HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/30/2010 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the
Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
p P .
GL E
MINUTES OF THE
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION
Council Chambers—Workshop Room
5850 West Glendale Avenue
March 30, 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: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager;
Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. FY 2011 BUDGET—2ND WORKSHOP
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager and Sherry
Schurhammer, Budget and Management Director
This is a request for City Council to review the proposed capital improvement plan that is
included in the Council budget workbook.
The information to be addressed at today's workshop is shown below:
o Follow up information regarding the
• Operating budgets for the Police and Fire Departments and
• The impact on Glendale's fixed route bus and Dial-A-Ride services, and
alternatives to address the impact, as a result of the state's reduction in
funding for the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) (see attached
memo).
o The proposed capital improvement plan (CIP), as reflected in the Council budget
workbook.
Included with this council communication agenda item are memos that provide follow up
information that Council requested during the March 23 budget workshop discussion.
1
o The uses of the designated sales taxes for public safety;
o The City of Phoenix' application fees for liquor licenses,
o The proposed changes to Glendale's planning review process for cell towers placed
on privately-owned property;
o The proposed transaction fees for pawn shops;
o The expenditure, revenue and attendance information for the Glendale Adult Center,
Rose Lane Center, O'Neil Center, and the Glendale Community Center; and
o The proposed fire prevention inspection fees.
Council's goals continue to serve as the foundation for the development of the city's annual
budget regardless of whether the economy is growing or contracting. Vision, innovation,
partnerships, and dedicated employees continue to play a central role in making the city's efforts
over the past year rewarding and successful in areas of key importance to Council.
The proposed CIP was developed over the last several months based on the factors listed below:
o City Council's strategic goals,
o The city's secondary assessed valuation (AV),
o Council's decisions regarding secondary property tax rates and
o The revenue generated from the city's secondary AV and secondary property tax
rate for the payment of debt service on general obligation bonds already issued and
anticipated future issuances.
The proposed CIP reflects the remaining portion of the new Municipal Court project moving to
FY 2015, and the West Area Library moving from FY 2014 to FY 2015. An explanation for this
change is provided in the remaining portion of this section.
Given that the CIP is a 10-year plan, it is necessarily based on assumptions made about future
secondary AV and secondary property tax rates, the two factors that determine the amount of
revenue generated to pay general obligation bond debt service. For the purposes of the proposed
CIP, the future secondary property tax rate was assumed to remain unchanged at$1.3699.
The assumptions regarding the city's secondary assessed valuation were challenging to develop
given the unprecedented real estate market for residential and commercial properties that
permeates the valley and the state.
o The Maricopa County Assessor's Office announced that single family residential
properties across the county have experienced three consecutive years of valuation
declines. This trend is found in the vast majority of cities in the county.
2
o Also, for the first time in several decades, commercial properties experienced a
decline as reflected in the tax year 2011 notices sent to commercial property owners
in February 2010. This trend is found in every city in the county.
In February 2010, the assessor's office mailed assessed valuation notices for tax year 2011 (the
city's FY 2012) to property owners that reflect the proposed valuations to be used for FY 2012
secondary property tax revenue.
Based on those notices, we project that Glendale's secondary AV will decline another 14% (see
Table 1 below), the 3rd year of secondary AV declines for the city of Glendale.
The total decline in Glendale's secondary AV from the peak in FY 2009 to the projected figure
for FY 2012 — from $2.19 billion in value to $1.51 billion in value — equates to a loss of almost
one-third of the city's secondary assessed valuation.
Given the sizeable decline in secondary AV expected for FY 2012, property tax revenue to pay
secondary property tax-funded debt service would be insufficient if corrective actions to the
current plan (adopted as part of the FY 2010 budget) were not taken. As a result of this
information, the proposed CIP reflects the remaining portion of the new Municipal Court project
moving to FY 2015, and the West Area Library moving from FY 2014 to FY 2015.
Table 1 — Glendale's Secondary Assessed Valuation (AV)
& Glendale's Property Tax Rate
Secondary AV& Secondary Primary
Fiscal Calendar Year (CY) % Change Total Prop
Prop Tax Prop Tax
Year Real Estate Market in AV Tax Rate
Rate Rate
the AV Reflects
$1.37B
FY 2007 8% $1.4275 $0.2925 $1.7200
CY 2005
$1.83B
FY 2008 CY 2006 33% $1.3519 $0.2681 $1.6200
$2.19B
FY 2009 20% $1.3519 $02432 $1.5951
CY 2007
$2.13B
FY 2010 (3%) $1.3699 $0.2252 $15951
CY2008
$1.75B
FY 2011Y 2009 (18%) $1.3699 $0.2252 $1.5951
C
FY 2012 $1.51B (14%) $1.3699 $0.2252 $1.5951
projected CY 2010
FY 2013 $1.51B
0% $1 3699 $02252 $1 5951
projected CY 2011
FY 2014 $152B
1% $1.3699 $0.2252 $15951
projected CY 2012
3
The city did not build a capital improvement program based on any expectations of a windfall in
projected property tax revenue as a result of rising property values. In fact, at that time, the
growth projections for secondary assessed valuation were very conservative at a 3% - 4% growth
rate. This conservative assumption is in contrast to the 10 year [1997 — 2007] average annual
growth rate of 8.7% in Glendale's secondary assessed valuation.
Nevertheless, corrective action to the FY 2010 CIP (current plan)was required because of
o Three consecutive years of secondary AV declines resulting in a projected return
to a valuation amount that is less than the secondary AV level for FY 2008,
o A reduction in the secondary property tax rate, and
o The fact that we issued over $130 million in general obligation bonds since FY
2006 for general obligation bond-funded projects.
The alternative to the proposed CIP shown in this budget workbook, which shows the
continuation of the new Municipal Court in FY 2015 and the West Area Library in FY 2015, is
the following:
Adjust the secondary rate by approximately 11 cents so the new Municipal Court could be
completed in FY 2011 and 2012.
o This option would require increasing the secondary rate by approximately 11
cents, and leaving the primary rate unchanged, for a total property tax rate
change from $1.5951 to $1.7023.
o The opening of a new court facility will bring with it new, additional
operating costs of at least $1 million that would have to be added to the GF
operating budget for the start of FY 2013.
o The West Area Library would remain in FY 2015.
The first budget workshop was held on March 23, 2010. The following items were presented at
the meeting:
o The proposed operating budget for all departments and all funds. The FY 2011
General Fund (GF) operating budget does not reflect the proposed service and
program reductions, the elimination of the 100.5 frozen positions, the furlough or
the represented employees' adjustments. If Council provides direction to proceed
with these recommended actions, then the FY 2011 budget will be adjusted
accordingly for the tentative and final budget adoption documents to be presented
in June 2010 to Council.
o The proposed service and program adjustments for the GF totaling $14.7 million.
4
o The written report about the community's feedback regarding the proposed
program and service adjustments.
o The proposed revenue enhancement opportunities.
Council was provided the FY 2011 budget workbook during the week of March 15, 2010.
On February 16, 2010, Council reviewed the strategy for balancing the GF operating budget for
FY 2010-11 in preparation for the first budget workshop scheduled for March 23, 2010.
On June 23, 2009, Council conducted a public hearing and adopted a resolution approving the
FY 2009-10 final budget. This final budget included a GF operating base budget that was
$26.5M or 14.6%less than the FY 2008-09 GF operating base budget.
Glendale's budget is an important financial, planning and public communication tool. It gives
residents and businesses a clear and concrete view of the city's direction for public services,
operations and capital facilities and equipment. It also provides the community with a better
understanding of the city's ongoing needs for stable revenue sources to fund public services,
ongoing operations and capital facilities and equipment.
The budget provides Council, residents and businesses with a means to evaluate the city's
financial stability.
All budget workshops are open to the public and are posted publicly per state requirements.
The Council budget workbook materials are posted publicly along with the meeting agenda.
Community-wide public meetings on the proposed program and service adjustments for FY
2010-11 occurred on March 3, 4, and 8. A document summarizing the $14.7 million in proposed
program and service adjustments was posted publicly in advance of the meetings.
The public also was given the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed program and
service adjustments through the city's website and a telephone hotline, both of which were
available through the close of business on March 11, 2010.
A total of 200 responses were received plus 52 citizens spoke at the public meetings. The
majority of comments from all sources reflected concerns about the proposed adjustments to the
CAT and library hours.
Arizona's property tax system consists of two tiers. The secondary property tax revenue funds
the city's capital improvement plan (CIP). The primary property tax levy has state-mandated
maximum limits, but it can be used by a city for any purpose. The primary property tax revenue
is included in the General Fund's operating budget. The secondary property tax levy is not
limited, but it can be used only to retire the principal and interest on a municipality's bonds.
While the GF operating budget includes only the primary property tax revenue, the
recommendation for Glendale's primary property tax rate takes into account how the secondary
assessed valuation (AV) has been and will continue to be impacted by the plummeting value of
residential and commercial property, as discussed in the Background section of this report.
5
The city will remain in compliance with the Truth in Taxation law, which applies to the primary
property tax levy, if the primary rate is left unchanged at $0.2252. Even so, we will see a
$459,229 decline in revenue generated from the primary rate, as shown in Table 2 below,
because primary assessed valuation of existing property declined 12.5%.
Table 2—Primary Property Tax Rate & Revenue for GF
Primary Rate Revenue for GF Variance
FY 2010 $0.2252 $4,183,368
FY 2011 $0.2252 $3,724,139 ($459,229)
This decline in primary property tax revenue has been accounted for in the FY 2011 GF revenue
proj ection.
Today's workshop is for information only. Decisions on the FY 2010-11 recommended budget
are not required until the last budget workshop.
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, provided the introduction. He indicated that today staff will
present the follow-up on information and items the Council had requested from last week's
workshop.
Mr. Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager, stated that today members of staff will be answering
questions on follow-up items. He asked Police Chief Conrad to address the Council on police
budget issues.
Police Chief Steven Conrad stated that crime in the community this past year fell by 7.6%.
Violent crime fell 14%. These numbers represent figures not seen since in 1996. Property crime
levels fell 7% in 2009 compared to 2008. Along with crime, they have also seen a decrease in
calls for police services by 7%. He explained this level of calls has not been seen in 14 years.
Traffic collisions have also decreased to numbers of ten years ago. He noted there was still room
for improvement; however, Glendale is a safer city today.
Chief Conrad explained that planning for this year's budget had been a unique situation, not only
for the police department but for every department in the city. His challenge was to come up
with a way to fulfill their mission of protecting the lives and property of residents as well as
reducing the Police Department's general fund budget by 10% or $5.2 million dollars. He stated
that his recommendations centered on three major priorities. Priorities one and two, he stated
were that they maintain their current sworn staffing levels, as well as staffing support. The third
priority was to make sure all employees had the resources needed to do their jobs. He indicated
that with this mission in mind, he recommends the following. Regarding the 23 non-sworn
vacancies in the general fund portion, he understands these are important positions. However,
the department has been able to achieve their goal in crime reduction and believes they can
continue to meet the demands of the city and still let these positions go. He noted this reduction
will save almost $1.5 million dollars. In addition, staff has also reviewed ways to modify their
operations. Based on his assessment, the department has identified ways to save money in
overtime expenditures, vehicle maintenance, fuel cost, prisoner maintenance, as well as other
6
similar expenses. In total, he estimated project savings of$900,000 dollars in the coming
fiscal year. He remarked that sworn vacancies were also considered. Over the last five years;
they have hired an average of 43 officers per year or 213 over the last five years. There is an
annual attrition rate of 26 officers per year. The net gain over the last five years has been 84 new
police officers in Glendale. Glendale's current authorized strength is 452 officers, with 418 of
the positions filled. He noted they currently have 34 vacancies, 18 in the general fund and 16 in
the public safety sales tax fund. He explained that based on normal attrition, he expects to lose
two more officers between now and the end of the fiscal year. In an effort to meet the 10%
budget reduction, he recommends to not fill the 20 sworn positions in the general fund for the
next fiscal year. Additionally, because of the economic downturn, the department has averaged
33 sworn vacancies in the last 18 months. Incidentally, during the same time, they have seen a
crime reduction even with those vacancies.
Mayor Scruggs inquired if overtime was authorized during this 18 month period of reduced
crime. She asked if overtime was an option for this budget cycle. Chief Conrad explained that
he was recommending an overtime reduction of$410,000 for the next fiscal year; however, their
overtime budget remains $1.1 million.
Councilmember Goulet stated that his concerns were crime possibly ballooning because of the
economic climate. He asked if the department had similar concerns. Chief Conrad explained
that crime trends were analyzed by the department on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. He
stated that addressing crime was a continuing priority for the police department as they continue
to proactively adjust their resources. Many times the solutions to these problems do not involve
the use of overtime. He added they will continue to shift officers as needed to address problems
that occur. Councilmember Goulet reiterated the public's concerns of not having enough
resources when needed. Chief Conrad restated his strategy. Councilmember Goulet comment on
a recent crime incident and how the police department had responded quickly.
Councilmember Clark inquired about meetings the department has once a week to identify
problem areas and deploy the necessary resources. Councilmember Clark believes this was a
great factor in addressing crime and response times. Chief Conrad indicated she was correct. He
believed the most important value of these meetings was the opportunity for the different
commanders to be able to share information about problems and look for ways to more
effectively share their resources. Councilmember Clark remarked on the Citizen Advisory
Groups and the valuable information received from these meetings. Chief Conrad explained that
one of his commitments was community policing. He noted they had a duty and responsibility to
involve members of the community in helping identify and resolve problems that affect the
quality of life in the City of Glendale.
Chief Conrad explained the recommendation of the realignment of programs within the police
department in trying to reduce the budget and met the 10% goal. He stated they will continue the
CAT program using police officers. Other adjustments will affect a small number of the non-
sworn employees who perform a variety of duties such as report taking, as well as other support
services. If needed, he will reassign these duties to other members of the police department
including officers. He explained that this realignment, if needed, will not take any officers off
the street and will have no negative impact on the department's ability to address crime. He
stated his recommendations reflect his best professional judgment, keeping in mind that the
departments focus has and will continue to be fulfilling their mission of protecting the lives and
property of the people they serve.
7
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if departments shifted resources from other areas when needed.
Chief Conrad explained that it does occur on a temporary basis. He noted that they review
overall deployment every year where they assess crime service calls based on the different days
and hours. He said it was not uncommon for commanders to shift personnel.
Councilmember Goulet remarked that this presentation has been very helpful. However, he still
had a question regarding the public safety sales tax numbers. He asked if, based on those
figures, the department evaluated a proportionate decrease based on the percentage of revenue
collection. Chief Conrad explained they receive information on sales tax revenues on a monthly
basis. As a result, based on those monthly revenues, they formulate a projection of where they
believe that tax will arrive at the end of the year. In addition, they make operational changes and
hiring decisions that reflect any shortfall. Councilmember Goulet asked for clarification on what
was meant by "eligible" and "necessary" equipment as stated in their memo. He questioned how
this would be determined. Chief Conrad explained it was up to him to use his best professional
judgment to make those decisions. The language passed to increase the public safety sales tax in
2007 set forth a method for the department to increase police personal, provide equipment and to
purchase and secure items necessary for them to fulfill their mission. Councilmember Goulet
inquired if there was someone other than the city attorney to help assist him and provide input to
assure he makes the best decision. Chief Conrad indicated that other than discussions with his
staff in matters of budget recommendations, there were no other discussions.
Mayor Scruggs asked how many individuals they anticipate hiring that will be transform into
sworn officers in 2011. Chief Conrad noted that at this point, he did not know the answer. He
explained if 2011 was an average year of 26 attritions, he would work to fill those 26 positions.
However, if less leave, he will hire less. He indicated his plan was to hire to keep up with
attrition. She inquired if this budget was built based on his best recommendations to be able to
hire personnel in fiscal year 2011. Chief Conrad reiterated that if people leave, he will be in a
situation to hire and fill those positions. However, if no one leaves during the coming fiscal
year, they would not be in a position to hire any additional people since the revenue would not be
there to support it based on the projections they had now. Mayor Scruggs explained that
everyone who works for the city has different roles they take part in. In addition, no one
questions Chief Conrad's role in being the last authority when it comes to police department
issues. However, as the role of Mayor, she also has a role to play. She indicated her role was to
make sure the best decisions were being made to serve the constituents they were elected to
represent. She added that when she took the oath of office, she took that role very seriously.
Therefore, her responsibility is to ask questions regarding the public safety sales tax in order to
notify the public, that their trust has been kept. She explained they had moved forward with the
public safety sales tax based on the need to have 99 new officers and 20 new firefighters for the
fire department. She questioned if they were keeping the public's confidence with the current
recommendations. She noted she continues to be uncomfortable with staffing levels because of
the growth and activities the city has seen, as well as the increased number of visitors in the city
during the year. She indicated her real concerns were on the recommendation on the fire
departments side. She noted she has been assured by the legal department that the use of the
public safety public sales tax was legal.
Chief Conrad explained that the public safety sales tax fund supports 118 positions in the
Glendale police department with 80 sworn positions, 38 non-sworn, and 76 were added as the
result of the increase in the public safety sales tax in 2007. Additionally, they have continued to
8
hire non-sworn personnel and acquire equipment, as well as items consistent with the
language of the ordinance. He noted they continue to need more staff and equipment; however,
the revenues do not support those types of increases. He stated current revenue resources are
being used as best they can to address existing situations. As presented before, crime in the
community this past year has declined because of their continued efforts. He noted they will
continue to work to meet their staffing levels and the needs of the community. Mayor Scruggs
remarked she appreciated his efforts and had complete trust in him. She was glad to hear that
past needs have been fully addressed by the current staffing. However, she still believed staff
had no preparation for changes at this time since she sees no plan to hire any new officers.
Councilmember Lieberman summarized Chief Conrad's recommendations. He commented on
the federal government renewing the COPS program. He asked if the department could use the
COPS program in conjunction with the public safety sales tax program. Chief Conrad stated that
their previous request on that issue had not been funded. He indicated they will continue to
monitor the different grant opportunities and do not hesitate applying for any of those grants.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if they had any plans to purchase big ticket items such as
BEAR attack vehicles or motorcycles. Chief Conrad responded no. Councilmember Lieberman
expressed his appreciation for Chief Conrad's commitment and believes the city has a very stable
and knowledgeable police department. He commended the department for their work in the
reduction of crime in the city. He also thanked him for the annual update report the Council
receives. He noted he still uses it at his district meetings.
Councilmember Clark stated she understood Mayor Scruggs' concerns regarding possibly
needing additional police because of the influx of visitors coming into the area. However,
believes the public safety sales tax was voted in by the citizens of Glendale to make sure their
neighborhoods and the community were safe 365 days a year and not necessarily for visitors.
She explained that the resources outside of what the voters approved would come out of the
general fund. However, sadly neither of these two funds can support growth and the hiring of
new officers. She stated that Council will look to him for his expertise in these matters. Chief
Conrad commented on special events the city holds frequently. He remarked on the special
coalition formed in 2006 by 15 police departments around the valley. Essentially, officers from
those departments become Glendale officers for the day. They work these special events at their
direction which allows the Glendale department to staff wonderful events and still maintain
staffing levels that will keep neighborhoods safe. He also discussed the working relationships
they have created with businesses in the city. Mayor Scruggs asked to clarify her point regarding
visitor safety. She stated her comments were really trying to address the extra people attending
different events in Glendale that might cause problems for neighborhoods and residents. She
noted that her earlier comment centered on the safety of the communities and her remark did not
include hiring officers for everyone else.
Vice Mayor Martinez also thanked Chief Conrad for the annual staffing report they receive. He
stated the last one was very helpful. He asked if he will be issuing another one anytime soon.
Chief Conrad indicated they were currently working on that item. Vice Mayor Martinez
commented on Mayor Scruggs' concerns of having a contingency plan if things continued to
decline and more police were needed. He asked Mr. Beasley to explain.
Mr. Beasley explained there were a number of revenue enhancers that have been recommended
such as the alarm ordinance. He stated that should the Council approve this item, Chief Conrad
9
will prioritize in his professional view where that additional money would be used. He
noted Council would have to also provide its direction.
Mayor Scruggs inquired if part of the reduction cost involved eliminating take home vehicle
allowance for some personnel. She asked if this was affecting moral. Chief Conrad indicated he
had purged his vehicle last Friday and his moral was just fine. He added the department had
implemented that reduction strategy beginning April 1, 2010. He explained they had take home
cars available for all detectives, investigative personnel, lieutenants, commanders, and assistant
chiefs and chiefs to travel to and from home. These vehicles were necessary for recall in an
emergency situation. In assessing cost reductions, they examined the personnel that were
actually on call and had a true operational need to be able to respond directly from home to the
scene of an emergency. Consequently, they reduced the number of vehicles to 17, including
officers who work with canines, explosives, as well as certain detectives. Department vehicles
are still being used at work; however, they will not be take home vehicles. This change will save
the city approximately $130,000 in fuel, maintenance and wear and tear on the vehicles. He
noted this was only an estimate.
Mayor Scruggs asked if officers were allowed to respond to emergencies while using their
personnel vehicles. Chief Conrad explained they would not be able to operate their vehicle as an
emergency vehicle because they do not have the lights and sirens as the Arizona statute calls for.
However, there was nothing to prevent them from becoming involved in a situation they might
witness on the street or at a business.
Councilmember Knaack thanked Chief Conrad for his dedication in making the budget plan
work. She understood it had not been easy for any of the departments to drastically reduce their
budgets and still maintain high performance in their departments. She indicated she will fully
support his recommendations and was equally supportive of what has been done to reduce crime.
Councilmember Frate stated that he too will support his recommendations. He noted his plan
was well thought out and researched. He acknowledged it was clear he had the support of his
fellow officers. He noted that by including them, they felt they were part of the solution.
Mayor Scruggs summarized that the Council has agreed with all of Chief Conrad's proposed
recommendations for next year's budget, including the CAT program. City Councilmembers
voiced their agreement.
Mr. Beasley stated they will bring forward the alarm ordinance issue to a workshop for a detailed
discussion, as well as the pawn shop issue.
Fire Chief Mark Burdick introduced budget information on the fire department. He reviewed a
slide presentation explaining the department's objectives. He stated he wanted to point out
certain positive aspects that have occurred during the fiscal year and update them on programs
they have been involved in despite fiscal challenges. In 2009, the Glendale Fire Department
received 39,923 total service calls which were down from 42,187 calls in 2008, an overall
decrease of 5.4%. They have also initiated the process of converting their ladder trucks into
advanced life support paramedic units, which will increase their advance life support response
capability by 20% using their existing budget. In conjunction with the public health department
this past year, they immunized over 3,000 Glendale school children against childhood diseases.
He noted their partnership with Airvac and how pleased everyone was with the program. This
10
program has resulted in no cost to the city; however, has reduced response time and has
lead to more positive outcomes in patient care. Additionally, they continue their proactive
efforts in partnering with people like Arizona and Midwestern University to continue
the chest compression program which has created a 20%increase in public response times
Councilmember Clark asked if the 5.4% figure was primarily for medical service calls. Chief
Burdick responded that figure was for total calls. He noted that advance life support calls had
gone up the last couple of years. They had addressed that issue by adding paramedics to the
ladder trucks. Councilmember Clark inquired as to fire call figures. Chief Burdick explained
that over all, that number had been decreasing, however, lasts year's structure fires increased by
19%. He noted overall that was not a large increase in percentage.
Chief Burdick continued stating that while planning for next year's budget, they conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the operating budget including input from all divisions and active
participation from the unions. Together they identified areas where functions could be realigned
and balanced this analysis with priorities. The priority was to maintain current sworn personnel
assigned to the field and had accomplished this by realignment, capitalizing on vacancies and
implementing administrative operational changes. He stated these changes collectively will
result in a savings for next year of approximately $1.82 million dollars. He noted it was
important to point out that over the last three years, they have hired an average of 10 sworn
personnel per year and average attrition rate is 3 per year. As a result, compared to the fiscal
year 2007/08 staffing of 263, overall staffing has increased to 293.5. Currently there are 222
sworn personnel, 21 chiefs and 50.5 civilian positions. Additionally, they have identified 6 fire
fighter vacancies and recommend they not fill those vacancies until the revenue increases to
accommodate those personnel. He noted that with those vacancies, they will maintain their
required staffing levels per the national fire protection association standard 7010. He added their
response time averages 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
Councilmember Frate stated once again that several personnel from his department have
approached him unsolicited expressing their support for their Chief and the process. He noted it
was good to hear their support since not all personnel in all cities supported the process when
cuts were included.
Councilmember Clark asked Chief Burdick to clarify his reduction plan for equipment
maintenance and repairs. She asked if moving that over to the public safety sales tax fund meant
that the allocation of the safety sales tax fund will grow to increase the equipment repair fund.
Chief Burdick explained they had made the decision to adjust maintenance on daily items,
therefore reducing the repairs. Councilmember Clark asked him to clarify the decision regarding
moving eight sworn positions to the general fund. Chief Burdick stated that their intent was a
reduction in force in order to meet the reductions in staffing if needed. They have identified
several civilian positions hired out of the public safety sales tax. The plan was to move the
firefighters that have been hired since the tax has been in place into those vacated positions,
resulting in the savings.
Councilmember Lieberman inquired if the crisis response program will change or stay the same.
Chief Burdick explained that the crisis response program was listed as one of their five core
services. This program frees up firefighters and police officers on the scene. They have
identified the amount of vacant positions in that unit and some operating funds that would be
11
reduced. He noted this program was staffed with 60 volunteers that receive 100 hours of
training. Councilmember Lieberman thanked Chief Burdick for a well run fire department.
Councilmember Goulet also thanked Chief Burdick for all his work on the fire department. He
asked Chief Burdick to clarify a line item which indicated fire medical services and health was
down 27%. Chief Burdick explained it was the result of the realignment the department had
enacted.
Councilmember Knaack asked Chief Burdick to discuss the fire department's continued
involvement in the community outreach program. Chief Burdick responded that they will
continue to maintain those programs throughout the year. He noted they had very successful
partnerships in the area that contribute a great deal of support. Councilmember Knaack thanked
him for his work which was most appreciated. She noted it was clear he had the total support of
his department. Mayor Scruggs agreed. She stated the Council's priority on police and fire has
never wavered.
Mayor Scruggs summarized that the Council has agreed with all of Chief Burdick's proposed
recommendations for next year's budget. City Councilmembers voiced their agreement.
Ms. Cathy Gorham, Deputy City Manager, presented the next items. She provided answers to
some of the questions regarding the Library and the Arts and Parks and Recreation. She
indicated that the Library started the year down 12.5 FTE positions and 17 contractual positions
and underwent a complete reorganization. The department works as one system providing
flexibility to meet staffing needs and employees have been cross-trained to be able to do more
than one job. The Library Department has continued to provide superior service at all locations
noting that the service spoke for itself when the citizens made comments at the public meetings
citing the value of the libraries. She explained that in order to continue to provide a quality
product to the public, it was necessary to reduce hours. She said in 2008/09 there were 87.76 full
time equivalents and 1 FTE in arts. However, in 2009/10, they lost 11 1/2 full time equivalents
and 1 person in arts. She noted that in 2008/09 they had 59 library temporary personnel and 3
temporary in arts. This year, they lost 17 temporary and 2 temporary in arts. She indicated that
if they follow their proposed business model for FY10-11, they will be losing an additional 32
temporary positions and 6 full time equivalent positions. Staff will continue to provide and
deliver programming and services to the community and remains committed to service through
this restructuring and realignment process.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the drive-thru window was still a full time operation. Ms. Gorham
stated it was still available to the public, however, it has not been opened on Sundays and there
has been a minor reduction in hours. She added they had a tremendous amount of volunteers,
approximately 280, that assist with the window and other functions throughout the three
libraries.
Councilmember Clark stated she wanted to publicly apologize for her use of the word "bloated"
in referring to the Library Department. She now knows it is not true. She offered her sincere
apology. On a different note, she would like clarification on special library revenues. Ms.
Gorham explained that library special revenues were book sales, non-resident card fees and
library fees. Councilmember Clark inquired if it was known when the Library merged with the
Arts Division. Ms Gorham indicated it was shortly after former Parks and Recreation
Department Director Warren Smith retired, which was three or four years ago. Councilmember
12
Clark noted the Library has had the additional task of maintaining the Arts Division in
addition to library duties. Councilmember Clark asked how programming in the libraries was
paid for. Ms. Gorham explained that programming for all three libraries totaled $36,000: each
receiving $12,000 and it was broken down for different programs.
Councilmember Frate asked Ms. Gorham to explain their recommendation for library hours. She
presented a chart indicating the two recommendations. Councilmember Frate asked if they had
received any response from the last Council workshop concerning the alternative times. Ms.
Gorham stated that she had not. She reviewed the recommendations that were modified because
of public input.
Mayor Scruggs remarked the media had reported incorrectly that she believed only meeting
groups used the library at night. She said she was quoted inaccurately. Ms. Gorham noted that
Mayor Scruggs was correct in stating that meeting space was not a core service, however, the
libraries have wide spread use by a variety of organizations.
Councilmember Clark questioned the alternative recommendation that only Foothills Library
remain open late on Fridays. She stated this might cause undue hardship for those needing a
closer facility. Ms. Gorham explained their recommendation was based on the assessment of
basic statistics relative to the usage at each library. She noted that the Main library and Velma
Teague Library had lower numbers of use during those times.
Councilmember Frate commented he had not received any calls from citizens on the alternative
library plan recommendation. Councilmember Clark indicated that she too had not received any
response to last week's meeting. She assumes that many did not understand the alternative
library plan as it pertained to them.
Mayor Scruggs asked where the most usage was. She stated it made sense to extern the hours
where there was the most need. Ms. Gorham explained that what they attempted to do in the
alternative proposal was to accommodate the concerns of the mothers, with young children by
opening at 10 a.m. on specific days during the week, as well as business people by being open
until 8 p.m. on several days. She noted the alternative plan schedule accommodates what was
heard at the public meetings. Mayor Scruggs noted that the alternative included a Sunday
opening when the first plan did not.
Councilmember Knaack thanked Ms. Gorham for her hard work on this issue. However, she
asked that this schedule be monitored for additional changes or adjustments. Ms. Gorham
explained that through their business model, they track everything going on in the facilities for
adjustments. She noted these adjustments were not unique to Glendale; most cities were in the
same situation of having to reduce hours.
Councilmember Frate stated his support for the alternative plan since it has been adjusted to meet
the requests of the public. Councilmember Clark agreed to support the alternative.
Mayor Scruggs stated there was a consensus from the Council to support the alternative plan.
The City Councilmembers voiced their agreement.
Ms. Gorham reviewed the budget plan for Parks and Recreation. She stated Parks and Recreation
provides the service and amenities that help attract and retain businesses and residents who want
13
those quality of life elements. She explained that the expectations for a quality of life
served as one of the benchmarks for how Parks and Recreation evaluated its business plan. They
also identified programs and services that were offered by other organizations across the
community to eliminate duplication where possible. She added the department defined their core
services, which go hand-in-hand with Council goals. Those core services are taking care of the
infrastructure, including 92 parks, green space and trails, centers, pools and special use facilities.
Other core services include health and prevention, and community heritage and preservation.
Councilmember Clark asked for clarification regarding the shift of the audio visual function to
the marketing communications department. Ms. Gorham explained they recommended that audio
visual would be better suited in this department since the staff works hand-in-hand with cable
television at Council meetings and also does a lot of work at the Glendale Civic Center and for
special events. Councilmember Clark inquired about the line item for lighting at Copper Canyon
and Kellis High School being zeroed out. Ms. Gorham stated she did not know the particulars
and will find out and get back to Council. However, she believes it was because the lighting had
been installed fulfilling the they had fulfilling the city's official agreement. Ms. Gorham
explained the Youth Sports Complex and their agreement with Global Spectrum.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Gorham to expand on the city's role regarding the sport league
programs. Ms. Gorham explained they were currently offering youth sports leagues for the
remainder of this fiscal year; however, they will not be offered or coordinated by the city next
year as many other organizations in the community provide this service. Ms. Gorham noted the
department would be focusing resources on keeping the fields and facilities safe and in quality
shape, a core amenity the city provides. She added that the city will still be offering special
camps and youth development activities that fund themselves through fee recovery. Mayor
Scruggs remarked she expected to see those figures in the line item reduction; however, there
was no information. Ms. Sherry Schurhammer explained that reductions being proposed are not
reflected in the draft budget book. She added that when proposed recommendations are
approved, they will be included in the final budget being brought forward for Council approval.
Councilmember Clark commented on why funding for Elsie McCarthy Park maintenance
doubled. Ms. Gorham stated she would look into that item and get back to Council.
Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification on why the Foothills center was paying for water,
electrical, maintenance and custodial services, yet, those items were not in the budgets of other
facilities. Ms. Gorham explained it was based on the model approved by Council as they went
through the process of redefining how they will be providing services to the community. She
said it made sense to include all of the operational cost associated with the facility in their
budget.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the figures shown for O'Neil and Rose Lane include pool
fees. Ms. Gorham responded no. She indicated there was a separate spread sheet that identified
revenues for aquatic facilities. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the income of $25,000 for
the Foothills Aquatic Center was included in the revenues of$1.29 million. Ms. Gorham stated
they were included in the final figure under Foothills and Aquatic Center. Councilmember
Lieberman expressed his confusion on how cost recovery was shown for the facilities. Ms.
Gorham explained that Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center was considered a full use center.
However, Rose Lane Aquatic Center was considered only a pool complex that was built separate
14
from Rose Lane Center and was never combined as was the Foothills Recreation and
Aquatic Center.
Councilmember Clark asked if other than the after school recreation programs were there
additional programs at O'Neil. Ms. Gorham stated she would look into it can get back to
Council. Councilmember Clark remarked that attendance figures depend on the amount of
programming offered at those locations. She suspects there was not much offered at Glendale
Community, O'Neil or Rose Lane. Ms. Gorham responded that she will get that information for
Council review.
Mayor Scruggs commented that there was possibly more programming at Foothills because it
was under a different recovery model. Should the other facilities decide to increase their
programming, the center would only increase their expenses since it was not under the cost
recovery model. She noted that the city carried approximately $1.15 per person in cost for
Foothill attendees. Ms. Gorham discussed a program study intended to discover what people
liked about the Glendale facilities and their comments on what they would do differently.
Mr. Beasley interjected explaining that when the decision was made to sell bonds for the
Foothills facility, those specific bonds required they could only recover up to 80%. Mayor
Scruggs commented that adding more programming could jeopardize that agreement. She noted
she still believes there should be a policy discussion regarding all other facilities in the city to see
if the community wants widely enhanced programming. Ms. Gorham agreed. She indicated that
the Council will have the opportunity to have a policy discussion once the master plan is
complete.
Mayor Scruggs stated there was a consensus from the Council to support the recommended
budget changes on the Parks and Recreation program. City Councilmembers voiced their
agreement.
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager introduced the next item. He stated that at last week's
meeting there had been some discussion about the recent legislative action sign by the Governor
that changed the uses of lottery funds in the state of Arizona. In the past, cities like Glendale had
received lottery money for local transportation assistance funds known as LTAF and LTAF 11.
In Glendale the funds totaled $1.5 million a year in transit funds. He stated that staff is
recommending completing this year with savings that include fuel credits, as well as GO
transportation reductions. Additionally, starting July 1, 2010, staff is recommending a reduction
in fixed route transit services which don't include ADA or Dial-A-Ride. He referred to the
informational handouts provided to Council. He indicated that the suggestion for next year was
to come up with a $1 million in savings. He added that in the near future, there will be a regional
transportation authority public hearing that will show all the suggested changes not only in
Glendale but Phoenix, Peoria and the rest of the cities. After this hearing, staff will have a better
idea of what to expect. He reiterated that staff's recommendation was to reduce the routes that
were not high performers. He added they will make sure people using those routes had
alternatives close by.
Mayor Scruggs asked if this also included the savings on the ADA portion. Ms. Reedy explained
they had not included those savings until they receive Council's direction on this matter. He
noted the amount was minimal.
15
Councilmember Knaack asked to note that LTAF funds accounted for nearly 5% of
Glendale's transit needs and the loss of the state revenues do not impact the general fund. She
inquired why the Union Hills route was $600,000 compared to all others. Mr. Reedy explained
that the city had different contracts with Phoenix and other providers.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the Bell Road route continued all the way to Towne Center. Mr.
Reedy responded yes.
Councilmember Frate asked how the connectivity worked with other cities. Mr. Reedy indicated
those cities were in the same situation as Glendale. However, with the public meeting coming up
with RPTA, they hope to have all decisions made and have changes take effect in July. Mayor
Scruggs asked if the information at this meeting will be for the entire regional system or just in
the immediate area of Glendale. Mr. Reedy indicated that a regional system will be presented;
however, areas have the option to have their own meetings.
Mayor Scruggs asked if staff intended to have a separate informational meeting for Glendale
residents. Mr. Reedy stated the citizens will have the opportunity to be informed and provide
their input.
Mayor Scruggs remarked that it should be noted this problem was not due to the City of
Glendale's finances. She hopes there were ways to explain this would not be happening if the
Arizona State Legislator had not passed and the Governor not signed a budget taking away
funding with no warning. Mr. Reedy commented this had been a very difficult position the city
was put in. He noted that this funding was started in 1980 and had become a very dependable
resource for cities.
Mayor Scruggs stated there was a consensus from the Council to support the recommended
budget reductions on the Transportation program. City Councilmembers voiced their agreement.
Mayor Scruggs indicated that before they examined the rest of the more generic items, she would
like to bring up a subject discussed last week regarding Vice Mayor Martinez's suggestion that
each Councilmember reduce their individual budgets. This suggestion had not included her
office and Councilmember Lieberman had taken exception. She affirmed she had no funds to
return since there were no discretionary funds available to her. She noted she had been very
disappointed that her comments had been misrepresented to the public and reported in the media
that she had funds she did not want to give back. She noted this had bothered her enough that
she had gone to great lengths to gather information on her office budget. In her investigation,
she found she had misspoken last week stating that her non-salary budget for the Mayor's office,
which consists of four people, was $31,000. This is less than each of the Councilmembers
received. However, she has discovered that if this proposed budget is approved, the non-salary
budget in the Mayor's office will be only $18,087. She remarked that she would like to compare
and resolve some misconceptions that have been misrepresented. She reiterated she has been
deeply offended by some believing she was not doing her part in this economic crisis.
Mayor Scruggs explained that since fiscal year 2005, the Mayor's office budget has been
reduced a total of 36%. She noted that for fiscal year 2011, there will be further reductions
totaling $13,963. She explained that the non-salary budget included all items under the Mayor's
office. She noted those same items for Councilmembers were paid from a totally separate
account and not their budget accounts. She remarked she has given back almost half of her
16
entire non-salary budget. She reiterated how distressed this issue has been having her
office attacked and misrepresented the way it has been. She also pointed out that all but
Councilmember Clark were carrying over funds in their district capital project accounts. She
noted her office was not offered the same opportunity to carry over funds.
Councilmember Lieberman stated he was still not clear on this issue. He explained that his
information stated the Mayor's office budget for 2004/05 was $299,500. Mayor Scruggs
explained they were only talking about non-salary items since she does not control the salaries of
the three administrative personnel, as well as her salary, which is set by law. Councilmember
Lieberman commented that the newspaper had also misreported that he had only returned
$10,000, but actually he had return $14,000. Mayor Scruggs responded that he was also carrying
forward $10,000, yet, takes issue with her budget when there is nothing to return.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked Ms. Kristen Krey, Council Services Administrator, for information
on carryovers in Councilmembers budgets. She explained that most budgets still held a
carryover of $10,000. She provided an example using Vice Mayor Martinez's budget. Vice
Mayor Martinez indicated that her explanation further made his point about returning funds
when the average carryover was $10,000. He remarked that in these hard times those funds are
needed elsewhere. Mayor Scruggs remarked that her budget will be taking a 43.6% hit this year.
Mayor Scruggs asked a question on real-estate services and transportation engineering programs
on page 19. She inquired where these programs would go given that the program was being
closed out. Ms. Schurhammer stated she believed they had consolidated two divisions. She
asked Mr. Jim Colson, Deputy City Manager to explain. Mr. Colson stated those positions were
moved to another division; however, they still provided that service. Mayor Scruggs inquired
about a department on page 21 being eliminated. Ms. Schurhammer explained that this was the
deputy city manager's administration budget, which was eliminated. Mayor Scruggs also had a
question on page 23 regarding only having one FTE in street cleaning. Mr. Reedy stated that the
general fund street cleaning position was related to street sweeping on arterial streets. He added
that all others are related to the sanitation divisions. He explained they had transferred some of
those positions into the sanitation fund. Mayor Scruggs questioned the amount of street
sweeping that would be done and whether citizens could possibly expect a lesser degree of street
cleaning. Mr. Reedy responded that for the most part it would remain the same.
Mayor Scruggs asked a question of page 29 regarding Human Resources. She asked why there
was a 34% increase in Human Resources administration. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the
difference was a percentage change between the FY 2010 budget and the FY 2011. She stated
the FY 2010 budget had all the credits built into it for the furloughs, vacancies and so forth. The
FY2011 budget does not have the furlough or any of the reductions built into it. She noted that
this process was also seen in other department budgets.
Councilmember Clark remarked that if they were not hiring and other departments have reduced
their budgets, why in these bad economic times did Human Resources not have any reductions in
their budget to reflect the hiring freeze. Mr. Skeete explained that those numbers on page 29 do
not reflect any of the proposed reductions. He noted that on page 99, Human Resources showed
a proposed cut of 9.75 positions and approximately a $900,999 reduction in their budget. He
explained that since this was a proposed budget, they were still using last year's base numbers.
17
Mayor Scruggs asked why Intergovernmental contracts went up 271%. Ms. Schurhammer
indicated that it was related to the ongoing contracts departments use for onsite services. Mr.
Skeete agreed that several contracts were moved into this budget. He noted these budgets had
been funded on a one time basis.
Mayor Scruggs asked how decisions were made on the carryover issue. Ms. Schurhammer
explained that the direction given to the departments was to request carryover for items ordered
before the start of the next fiscal year. Mayor Scruggs inquired about the figure provided on
page 55 which had $2.3 million worth of granted carryover requests. Ms. Schurhammer
indicated that on pages 52 and 55 were figures related to the federal stimulus energy efficiency
grants.
Ms. Schurhammer stated that Council's budget workbooks include the proposed Capitol Plan for
next fiscal year. She indicated that the completion of the court building was moved to fiscal year
2015 and construction of the west area library moved back to 2015. These adjustments were
required to address the real-estate market the Phoenix area has experienced over the past few
years. Real-estate property values have declined across Maricopa County for three straight
years. Because of the entire property evaluation process, the city will feel the impact of the real-
estate market through at least fiscal year 2012. In addition, as the chart explains, staff expects
the city total assessed valuation on the secondary side to drop over 30% in three years. This
decline directly impacts the city's ability to pay for new capital projects since they will be
collecting about 1/3 less revenue. Accordingly, the city is still paying for all the capitol projects
constructed over the past several years. Given the situation of changes to the timing of the
construction of the new court facility and new library, they have been incorporated into the
capitol plan workbook.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the recommendation to adopt 11 cents to the secondary assessed
evaluation was adopted, would they be able to construct the courthouse in 2014. Ms.
Schurhammer stated they could move the courthouse to this fiscal year. Councilmember Goulet
noted that if this was done, there would be no funds to operate it. He suggests they consider
approving 13 cents in order to build and operate it. Ms. Schurhammer noted that staff had
identified an additional $1 million in additional ongoing operating cost to what the city was
already paying now to open the facility. She stated they could not raise the secondary property
tax rate to cover operating expenses. She added it was prohibited under state law. Mr. Skeete
indicated that funding was the reason staff moved construction back to 2015. This would allow
them three to four years to be able to possibly see some recovery in the operating revenue
opportunities. Councilmember Goulet noted he was afraid they might be facing greater problems
in two or three years.
Councilmember Lieberman referred to the chart and noted that by the end of 2012, the projected
assessment will be 32%less than what it is today. Mr. Skeete explained that the formula was not
simply adding the numbers together, but added percentages on top of percentages.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested they not make any adjustments with the two types of taxes
until they finalized the budget. He noted that as shown in the chart, there will be a sizable drop
in revenues since they will be collecting property tax from 2008, which was the start of the
decrease in valuation. He discussed the housing market recession.
Councilmember Clark remarked that in regards to the CIP, it was what it was, simply because
there was no money. She noted that even if construction was to move forward, they would not
18
be able to pay to operate the facilities. She explained that the only funds left were the
enterprise funds, which were self sustaining and only used for essential and critical needs. She
stated that everything was down to the bone and the city had no money to spend.
Mayor Scruggs stated there were some projects moving forward such as police and economic
development needs. She asked if the development impact fees being used for park projects were
ones that already existed. Ms. Schurhammer responded yes and added that those fees had
already been collected. Mayor Scruggs inquired if they already had the money to buy library
books for population growth as proposed. Ms. Schurhammer responded yes. Mayor Scruggs
asked if there was anything in the CIP that was not already in an enterprise fund. Ms.
Schurhammer responded that the only category for which the city did not have funds yet, were
funds related to grants. She noted they have built in appropriation authority, in the event the
capitol construction related to grants come in.
Mayor Scruggs stated they will keep the same property tax rate in its present state and move
back the courthouse. Everyone agreed.
Mayor Scruggs inquired as to the person-to-person liquor application fees. Councilmember
Clark explained the city should not support the person-to-person application fee since the city
will receive less revenue. City Councilmembers voiced agreement.
Mayor Scruggs stated that in regards to the cellular issue, staff is working on creating a process
similar to what is done in the private sector. City Councilmember voiced agreement.
Mayor Scruggs asked to discuss the pawn shop transaction fee. Councilmember Goulet raised
concerns about pawn shop owners currently being aware of the proposed requirements. Police
Chief Steven Conrad stated that since the last meeting, his staff had followed up with the stores
that would be affected by the proposed change in the city code. He noted most were in
agreement. Mayor Scruggs asked what the levels of transactions were per month. Chief Conrad
stated that he did not have a number for a single store; however, the total from all 19 stores was
5,500 a month. Mayor Scruggs voiced her concerns on approving this fee. Councilmember
Frate explained that most stores will pass the cost on to the customer.
Mayor Scruggs commented that everyone was in agreement with the proposed change in the
pawn shop ordinance. City Councilmembers voiced agreement.
Mayor Scruggs asked to discuss the fire alarm prevention fees. She asked if Mesa and Peoria
were the only cities that had these fees. Fire Chief Mark Burdick responded no. He stated he
had provided Council with the two most comparable to Glendale. Mayor Scruggs asked if other
cities had lower fees. Chief Burdick explained that it depends on how the city designs it;
however, the city of Mesa was the most comparable for what they were proposing. He noted that
the program in Mesa generates a lot of revenue, but was not a very popular program with the
business community. Mayor Scruggs indicated that at the last workshop, the issue was to discuss
the fairness of these proposals. Chief Burdick explained they had done a market study to
determine a reasonable rate. Mayor Scruggs asked if the proposed costs were only relevant to
doing these kinds of inspections. Chief Burdick responded yes.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked if Peoria was the only one who based their fee on square footage.
Chief Burdick responded yes.
19
Mayor Scruggs asked if he thought Glendale's business community will have the same negative
reaction as Mesa. Chief Burdick explained that in his initial conversations, most understood the
expense involved. He explained the rate structure and the collection of fees. Mr. Skeete
indicated that some fee details were still being worked on.
Councilmember Goulet asked what was being done about businesses operating out of their
homes and not being licensed. Chief Burdick explained that if the business was operating out of
their home without a business license that was a code enforcement problem.
Mayor Scruggs commented that everyone was in agreement with moving forward on the fire
alarm prevention fee. City Councilmembers voiced agreement.
Ms. Schurhammer stated in closing, that they will be bringing the preliminary budget back in
early June and the final to the last June evening meeting. She added that at the first evening
meeting in August, they will complete the property tax levy adoption. Mayor Scruggs remarked
that several of the Councilmembers will not be available in August; therefore, there might not be
a quorum. Ms. Schurhammer explained it was state law that there be two weeks between the
adoption of the budget and the adoption of the property tax levy. Mayor Scruggs suggested they
schedule the June 23rd final budget adoption earlier. Ms Schurhammer stated it was possible
since they were essentially done working with the budget. City Councilmembers voiced
agreement.
Ms. Cathy Gorham Deputy City Manager explained the library fee structure. She indicated that
these fees were not being endorsed to help balance the general fund budget. These fees were part
of their new business process at the library. The increase in fees will help ease the congestion on
computers since now they can be used without a library card. They are recommending fee
increases for a non-resident and for everyone over 12 years of age. Councilmember Clark asked
how this will be monitored. Ms. Gorham stated that they already monitor the use of the
computers and have a system in place to sign people in.
Councilmember Goulet asked how quickly one can apply for a card. Ms. Gorham indicated that
it can be done instantly.
Additionally, they are recommending changes in fees that have been in place for a very long
time. They propose that lost card fees increase from $1 to $2, which is consistent with other
libraries. They have also increased the fees on holds to $1.00 per item and believe that behaviors
will likely change in responds to the increased fee which will help with staffing. Councilmember
Clark commented on the fee increase for lost cards. She believed the $1.00 fee was reasonable
and should not be increased. Councilmember Frate remarked that this increase would put them
in line with other libraries.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked what the charge for overdue books was. Ms. Gorham replied that
the fee was 20 cents a day. She added that the recommendation for hold item fees will increase
from 25 cents to $1 dollar. Ms. Gorham stated that the last rate increase was for meeting room
space. Staff is suggesting they use the business model used at the Foothills location to try and
recover some of the costs expended relative to the use of those meeting rooms. The rates are
based on the square footage of the rooms. She noted this was an item for Council's review and
approval. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if this was comparable to what other cities were charging.
20
Ms. Gorham explained that most of the other valley libraries do have fees for their meeting
rooms, however, some did not. Councilmember Goulet asked if everything in the room was
included. Ms. Gorham responded yes. Mayor Scruggs inquired which non-profit organizations
used the library. Ms. Gorham stated that at the Main Library there were 266 different
organizations and the number was similar at the Foothills branch. The organizations ranged
from educational institutions to boy scouts, to hospitals and so forth. Councilmember Clark
agreed that it was appropriate to charge by the square footage. However, she did have concerns
about non-profit organization's ability to pay. She suggested a discount based on the amount of
usage.
Councilmember Lieberman commented he was in favor of more lenient fees and does not want
to place the city in the position of discouraging people from using their facilities.
Mayor Scruggs suggested staff send out a mailer to the organizations that use the amenities
asking for input regarding the new fee. She said this cost has become something the city cannot
keep absorbing because of city cutbacks. Ms. Gorham suggested it go to the Library Advisory
Board for review and input.
Councilmember Frate and Goulet agreed to approve a fee. However, they agreed to discuss the
fee further. Mayor Scruggs remarked she still felt it was too high a fee.
Vice Mayor Martinez agreed to approve a fee. He stated there was cost associated with the
rental that the city should recoup. Councilmember Clark agreed they should have a fee;
however, they should revisit the fee structure. Councilmember Knaack also agreed there should
be a fee and believes it should not continue to be free commodity when the city did not have the
funds to absorb those costs anymore.
Councilmember Clark stated there will be a bias if their feedback comes from the Library
Advisory Board or the users of the facilities. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would prefer they
received input from the users.
Councilmember Lieberman remarked that he would like to do both. He agreed to send out a
mailer requesting input on the proposed fees, as well as it being heard by the Library Advisory
Board. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Councilmember Lieberman to use both. However,
he would not ask the users what they would like to pay. Councilmember Knaack indicated she
would like to see more information on what they charge at the Adult Center and Foothills. Vice
Mayor Martinez, Councilmember Frate and Clark agreed to do both the mailer and have the
Library Advisory Board add their input. Councilmember Clark also agreed with Councilmember
Knaack in needing additional information.
Mr. Beasley asked if 50% of the 450 groups agreed with the new fee, would that be an adequate
response for Council. Vice Mayor Martinez remarked that it sounded reasonable and they would
have somewhere to start. Councilmember Goulet added that if they did not hear back from some
of the users, it meant they were accepting what is being proposed. Mr. Beasley noted he
understood that Council was in agreement with the 50%point response.
As there were no further comments, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
21
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
22