price later. He noted it was always difficult for the Council to approve
rate increases. He was confident staff had done everything possible to keep rates low, yet costs,
3
like everything else, keep going up. He added that as a policy maker, he would never do
anything to undermine the quality of the water supply to the citizens of Glendale.
Councilmember Clark asked how much of the seven mile pipeline that was replaced was old city
infrastructure. Mr. Reedy responded that all of it was. Many older pipelines of the city have
been replaced over the years because it was built in 1916. He added that when a pipe gets to 40
years old, the city replaces them to avoid any emergency. However, he noted that a good share
of Glendale's system was developed over the last 25 years, so most of the pipeline was less than
25 years old. Councilmember Clark asked if replacing seven miles in six years was an
aggressive schedule. Mr. Reedy stated it was not as aggressive as they liked; however, they have
programmed a prioritization of pipe replacement. Ultimately, when feasible, they would like to
get back to a more aggressive schedule. He added that sewer pipes were also included in that
equation.
Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on why, if there had been an 8% reduction in water
usage, as citizens were conserving water, they are still being charged higher rates. Mr. Reedy
explained that many of those costs were fixed. Additionally, the debt service on construction
projects go on whether they sell water or not. He explained how increases in water capacity in
certain times of the year were also a factor. Councilmember Clark provided examples of how
customers were being asked to pay more for using less. Mr. Reedy explained it was not about
having a profit center, but rather of having the rates cover the cost.
Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Bailey to explain where staff had developed cost savings and
best practices to help ease rate increases. Mr. Bailey stated that over the last several years, staff
has engaged the services of American Water Works Association to assess if the city was
consistent with best practices across the country. It was found that Glendale's practices were
consistent with what was being done across the country for best utilities. He indicated that in
2007, they won the gold award from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies for
competitive achievement. He explained they continue to work hard to make sure the operation is
effective, efficient and cost controlled. Mr. Reedy added that utilities staff members have gone
through every cost center to try to streamline and trim the operations without putting the utility
and customers at risk. Councilmember Clark asked if there were any concrete procedures that
had been found as best practices. Mr. Reedy remarked there were a lot of those, but it was
difficult to quantify how much money was saved. He provided an example of a new procedure
being used at one of the plants regarding changing out equipment and extending its life span.
Mr. Bailey added they had also reduced cost by having their staffing level at bare minimum, as
well as training employees to become more versatile. Councilmember Clark stated she
appreciated hearing concrete examples of what staff was doing to cut cost.
Councilmember Clark inquired as to the irrigation issue and asked if any modification of that
program had been done. Mr. Reedy stated that several suggestions had come out of the
Sustainability Committee and staff will be providing the Council with information in the near
future. Councilmember Clark said she believes irrigation customers receive a good deal at a
12% increase.
4
Councilmember Clark stated she appreciates all the information provided concerning why staff
was recommending an increase; however, believes this was a very bad time to ask the citizens to
pay more. She said this will hurt the low income people most. She had recently suggested to
staff that they raise the block number from 6 to 8 gallons ratio as an option, however, this
suggestion was not supported. She asked staff to further explain. Mr. Reedy stated that changing
the block structure to 8,000 gallons would put the system at risk. Over 46% of water bills are in
the first 6,000 gallons and to expand it to 8,000 would cause a change in structure.
Consequently, it would require them to dramatically raise the higher block rates and have the risk
of them not being used. Councilmember Clark asked for information on how much they would
have to raise the other block rates since she has yet to see that figure. She was concerned that a
lot of the 6,000 gallon customers were seniors on fixed incomes. Mr. Reedy explained that what
she was essentially asking the city to do was lower the cost of water for everyone in the city, in
order to help those people in need of some assistance. He added that scenario does not work
financially. Councilmember Clark remarked she was not asking them to lower everyone's bill,
but rather to increase the block number from 6 to 8. Mr. Reedy stated that it created the same
problem. Every residential water bill pays the lower block rate for the first six thousand gallons
of water they use, not just the ones on fixed incomes. The city has to collect enough money from
the rate structure to cover all of the costs. There are other solutions to resolving citizen's needs
that are having a difficult time paying their bills. The city's rate structure needs to be fair and
equitable to all of the customers.
Mr. Bailey explained the chart and how it worked regarding the overall cost to run the system
efficiently and provide a quality product. He stated if they were to implement changes, it would
become drastically more difficult to meet their financial target for the end of the year.
Councilmember Clark stated she understands what they were saying, however, does not like it.
Ultimately, she believes they have to figure out a way to address the cost structure to reflect
something more equitable for the people that can least afford this increase. Mr. Reedy remarked
that he sympathizes with customers that these increases were happening in other areas as well.
He stated they were doing everything possible to make this work for the city and citizens.
Councilmember Clark understands her suggestion might not work financially, but there are times
where a moral and ethical component needed to be added to the situation. Mr. Reedy agreed,
however, he did not have the ability to do that.
Councilmember Lieberman thanked Mr. Reedy and staff for taking the time to meet with them
privately to provide information. He understands the predicament they were facing and didn't
see a way around it. He indicated it was frightening to see how this will affect some people;
however, there was no answer. He stated he was not happy with the rate increase, but seems
there was no other alternative. He discussed the many issues facing people today trying to
survive the bad economy.
Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He stated no one on the Council
was happy about having to raise rates. He remarked that water and sewer must pay for itself and
the money had to come from fee collections. He said he could not figure out another way, other
than what has been proposed. He asked Mr. Reedy to expand on the projects that have been
delayed as a result of the economy and tight budget. Mr. Reedy stated those projects had been
created in anticipation of additional growth, but have since been postponed for a few years. He
5
noted this had allowed them to keep the rates at a 12% increase. Vice Mayor Martinez
commented on other cities' rates and asked if Glendale was still at mid-range. Mr. Reedy
indicated they were in the middle upper range.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented on his recent discussions with concerned citizens regarding tax
and rate increases. He understands why people would be distressed; however, there is little that
can be done to avoid it. Mr. Reedy requested direction to bring this item forward. This process
requires a three-step process, including Council's adoption of a notice of intent to raise rates, a
public hearing, and Council's action on the rate. This process will proceed with an effective date
set for July 2010 billings.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked for Council's consensus for this item to move forward. Everyone
agreed to the request.
2. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
This is the quarterly opportunity for City Council to identify topics of interest they would like the
City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda.
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding information provided. Staff also requests
Council to identify items of interest for follow-up by staff during the next quarter.
Presented by:
1. Update and Status Report on the Promenade at Palmaire — Jim Colson, Deputy City
Manager and Brian Friedman, Economic Development Director
2. Arts Events — Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director and Jerry McCoy,
Deputy Director of Marketing/Communications
3. Special Event Application Fee - Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director and
Jerry McCoy, Deputy Director of Marketing/Communications
4. National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program — Diane Wood, Senior
Management Assistant
Promenade at Palmaire
Mr. Jim Colson, Deputy City Manager, stated Councilmember Clark had requested staff
investigate using the Promenade at Palmaire as a business incubator for companies to locate to
downtown Glendale at a nominal market rate. The city has contracted with a broker to market
the facility, but has experienced low tenant interest in the remaining space due to the current
economy. The shell space is not move—in ready and requires upfront capital investment. Mr.
Brian Friedman, Economic Development Director, stated they were in the process of researching
the feasibility of establishing a small business support center incubator program. Staff was also
researching existing incubator programs across the country and has met with local entities. Mr.
Colson indicated they will continue with their research and evaluations. They will come back to
Council with the information collected once their research is complete.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested they launch a marketing campaign to make the public
aware of the available space. He stated most people do not know where or what the Promenade
6
is. He believes they should seek professional assistance to help market the area because it was
not being marketed at all. He suggested using balloons, large sale signs and rent incentives.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if what Councilmember Lieberman was suggesting was legal. Mr.
Craig Tindall, City Attorney, stated they could possibly work with the broker currently
marketing the property to come up with additional alternatives to move those spaces along while
complying with the law. Vice Mayor Martinez questioned current tenant's reaction to offering
free rent to others. Councilmember Lieberman remarked that offering free rent would only be
for a limited time and only used as an enticement. He stated this had been done in many other
places and was common practice. He discussed other Glendale businesses that have received
incentives from the city. Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, stated that staff's report was only on
incubator properties; however, should they decide to expand the research to marketing that
would be another area.
Councilmember Clark thanked staff for doing their due diligence and homework on this item.
She stated she had learned about this subject at the National League of Cities and Towns
meeting. She believes this is a great idea and hopes they will continue to research the idea and
come up with best practices. She asked if they had spoken with anyone in Ventura, California
which was the model she had presented. Mr. Colson responded yes. He added they had learned
quite a bit and had factored that in with their research discussions. They will be coming back
with more information and a specific recommendation once they have completed their research.
Councilmember Clark stated she looks forward to that information. She asked them not to set
narrow parameters and assess incubator business that are just starting out, as well as existing
ones that needed to grow. She suggested possibly offering spaces to organizations such as the
West Valley Arts Council to display artwork to try and generate traffic in that area.
Councilmember Lieberman agreed it was a good idea.
Vice Mayor Martinez stated there was a consensus from the Council for staff to come back with
additional research information on this item.
Arts Events
Ms. Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director, stated Councilmembers Clark and Goulet
had requested staff to inquire about bringing more art events to the downtown area. She stated
that over the past three years, the Office of Special Events has partnered with the city's Public
Arts Program Office and the Glendale Arts Commission to incorporate an arts component into
the annual Glendale Jazz and Blues Festival. In addition, they have also added an arts
component to the Chocolate Affair, which was held last month featuring 26 artists. The
paintings are currently on display at the Promenade at Palmaire. She noted those paintings were
now a permanent part of Glendale's art collection. The marketing and communications
department has been proactively reaching and working with event producers to bring new events
to Glendale. They have been working with Scottsdale's Airpark Rotary Club for the past six
months to bring a unique art show to downtown. The group selected Glendale after seeing the
success the city had with producing festivals. The Glendale Via Colori Street Painting Festival
and Art Show will be held March 6th and 7th, 2010 in the downtown in Murphy Park. She noted
Glendale was one of only seven cities to host this event. Thousands of visitors are expected to
attend the event. She stated staff will continue to explore opportunities to incorporate an arts
7
component into its signature festivals, as well as attract privately produced arts shows to
downtown.
Councilmember Clark stated she could not be happier. She remarked she had suggested this
project over five years ago and was glad it was finally here. She commented she was hopeful
that someday they can bring a fine arts show to the west valley. She thanked staff for their hard
work in making this happen.
Councilmember Lieberman commented on the Juried Art Show held recently at the Sahuaro
Fruit Packing Shed. He stated this was a great arts event that received very little publicity. The
event featured over 283 pieces and many were sold. He remarked that this event could be better
publicized or possibly moved to the downtown area. The event featured excellent art pieces and
was worth attending.
Councilmember Goulet agreed it would be wonderful to have a fine arts show in the downtown
area; however, believes it was something that came about over time. He would like staff to
consider having actual art pieces displayed in the downtown area, including Sahuaro Ranch and
Westgate. He believes it will create enthusiasm among artists and the public. This will in turn
draw people into the city. The pieces could be rotated and many artists would be happy to
participate. This will help situate Glendale as an arts location and help start its process to
incorporate an arts component in different areas of town. This in turn will help with the ultimate
goal of having a fine arts show come to the city.
Special Event Application Fee
Ms. Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director, stated that Councilmember Lieberman
requested additional information on the City's Special Events Ordinance No. 2591.
Councilmember Lieberman requested the special event permit application fee required be
refunded when an application is denied by the city. She explained Council had adopted the
ordinance to streamline the permit application process for events held on city owned property.
The ordinance also authorized a non-refundable permit fee of$75.00. The fee charged was at the
low end of what other cities charged. Cities charge this fee in an attempt to recoup some of the
staff time required to review these applications for non-city events. She stated this fee was a
standard business practice in cities across the country and no other city currently refunds this fee.
She explained that in the last 2 1/2 years since the ordinance was passed, this has been the only
request they have received to refund this fee. She added that only two events in the last 2 1/2
years have been denied. She indicated their goal was to attract, host and permit as many events
as possible in Glendale. She noted this ordinance was well thought out which is reflected by the
number of events the city has hosted.
Councilmember Lieberman stated he did not question the ordinance for which he had voted.
However, he did question why the city accepted a $75.00 dollar fee knowing full well they had
no intention of going forward with the event. He had not envisioned that the city would not
refund the fee or accept the event. He remarked that he did not care what the rest of the cities in
Arizona did, however, cares deeply for the City of Glendale where he has lived for the last 44
years. He expressed his embarrassment that the city will not refund the $75.00 fee. The city
accepted the fee, knowing full well that they were not going to approve the event. Ms. Frisoni
8
stated staff does not have the authority to refund the fee as per the ordinance. She indicated the
ordinance called for the fee to be a non-refundable deposit. Councilmember Lieberman
remarked he wanted a provision put in the ordinance that when the city refuses the event, without
just cause, the deposit is refunded. Ms. Frisoni disputed the fact that the city knew in advance
they were not going to approve it. She explained this went through the process like any other
permit, but because of a lot of issues out of their control, such as the FAA grants, they were not
allowed to hold that event at that facility. She added staff had suggested a handful of other
facilities and locations within the city as options. She remarked that in defense of the process,
she would not call it an unjustified reason for not approving the permit. Councilmember
Lieberman asked if those other suggestions were on city property. Ms. Frisoni responded that
she did not recall. Councilmember Lieberman noted that most of the suggestions were not even
in the city of Glendale. He noted he understood the ordinance, however, a provision should be
added when the city knows going in that they are not going to approve the application.
Councilmember Clark stated she had gone back through the minutes when she asked if this fee
had ever been waived. She asked if they had checked. Ms. Frisoni stated she had and found no
instance where they had waived those fees.
National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program
Ms. Diane Wood, Senior Management Assistant stated that Councilmember Clark had requested
staff inquire about National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card Program. She stated
this program was offered to member cities through the NLC and the most recent information was
that there were 350 participating cities nationwide. The program is for residents who do not
have any prescription insurance or their medication was not covered under their insurance policy.
If Council wishes to have this new program moved forward, staff recommends this be discussed
during the budget process, since it will require staff resources.
Councilmember Clark commented that this Prescription Discount Card offers an average of 20%
in savings which was significant. She added this card can be used by any resident or family
members with no restrictions based on age, health, wealth or lack thereof. There are no
enrollment fees or verification of Glendale residency or limit on the amount of times the card can
be used. The only requirement is that the city must be a member of the NLC and the program
must be managed by the city. CVS Caremark will provide the personalized discount
identification cards. Participating cities must promote the program through various city venues,
as well as provide distribution points. She understands this must go through the budget process,
but respectfully asks that Council and staff pursue this as they go through the budget process.
She stated this was a win-win for the residents of Glendale that do not have insurance.
Councilmember Goulet inquired about the level of involvement and participation the city would
have to make. He asked if staff would be required to answer questions when CVS refers
inquiries to the city. He noted that it was one of his concerns. Councilmember Clark responded
that all questions went though the CVS system.
Councilmember Frate questioned why only 350 cities were participating in this program. Ms.
Wood explained that 42 states were currently participating in the NLC program. He was also
concerned with the prescription card having the city's logo and the fact that you did not have to
9
be a resident of Glendale. He noted he would like further information before forming an opinion
and would like staff to contact a participating city on the programs process.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Frate's suggestion. She indicated that Peoria
and Surprise were currently participating in this program. She asked staff to inquire about how
the program works and how it was progressing.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked for this item to come back through the budget process with
additional information as requested.
New Items of Special Interest
Councilmember Clark stated that both she and Vice Mayor Martinez had come up with the same
idea. She explained that Glendale still had no fee structure for 2nd and 3rd false alarms. They are
requesting the police department do the necessary research and come forward with the possibility
of implementing a false alarm fee structure.
Councilmember Frate asked Councilmember Clark to further explain since many might not
understand the false alarm issue. She explained that false alarms that go off by accident at
homes and businesses were becoming a problem that took needed resources from the police
department. She remarked that when she was a business owner 20 years ago, the fee for alarms
going off accidentally was $75 to $100, just for the police having to respond. She stated
Glendale was way behind the curve on this issue.
Councilmember Frate asked staff to look into whether there were any code restrictions on HAM
radio operator towers. He stated he had some constituents asking about any kind of restriction
the city had for antennas and the number of antennas. He noted he did not find any restrictions
himself and asked staff to look into it.
Councilmember Lieberman asked staff to look into including a clause to Ordinance 2591. He
stated that if the city refuses an event, they city should refund the fee to the applicant. He also
inquired if the city had paid the fee membership to the Fighters Country Partnership. Mr. Brent
Stoddard indicated that the city was a member and was paying on their membership fees. He
stated he will be happy to provide that information to him after the meeting.
Councilmember Lieberman asked staff to look into hiring a firm who specializes in bringing
stores to communities. He discussed the economic issues facing the city and how it was in dire
need of assistance.
Councilmember Goulet remarked that he will not add another item since staff had enough
research to do with the other items proposed. However, would like the texting resolution to
come forward to Council so the City Council can vote on it.
Vice Mayor Martinez stated he wanted to add a comment to Councilmember Clark's information
regarding false alarms. He explained that Chief Conrad had informed him the city receives
8,000 to 9,000 alarms every year with 98% of them being false. He remarked on the amount of
10
police man hours being spent answering these calls. He stated this was an important issue,
especially in these economic times when they were on a tight budget.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented on Councilmember Lieberman's request to amend an
ordinance. He asked that since this item had already been researched, what would be the next
step. Mr. Tindall stated this item would be brought to an evening meeting to be voted on. Vice
Mayor Martinez asked if they needed a consensus to move forward on this issue. Mr. Tindall
stated that traditionally, an item such as this needs a consensus. Councilmember Clark expressed
her support. She stated that in the interest of fairness, if the city refuses to host the event, they
should refund the applicants money. Additionally, staff indicated that this rarely happens so the
city would not necessarily lose any money. Councilmember Frate asked if the application stated
that this was a non-refundable fee. Mr. Tindall responded, yes. The fee was for the time used to
process the application. Councilmember Clark remarked that that was not in question and was
the reason why Councilmember Lieberman was asking for an amendment.
Councilmember Clark stated she still supports returning the fee. Councilmember Frate remarked
that since staff was spending time researching the application, he was fine with how the
ordinance was currently written.
Councilmember Goulet stated that because of how the ordinance was written, he would not
support bringing something forward since staff's time equaled dollars and the city somehow has
to recover that portion.
Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Councilmembers Goulet and Frate. He stated that this item is
not recommended to move forward.
Vice Mayor Martinez inquired if the item brought forward regarding obtaining professional
assistance with the Centerline project should be dealt with at the City Manager's level. Mr. Ed
Beasley, City Manager stated that since this item deals with contract issues, this item should be
brought forward during the budget process. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that the Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission spent the day
shadowing some of the staff and Councilmembers. He thanked them for their attendance to
today's meeting.
As no further business was discussed, Vice Mayor Martinez adjourned the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
11