HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/18/2010 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the
Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
"I'll
GLENDE
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION
Council Chambers—Workshop Room
5850 West Glendale Avenue
May 18, 2010
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: Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Nick DiPiazza, Deputy City
Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. FY 2009-10 THIRD QUARTER GENERAL FUND REPORT ON REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager, Sherry M.
Schurhammer, Management and Budget Director
This is a request for City Council to review the FY 2009-10 third quarter report on General Fund
(GF) revenues and expenditures. The third quarter report covers revenues received from July
2009 through March 2010.
The third quarter report reflects some very good news, as explained in the following two bullet
points, and as shown in the bar chart found near the end of this report:
o First, the last two quarters of revenue collections reflect a narrowing of the gap in the
year-over-year comparison. There was a $6.1 million gap at the end of the first
quarter in the year-over-year comparison of revenue collections. At the end of the
second quarter, the gap in the year-over-year comparison for that quarter declined to
$2.9 million. By the end of the third quarter, that gap was reduced to $1.5 million.
1
o Second, the last two quarters of revenue collections also reflect consecutive growth
over the prior quarter, a reversal of the six consecutive quarters of decline that
occurred prior to the second quarter of this FY.
The FY 2009-10 GF third 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
o GF expenditures are $6.6 million or(5.4%)below budget.
o GF revenues are $8.8 million or(7.2%)below budget.
General Fund Expenditures
• The FY 2009-10 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 2009-10
(in 000s)
FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 Amount
YTD Budget YTD Actuals Under/(Over)
Budget
GF Salaries/Benefits $88,770 $85,458 $3,312
GF Non-Personnel $30,354 $28,315 $2,039
GF Debt Service $1,239 $728 $511
(leases)
PAYGO Capital $1,809 $1,060 $749
TOTAL $122,172 $115,561 $6,611
• Overall, the third quarter actual expenditures are $6.6 million or 5.4% 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 2009-10.
2
YTD Comparison
Budget to Actuals, FY 2009-10
(in 000s)
FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 Percent Change
YTD Budget YTD Actuals From Budget
City Sales Tax $40,425 $37,174 (8%)
State Income Tax $23,478 $23,469 ---
State Sales Tax $15,375 $13,191 (14.2%)
State MV In-Lieu $7,297 $6,056 (17%)
HURF $10,575 $9,906 (6.3%)
Primary Prop Tax $3,161 $2,627 (16.9%)
All Other $21,412 $20,543 (4%)
Total $121,723 $112,966 (7.2%)
• GF revenue receipts through the third quarter of FY 2009-10 are $8.8 million under budget.
• GF city sales tax collections are $40.4 million. This amount is $3.2 million under budget.
• State-shared revenue collections are $42.7 million. This amount is $3.4 million 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
$669,000 under budget.
• Property tax collections are $534,000 under budget.
• The All Other category, which includes such items as court fees, permit fees, business
licenses and recreation revenue, is $869,000 under budget.
• The following table is a comparison of the third quarter actual revenues between FY 2008-
09 and FY 2009-10. This comparison is important because it indicates changes in actual
collections between fiscal years.
3
Comparison of
FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10 Actuals
(in 000s)
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Percent Change
YTD Actuals YTD Actuals From FY 2008-09
City Sales Tax $39,959 $37,174 (7%)
State Income Tax $27,200 $23,469 (13.7%)
State Sales Tax $15,057 $13,191 (12.4%)
State MV In-Lieu $6,532 $6,056 (7.3%)
HURF $10,666 $9,906 (7.1%)
Primary Prop Tax $2,505 $2,627 4.9%
All Other $21,592 $20,543 (4.9%)
Total $123,511 $112,966 (8.5%)
• GF revenue receipts through the third quarter of FY 2009-10 are $10.5 million or 8.5% less
than the same period in the prior FY.
• City sales tax collections of$37.2 million are $2.7 million or 7% less than the $39.9 million
collected through the third quarter of the prior FY.
• State-shared revenue collections, which include income tax, state sales tax and motor
vehicle in-lieu receipts, of $42.7 million are $6.1 million less than the $48.8 million
collected through the third quarter of the prior FY. Some of this was anticipated.
• Property tax is $122,000 more than last year's collections.
• The All Other category, which includes items such as permit fees, court collections and
license fees, of$20.5 million are $1 million or 4.9%less than last year.
• The following chart reflects the year-to-year comparison for revenue collections, but by
quarter rather than as a total. This chart shows a small quarter by quarter growth, indicating
that revenues are no longer declining. Prior to the second quarter we saw six quarters of
consecutive decline.
4
Actual Revenues
i ►
�
$140,000
$120,000
$1001000 $40,24(1 —
$38,754
80,000 —
60,000 $40,860 $37,941
$40,000 —
$20,000 $42,411 $36,271 —
$0
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-1 a
First Quarter ❑Second Quarter Third Quarter
Designated Sales Tax Receipts
• In the following table, the transportation sales tax budget to actuals comparison shows that
this fund collected $622,000 less than the amount budgeted.
YTD Comparison
Budget to Actuals, FY 2009-10
(in 000s)
FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 Percent Change
Budget Actuals from Budget
Transportation $15 000 $14 378 (4.1%)
Sales Tax
• The following table shows a comparison of budget to actuals for FY 2009-10 for the two
components of the public safety sales tax.
YTD Comparison
5
Budget to Actuals, FY 2009-10
(in 000s)
FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 Percent Change
Budget Actuals From Budget
Police sales tax $ 9,484 $8,800 (7%)
Fire sales tax $4,737 $4,389 (7%)
• For FY 2009-10, the police component of the public safety sales tax was $684,000 less than
the budget and fire was $348,000 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 third quarter of FY 2009-10. No
Council guidance is requested on this report.
Mr. Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager, summarized the cash base report for revenues and
expenditures for the period of July 2009 to March of 2010. He indicated they were starting to
see signs of some stability in the market. He noted unemployment is still slow as well as
consumer spending and business activity, therefore, it is unlikely this area will turn around soon.
This will continue to be a slow recovery; particularly in Arizona were growth and tourism drive
the economy. He indicated it will take time before they see numbers and activity as seen in prior
years. Experts continue to agree that the recession is over and we are now entering into a
recovery phase.
Ms. Sherry Schurhammer, Management and Budget Director, explained that quarter by quarter,
revenue comparisons show that the gap has narrowed since the start of this fiscal year. She
stated there was a $6.1 million gap at the end of the first quarter in the year-over-year
comparison of revenue collections. At the end of the second quarter, the gap in the year-over-
year comparison for that quarter declined to $2.9 million. By the end of the third quarter, that
gap was reduced to $1.5 million. Additionally, the last two quarters of revenue collections also
reflect consecutive growth over the prior quarter, a reversal of the six consecutive quarters of
decline that occurred prior to the second quarter of this fiscal year. She noted that although this
was good news, they still had a long way to go.
Mayor Scruggs acknowledged the city was seeing good news in narrowing the gap; however,
they were still down 8% on city sales tax collection, for a total of 7.2% below what was
projected. She questioned how staff missed the mark so far in forecasting revenues when
everyone knew things were bad. She expressed her concerns on also possibly missing revenue
projections this year. Ms. Schurhammer explained that when they first developed the revenue
budget for the current fiscal year; it was done in January of 2009. Therefore, most of the
projections were assumptions on where the current fiscal year would end and then where the next
year would be. She indicated that revenue for FY 08/09 ended lower than expected. Mayor
6
Scruggs stated she was aware that projections were done in January; however, there had been
sufficient data that could have been used before the last budget was adopted. She asked what
revenue figures were being used for FY 10/11. Ms. Schurhammer stated the revenue numbers
for both city and state tax are comparable to the base of 3rd quarter figures for next fiscal year.
She noted that the pace was approximately $49.6 million. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to compare
the 12 month number to the 12 month number from last year. Mr. Skeete explained they would
not get an accurate projection by that comparison. They would end up with more of a projection
since last year's numbers were so low compared to the start of the stabilization seen today.
Mayor Scruggs interjected stating they did not have stabilization in the current market as yet.
She reiterated her question on the revenue projection for FY 09/10 and FY 10/11. Ms.
Schurhammer noted city sales tax estimates for the end of last fiscal year was $53.5 million and
state sales tax was $20.5 million. She explained that actual figures for city sales tax were $51.6
million and state tax was $19.3 million. She noted that for FY 09/10, city sales tax was $53.9
million and state was $20.5 million. Mayor Scruggs remarked that even though the city had been
in a very bad recession, staff had still projected the same levels as the prior year. She asked to
see revenue figures for FY 10/11. Ms. Schurhammer asked a staff member to retrieve that
information and bring it back to the meeting.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the city sales tax for FY 09/10 included the amnesty funds. Ms.
Schurhammer explained that the amnesty money will not be reflected until April, in the fourth
quarter report. Ms. Schurhammer indicated that revenue figures for FY 10/11 were as follows,
city sales tax estimated budget is at $50.5 million while state sales tax is $17.7 million. Mayor
Scruggs remarked it seemed that this time around, staff had taken a harder look at their
estimations. She noted they might end up with FY 10/11, better than FY 09/10. Mr. Skeete
agreed. Mayor Scruggs stated she felt more comfortable with the figures presented today and
thanked staff for taking a harder look and budgeting appropriately.
Councilmember Clark noted that when adding up the quarter gaps, she had come up with $10.3
million. She asked if this has already been accounted for this current year. Ms. Schurhammer
explained they anticipate closing the gap by looking at the expenditure side where there was a
savings of $6.6 million. Furthermore, additional revenue will be forthcoming through tax
amnesty. She anticipates these measures will account for this year's shortfall. Councilmember
Clark inquired when staff changed budgeting procedures. Ms. Schurhammer noted that it was
possibly in FY 04/05; however, she indicated she would check.
Mayor Scruggs commented it had been reported that Glendale had the second highest charge to
the state's retirement system totaling $2.1 million. Therefore, she had some questions regarding
Glendale's retirement incentive program. She inquired if the incentives were included in this
year's budget. She also inquired if they were still offering this program since the city has
reduced many programs. Mr. Skeete indicated that staff had built the cost into the current
budget. He noted the city had ended up with over 100 vacancies and that was how they were
able to cover the cost of the ASRS program. He explained the vacancies created by the
retirements were the ones that were being held vacant and frozen in addition to the 57 in order to
pay for this program. However, they will be unable to continue this program for FY 10/11.
7
Councilmember Lieberman asked if they currently had 77 open positions. Ms. Schurhammer
explained that the process was very complicated and would like to discuss this at a later time
with him. Councilmember Lieberman agreed, however, he wished to make clear that the city
eliminated 96 positions. Ms. Schurhammer stated he was correct. Councilmember Lieberman
wondered what the deficit for the arena was this year. Mr. Skeete remarked staff did not have
that information with them today, however, will forward it to him. Councilmember Lieberman
agreed.
Mayor Scruggs asked if similar projects were being done for transportation and public safety tax
collection for FY 10/11, recognizing that areas were still struggling. Mr. Skeete indicated staff
had taken the decline into consideration for all projects in this year's budget. Mayor Scruggs
asked if she should expect to see lower transportation and public safety figures for FY 10/11 than
for FY 08/09. Mr. Skeete stated she was correct. Ms. Schurhammer indicated that transportation
sales tax collections for FY 08/09 were $20.9 million and the budget set for next year was $18.6
million.
Mayor Scruggs commented she felt better that revenue projections were so much more
conservative this coming year.
2. ALARM PROGRAM
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Steven Conrad, Police Chief
This is a request for City Council to provide guidance on the proposed Alarm Program.
False alarms are a major problem in the city and constitute a drain on valuable police resources.
In 2009, 98.4% of the alarm calls received were false. Officers spent almost 3,500 hours
handling these false alarm calls.
Staff is suggesting an Alarm Program to reduce the number of false alarms, hold subscribers and
alarm businesses accountable, and reduce the amount of time officers spend responding to false
alarm calls.
This item addresses Council's goal of one community committed to public safety by increasing
the time that officers are able to respond to other calls.
Alarm subscribers would be permitted, providing the Police Department with contact
information for responsible parties of the residence or business. This information is critical to
the efficient and effective police response to alarms.
False alarms are due primarily to user error and/or faulty equipment or installation. Licensing
will hold the alarm businesses and agents accountable and require them to provide proper
installation and training to increase user knowledge of their systems and its operation.
8
Several steps would take place prior to any assessments for excessive false alarms including: a
citywide marketing campaign to raise awareness about the problem and the program, a grace
period, and warnings for the first false alarm at any location.
False alarms were discussed at the March 23, 2010 budget workshop.
Research shows that implementation of such a program will reduce false alarms and allows
officers the time necessary to respond to other priorities.
Alarm businesses and alarm agents that are not currently licensed will be identified, allowing
additional protections for residents and businesses using those services.
Revenue projection with a permit fee is estimated at $575,000 the first year and $416,500
annually. Without a permit fee it is estimated at$275,000 the first year and $266,500 annually.
Staff is seeking guidance from Council on whether they would like to implement an Alarm
Program and would they prefer a program with or without a permit fee.
Police Chief Steven Conrad provided a brief summary on the procedures used for this process.
The false alarm process is as follows: alarm activation, police response, false determination,
false alarm process and user notification and payment or appeal.
Proposed solutions include: licensing of alarm companies and alarm technicians, user permits
and warning and fees. Potential revenue sources include licensing fees, user permits and false
alarm fees.
Chief Conrad explained that a resident or business receives a warning and ways on how to
prevent future false alarms with their first false alarm. The main idea for this process is not to
have to go back to that address. He explained that a second false alarm within a 365 day period
would result in the home/business owner receiving an assessment fee of $85. He noted that
escalating rates applied for additional false alarms.
Councilmember Knaack asked if there was a time element included after the first false alarm.
Chief Conrad explained the cycle runs by a 365 day period. Therefore, each year starts a new
period cycle.
Councilmember Goulet asked if they had thought of implementing two different fee structures,
one for residential and one for commercial since 80% of calls were commercial. He also asked if
he knew the percentage in calls that would be reduced to the city. Chief Conrad indicated that
under this proposal, there was no difference in fines. However, since the commercial element
receives more false alarms, the escalating fee structure would affect businesses more.
Councilmember Goulet explained home owners might look at this fee structure as possibly not
being a fair assessment. Chief Conrad understands officers encounter different circumstances
when on calls; however, the assessments were created to motivate owners to take the proper
steps to prevent false alarms. Chief Conrad estimates this proposed program will reduce false
alarms by two-thirds, which translates to 400 false alarms as opposed to 10,000. He reiterated
that this was only an estimate.
Mayor Scruggs remarked this program was intended to be a cost recovery program; however, it
seemed to have become a revenue enhancement program. She indicated figures showed lost
police department time equated to $161,500 for last year. Additionally, if the program is
9
implemented with a permit fee, the second year revenue is estimated to be $266,000. She noted
that if an additional fee was added, total revenue would be close to $300,000 or $400,000.
Councilmember Clark asked if the new false alarm procedure allowed for an officer to call
dispatch and start the process instead of clearing it as was done today. Chief Conrad agreed.
Councilmember Clark remarked this process was being created to deter people from having their
alarms go off accidently and making revenue was a side benefit. She agreed with the tier rate
system as proposed.
Councilmember Clark commented that senior alarm bracelets possibly generate many false
alarms as well. She has concerns on imposing the same fee structure on this population. She
asked staff to find a different tier process for seniors. She disagrees with charging the $15
renewal processing fee and would prefer it become more of an incentive instead of a deterrent.
Chief Conrad explained there was an appeal process a senior could utilize as well as working
with the alarm companies and family. Each situation would be looked at on an individual basis.
He explained the importance of the user fee permits. He stated it provided valuable information
on ownership status, quality of company installation and address location. He added he was
flexible on the renewal fee. Councilmember Clark noted that some minimal fee should be
charged for recovery cost purposes.
Councilmember Clark asked if there was a penalty for non-renewal. Chief Conrad stated the
proposed draft ordinance would include a penalty for operating an alarm without a user permit.
The owner would receive a warning and 10 days to apply for a permit; a $100 fine will be
imposed if the owner does not comply. Councilmember Clark remarked she recently read that
another city was going after the alarm companies instead of the owners and asked for his position
on this method. Chief Conrad noted that the proposed ordinance holds both parties responsible;
however, in the end, the homeowner would be the one paying the fee.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked what the highest numbers of false alarm were from one location or
as an average. Chief Conrad responded that he did not have that information with him today;
however, will generate a report based on the highest number at a particular address.
Mayor Scruggs commented that this proposal had been presented before by Chief Conrad's
predecessor, citing the same issue that this created enormous strain on police manpower, which
in her view did not reach levels of inordinate expense. However, the last proposal was not
approved since it relied heavily on administrative manpower and cost. Additionally, people
living in a city paying taxes and fees expect certain services and chief among them was public
safety. She explained that from the alarm owner's perspective, they were doing something good
by having alarms and deterring crime. She stated they could argue that they were saving police
manpower since the criminal element was less likely to commit a crime in a building with an
alarm. She noted that in her family, she paid $455 a year to save police department resources.
She added the only time the alarm company calls the police is when they can not reach a
homeowner. She agrees with Councilmember Goulet and Vice Mayor Martinez on reviewing
the fee process for commercial and residential as well as knowing the source of the highest false
alarms.
Mayor Scruggs stated this issue had gone from a cost recovery program penalizing the people
who habitually waste police resources, to a revenue enhancement program penalizing everyone
else who is already paying to deter crime. Additionally, information needed for the permit was
already with the alarm companies. She believes they had gotten away from the original idea
which was to require fair compensation by those who create an extraordinary problem. She
remarked that, in her view, this has turned out to be a huge revenue enhancement program for the
city on the backs of the homeowners in Glendale. She indicated that $161,000 worth of used
time did not add up to $575,000; thus, seeming like an enhancement program. She explained
10
that as city officials, they had the tremendous power of taking other people's money by law;
however, she would not do that just because she could. She noted she finds no equity in the
proposed program and does not agree with the broad brush approach for the few careless
businesses and homeowners.
Chief Conrad commented he does not disagree with some of the comments made. He explained
that it was important they use their resources effectively. He was not concerned with how much
revenue will be generated but by how much time will be saved by not responding to false alarms.
He noted that the 3,500 hours spent on this issue equates to a couple of full time officers. He
reiterated this program is primarily being used to educate people on how to use the system and
what to do if they have a false alarm. He explained that alarm companies do a good job of
working with their customers to make sure they were not contacting the police. He agreed that
homeowners with alarm system were doing a great job in helping the police department best use
their resources. He reviewed the existing ordinance, fees and policy structure and stated that
most of the fees were already being paid by the business owner.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the city needed an MOU for each school district since the
schools typically are very large and require much manpower. Chief Conrad explained that it was
the city's responsibility to respond and check the school building as per Mayor Scruggs comment
of tax payers expecting to see their tax dollars at work. He reiterated this program was not based
on cost recovery but only trying to send a message as to the importance of knowing how to use
the equipment correctly.
Councilmember Lieberman commented on his experiences as a business owner and the number
of times his business was broken into. He explained he had no problem paying for a permit or
false alarm fees. He noted this was part of the education process and what came with the
responsibility of being a business owner. He reiterated that the whole purpose of this program is
to stop the waste of an officer's time. He added the fee structure will get the attention of the
owners so they can do something about it.
Councilmember Frate remarked that it was totally unacceptable to have 10,000 false alarms in
the city with only 151 being valid. He added that something has to be done especially since an
alarm system comes with responsibility. Chief Conrad noted that a burglary alarm call would be
a priority 2. Councilmember Frate suggested a compromise to have a nominal one time charge,
to at least register the people who have alarms. He has no problem with enacting a fee for
second and third false alarms since that was the only way to get people's attention.
Mayor Scruggs summarized the discussion. She said that thus far, she has not heard anyone
object to charging repeat offenders for false alarms. She noted there was also the question if
everyone should be charged the same amount of money. Additionally, there are also questions
regarding the user permit. She stated there was also agreement from Council that the police
department should recover the money that equates to the loss of police resources. With this
process, it is also believed that it will help to educate the public on this issue. Everyone was in
agreement. She suggested discussing a total package that would cover those points.
Councilmember Clark was glad to hear Council agree to address false alarms and the need for
some kind of deterrent. She believes there has to be a fee structure since it seemed to be the only
way to get people's attention. She suggested since the Mayor had a problem charging people a
fee, they might have a thirty day grace period where people would not pay anything if they
register within those 30 days. Chief Conrad explained the program proposed had a marketing
component that worked with the alarm industry, media, and the public in an attempt to raise
awareness about the problem and what they can do to prevent false alarms. He believes the
alarm industry will work with the department to reach their customers to make them aware of the
new ordinance and the changes in the code. He explained the police department will not be
11
aware of any unregistered alarms unless there is a false alarm at the location. Consequently, the
owner has 10 days to obtain a permit or receive a $100 fine.
Chief Conrad stated the next step in the process should this move forward, would be to finish
creating an ordinance with any modifications as per Council's directions. He hopes to receive
directions and changes in time to bring the ordinance back to Council before their summer break.
The police department will then handle the timetable regarding purchasing equipment and the
hardware to be used for this program. He reiterated the licensing requirements were already in
place and the current proposal makes no changes on current licensing fees for alarm businesses
or technicians. He indicated should the Council approve this item before its summer break; they
could have it fully operational by January of 2011.
Councilmember Knaack stated her opposition to a user fee. She indicated that users were
already paying alarm companies a generous fee and those companies already have all the
information needed. She commented on her business being burglarized four times with only one
being a false alarm. She believes this was a huge undertaking for the city when the information
was already recorded with the alarm companies. She supports penalizing repeat offenders;
however, not with a fee for all. She commented that her mother was 98 years old and has a
rescue alert bracelet. She said her mother would be deathly afraid to be fined for an accidental
false alarm. She suggests also looking at different fees for commercial and residential. She
explained this should not be a penalty program but rather a deterrent program.
Chief Conrad reiterated the user permit fee was to make sure they had accurate contact with
owners and the alarm company. He questioned most alarm companies having updated
information. In regards to the user fee, he would look to Council for direction. He restated his
motivation for this program was to decrease the amount of false alarms around the city.
Councilmember Knaack suggested they should only do this as a city and not charge a fee. She
expressed her concern on the public's response or lack of it regarding registration. She sees a
real problem on how this will eventually be done, however, appreciates staff's information on
this matter. Chief Conrad explained they know who the problematic 20% are but have no way to
penalize them.
Councilmember Goulet commented that alarm companies might have a problem sharing their
information with the city because of confidentiality rules. Additionally, regarding the senior
population, they can possibly create a program using age notification so as to not penalize
seniors of a certain age. He agrees that something has to be done to minimize the current amount
of false alarms. He asked if this program was being modeled after other city programs.
Chief Conrad stated that senior false alarms were relativity small with less than 1%.
Consequently, creating an exemption program could easily be done because of the low
percentage. He noted there were 11 cities around the Valley that were already doing what they
were proposing. He added that what they were proposing was not anything out of the ordinary.
Councilmember Lieberman approved of the programs and had no objections to the $85 fee or the
follow up fees. He stated this program was necessary to curve the waste of police manpower.
Mayor Scruggs summarized Council's comments. She stated everyone was in agreement to
charge a fee for a second false alarm. She agreed with Councilmember Knaack's assessment that
it was going to be very difficult to get the information. She had concerns with creating a data
base solely for this purpose. However, everyone agreed with the main issue of making sure an
officer's time is not being wasted. She indicated this program has to start with a connection to
the heaviest violators, as Councilmember Goulet suggested. She explained that another good
resource would be to call people that had alarm calls to the police in the last year.
12
Mr. Kline, explained the difficulties in obtaining ownership names. He indicated that the
Arizona Alarm Association supported the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs indicated that there seemed to be some unresolved questions about the process.
There were still issues regarding senior fees, data base fees, assessing who the heavy violators
were and contacting business owners.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked staff for information regarding how this program has impacted other
cities. Chief Conrad responded that he did not have that information. Vice Mayor Martinez
agrees something should be done, however, was not sure about the fee structure.
Councilmember Frate indicated he supports charging repeat offenders, however, was not clear on
how to implement a fee structure.
Chief Conrad indicated the data base could not be built without the ordinance that requires
people to report their information. The senior exemption would be an easy program to create
modeling other cities. He remarked he did not come before Council today to ask for any money,
and if approved, he will find the resources within the police department to move forward with
this program regardless of a fee structure agreement. He stated this program was important
enough to him to dedicate department resources to focus on building the data base. He reiterated
the need for approval of the ordinance as the first step to move forward.
Councilmember Clark agreed that creating the ordinance was important and should be done
quickly. She noted she can forgo the user fee since a penalty will be used for repeat offenders.
She supports the fees discussed after the first warning as well as the penalty fee for those who
have not taking the time to register their alarm. She also supports the senior exemption and the
licensing of providers of alarms in the city.
Mayor Scruggs commented on the many options the city has to register people. She encouraged
them to start with employees, boards and commissions and Glendale's email lists. She noted
they could easily get 15% of the population and the rest could be word of month. She stated the
Council was in agreement on most of the issues, however, still had concerns regarding the user
fee permit and the renewal fee.
Vice Mayor Martinez stated he was not in favor of charging a user permit fee. Mayor Scruggs
indicated that a majority approves charging a fee to someone who after the grace period does not
register. Chief Conrad stated they will be following up with the heavier violators to ensure they
understand the ordinance and provide them an opportunity to do what's needed.
Councilmember Frate asked how many smoke and medical false alarms were received annually
to the fire department. Staff answered they receive approximately 700 false smoke and medical
calls. He indicated that Fire was assessing the City of Phoenix's false alarm call plan. Mayor
Scruggs noted Fire could access this information from the Police Department. Chief Conrad
agreed. He asked for guidance from the city attorney on this matter. Mr. Nick DePiazza, Deputy
City Attorney, stated that the ordinance will also cover the Fire Department's false alarm needs
and was basically a teamwork concept for both departments.
Mayor Scruggs asked for direction from Council on the Fire Department's impending false alarm
plans. Councilmember Clark noted it was a good idea; however, Fire has not done any work on
this item and would like them to bring it back for review at a later time. She approves moving
forward with only the police ordinance. Mayor Scruggs agreed.
Councilmember Frate remarked he was glad he asked the question of Fire and was surprised that
their numbers for false alarms were also high.
13
As there were no further comments, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
14