Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/22/2011 rig Ir MI GLEINISE MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 5850 West Glendale Avenue February 22, 2011 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, with Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and the following Councilmembers present: Norma S. Alvarez, Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Philip Lieberman and Manuel D. Martinez. Also present were Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager; Deborah Robberson, Deputy City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk. COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDALE CHARTER A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the 6 resolutions and 4 ordinances to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the February 8, 2011 Regular City Council meeting, as each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them with the corrections as presented. The motion carried unanimously. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER BODIES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER BODIES This is a request for City Council to approve the recommended appointments to the following boards, commissions and other bodies that have a vacancy or expired term and for the Mayor to administer the Oath of Office to those appointees in attendance. Arts Commission Carol Ladd Cactus Appointment 02/22/2011 08/23/2012 Aviation Advisory Commission 1 Joe Cable Sahuaro Appointment 02/22/2011 11/24/2012 Citizens Advisory Commission On Neighborhoods Rebecca Ontiveros Ocotillo Appointment 02/22/2011 06/30/2011 Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission Manuel Padia Jr. Ocotillo Appointment 02/22/2011 07/25/2011 Commission On Persons With Disabilities Robert Steiger Sahuaro Reappointment 02/27/2011 02/27/2013 Raymond Yaeggi Cactus Reappointment 02/27/2011 02/27/2013 Mounib Shaaban—Chair Sahuaro Reappointment 02/26/2011 02/26/2012 Shirley Galvez—Vice Chair Yucca Reappointment 03/22/2011 03/22/2012 Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Jonathan Liebman—Chair Cholla Appointment 02/26/2011 02/26/2012 Planning Commission Rod Williams Ocotillo Appointment 03/25/2011 03/25/2013 The recommendation is to make appointments to the boards, commissions and other bodies and administer the Oaths of Office. It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Knaack, to appoint Carol Ladd to the Arts Commission; Joe Cable to the Aviation Advisory Commission; Rebecca Ontiveros to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods; Manuel Padia Jr. to the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission; Robert Steiger, Raymond Yaeggi, Mounib Shaaban and Shirlevy Galvez to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities; Jonathan Liebman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission; and Rod Williams to the Planning Commission, for the terms listed above. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Scruggs called those present forward and issued the oath of office. PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR REBECCA ONTIVEROS This is a request to recognize Ms. Rebecca Ontiveros for her five years of community service on Glendale's Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). The CDAC is a critical part of the city's federal grant process that administers the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. The purpose of the committee is to review funding requests and provide recommendations to City Council that will revitalize neighborhoods, address urgent community needs, and provide economic opportunity for Glendale citizens. Since 1977, Glendale has received over $66 million in federal funds to assist thousands of homeowners and individuals with services that provide safe, decent housing, 2 and improve their living conditions. These funds are comprised of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds, Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and recent stimulus funding. Ms. Ontiveros, who resides in the Ocotillo District, served on the CDAC for five years, from 2005 through 2010. As a result of this tenure, Ms. Ontiveros helped make recommendations that assisted in funding youth and senior services, homeless prevention, infill housing, the emergency home repair program and countless other non-profit organizations in Glendale. She is to be commended for her efforts. The recommendation is to present a plaque of recognition to Ms. Rebecca Ontiveros for her outstanding contributions and dedication to serving the citizens of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs presented the plaque of recognition to Ms. Rebecca Ontiveros and thanked her for her service. She spoke about her first meeting with Ms. Ontiveros. Ms. Rebecca Ontiveros thanked the Mayor and Council for their recognition. She especially thanked Mayor Scruggs for taking the time to speak with her in her office when she needed guidance on how best to serve the community. Mayor Scruggs thanked Ms. Ontiveros for her dedication and years of service. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are of a routine nature or have been previously studied by the City Council at a work session. They are intended to be acted upon in one motion. Mr. Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager, read agenda item numbers 1 through 3 and Ms. Pamela Hanna, City Clerk, read consent agenda resolution item numbers 4 through 6 by number and title. Councilmember Clark requested that item number 6 be heard separately. 1. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE, ST. MARY'S FOOD BANK This is a request for City Council to approve a special event liquor license for St. Mary's Food Bank. The event will be held in Downtown Glendale located at 58th Avenue and Glenn Drive on Saturday, March 5, 2011 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The purpose of this special event liquor license is for Glendale's Culinary Festival, a non-city sponsored event. If this application is approved, the total number of days expended by this applicant will be one of the allowed 10 days per calendar year. Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 4-203.02, the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control may issue a special event liquor license only if the Council recommends approval of such license. The City of Glendale Planning, Police, and Fire Departments have reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements. 3 Based on the information provided under the background, it is staff's recommendation to forward this application to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control with a recommendation of approval. 2. SEWER AND MANHOLE REHABILITATION PHASES I & II: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES This is a request for City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) Agreement with Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC which contains a guaranteed maximum price to provide construction services for the sewer and manhole rehabilitation project. This project addresses Council's goal of one community with high-quality services for citizens by maintaining the operational reliability of the city's wastewater collection system. The city has identified various sanitary sewer lines, manholes, and structures in its wastewater collection system in need of rehabilitation, replacement, removal, or abandonment. The required work will take place at 22 locations throughout the city impacting approximately 5,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer lines and over 50 associated manholes. These improvements are needed to maintain the integrity of the collection system and decrease maintenance issues within the system. In November 2009, engineering consultants were retained for design and construction administration services. A CMAR was then retained for pre-construction design phase services to determine feasible alternatives, address constructability issues, and make recommendations for the proper materials and construction methods. This request establishes a guaranteed maximum price for the construction services required to perform the sewer and manhole rehabilitation. The CMAR contractor was chosen by a Request for Qualifications in August 2010, in which five responses were received. A selection committee comprised of staff from Engineering, Utilities, and an executive from a construction firm selected Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC as the best qualified firm to perform the required services. On February 8, 2011, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a CMAR Design Phase Pre-Construction Services Agreement with Achen-Gardner Engineering, LLC to provide pre- construction services for the Sewer and Manhole Rehabilitation Project Phases I and II. On November 24, 2009, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into two professional services agreements for design and construction administration services for the Sewer and Manhole Rehabilitation Project Phases I and II. Project Engineering Consultants was contracted for Phase I and Brown & Caldwell was contracted for Phase II. This project will benefit the community by maintaining the integrity of the sanitary sewer system, minimizing service interruptions, and decreasing traffic disruptions caused by maintenance crews. 4 Funding is available in the FY 2010-11 capital improvement plan. The operating cost associated with this project is minimal once completed and will be absorbed by the Utilities operating budget. Grants Capital Expense One-Time Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total X X $3,626,800.62 Account Name, Fund,Account and Line Item Number: Sewer Line Replacement, Account No. 2420-63016-550800, $3,626,800.62 The recommendation is to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Construction Manager at Risk Agreement with Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC which contains a guaranteed maximum price to provide construction services for the sewer and manhole rehabilitation project in an amount not to exceed $3,626,800.62. 3. AWARD OF BID 11-25, FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR This is a request for City Council to award bid IFB 11-25 to Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. for the purchase of firefighter turnout gear. This item supports Council's goal of one community committed to public safety by providing firefighters the necessary clothing that will protect them in hazardous environments. One bid was received in response to IFB 11-25 for firefighter turnout gear. The offer submitted by Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. was reviewed and determined to be responsive. The award shall begin on March 1, 2011 and continue for one year. The bid contains an option that will permit the city to extend the bid for an additional five years in one-year increments. Price adjustments are permitted annually if mutually agreed upon by both parties. The city can accept or reject the price adjustment. If the city accepts the price adjustment, the contract will be extended for one year. If the city rejects the price adjustment, the contract will be sent out for bid. On February 28, 2006, Council awarded IFB 05-39 for firefighter turnout gear to Total Fire Group. The Fire Department provides emergency services to the community. Purchase of the turnout gear will provide firefighters the protective gear needed to ensure the safety of the firefighters and the continued safety and services to the community. Funds are available in the Fire Department's Resource Management, Special Revenue and UASI grant accounts. Grants Capital Expense One-Time Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total X X $112,826.02 5 Account Name,Fund,Account and Line Item Number: Fire Resource Management, Account No. 1000-12433-512600, $66,331 Fire-Special Revenue Fund, Account No. 1720-12610-512600, $33,000 2010 UASI GFD RRT, Account No. 1840-34068-521000, $13,495.02 The recommendation is to award bid IFB 11-25 to Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. for the purchase of firefighter turnout gear in an amount not to exceed $112,826.02 for the initial award and authorize the City Manager to extend the award, at his sole discretion, for an additional five years in one-year increments with price adjustments in accordance with IFB 11-25. CONSENT RESOLUTIONS 4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE NETWORK This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) Network. Entering into this IGA addresses Council's goal of one community committed to public safety because it will ensure the Fire Department maintains their status with the Phoenix Regional Automatic Aid System. The Fire Department currently operates on a VHF system and has been part of the Phoenix Regional Automatic Aid System for almost 30 years. Valley Fire Departments are now using the RWC Network for automatic aide related radio communications in non-hazardous zones. Council approved renewal of the automatic aid IGA in 2003. The Citywide Project 25 Digital Radio System was approved at a Council meeting in June 2002 and the Fire Department invested $3.2 million in funding of the RWC infrastructure as required in 2003. The RWC is a coalition designed to create efficiency and reduce costs for transition to the new radio system while creating a valley-wide communications system. The RWC includes the following cities and towns: Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Maricopa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe. The RWC also includes the following fire districts:Daisy Mountain, Sun City, Sun City West, and Sun Lakes. Also, once the Police Department upgrades their radio system, participation in the RWC will provide interoperability with other public safety agencies in the valley. Other city departments such as Utilities, Transportation and Field Operations, which use the city's public safety radio system, will also benefit from this agreement. Joining the RWC will ensure the Fire Department's continued participation in the automatic aid system and will provide public safety personnel with true radio interoperability between disciplines and departments in the Phoenix metropolitan area, for safety and coordination during 6 major events and emergency situations. Additional benefits include enhanced radio coverage, system redundancy, and a mechanism for controlling network costs through the economy of scale provided by the coalition. Participation in the RWC for the Fire Department would begin July 1, 2011. Participation for the Police Department, Utilities, Transportation and Field Operations will not begin until the current Public Safety Radio System has been updated. The RWC cost is essentially comparable to the cost of operating and maintaining the current radio system. The funding necessary for the Fire Department's utilization of the RWC will be covered by the Public Safety Radio capital improvement plan account. The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Wireless Cooperative Network. Resolution No. 4462 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING INTO OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PLAN, DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND FINANCE THE REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE NETWORK ON BEHALF OF THE GLENDALE FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS. 5. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—AERONAUTICS DIVISION GRANT This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant award from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Aeronautics Division to fund improvements to the runway safety areas. This item supports Council's goals of one community with high-quality services for citizens and one community committed to public safety by enhancing safe air travel. In August 2010, Council approved a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant for improvements to the runway safety areas. The grant totaled $326,307, and required a local match of $17,174. Acceptance of this grant from ADOT, Aeronautics Division will assist with the local match requirement and reduce the amount of Glendale's portion by fifty percent. The grant will provide funding for modifications to comply with the airport master plan, relocate existing features, and restripe aircraft traffic areas. On August 31, 2010, Council approved an FAA grant in the Airport Improvement Program for $326,307 for the improvements to the runway safety areas. Improvements to the runway safety areas will provide for enhanced safety of aircraft landing, taking-off, and taxiing. 7 The acceptance of this grant reduces the original local match of$17,174 to $8,587. Funds for the financial match, for the previously approved FAA grant, are available in the FY 2010-11 capital improvement plan. Grants Capital Expense One-Time Cost Budgeted Unbudgeted Total X $8,587 Account Name, Fund,Account and Line Item Number: Airport-RSA Remove Blast Fence, Account No. 2120-79516-550800, $8,587 The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the grant funds in the amount of $8,587 from ADOT, Aeronautics Division. Resolution No. 4463 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING A GRANT OFFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,587 FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AERONAUTICAL DIVISION,FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. It was moved by Frate and seconded by Clark, to approve the recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 5, including the approval and adoption of Resolution No. 4462 New Series, and Resolution No. 4463 New Series; and to forward Special Event Liquor License Application for St. Mary's Food Bank to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. The motion carried unanimously. 6. NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE THE UTILITIES DEPOSIT FOR NEW ACCOUNTS Diane Goke, Finance Director, presented this item. This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution declaring the city's intent to increase the deposit for new residential and commercial accounts for water, sewer, and sanitation services effective May 16, 2011; and set the date for a public hearing on the proposed increase for April 12, 2011. This increased deposit has no effect on monthly utility bills and is only paid by new customers. In keeping with Council's goal of one community that is fiscally sound, the Finance Department has completed an analysis demonstrating the necessity for this deposit adjustment. In 2010, the State of Arizona passed legislation that prevented municipal water providers such as Glendale from collecting on delinquent accounts from anyone other than the person who receives water and wastewater services. As a result of this new law, the Utilities Department changed the policy in September 2010 that the city would only contract with the property owner for service. 8 This was not well received by the realtor associations, and following numerous meetings over the past few months the city has reached an alternative solution that was agreed to and supported by the realtor associations. City staff agreed to review the current deposit requirements for the city's residential and commercial accounts that use the city's water, sewer and sanitation services. The purpose of the analysis was to reassess the amount collected for new residential and commercial water accounts to determine if this amount covers the costs associated with delinquent accounts and the associated water shut-off procedures. The current deposit fees were established in 1992 and adjusted per the Consumer Price Index Urban Users (CPIUU) beginning in July 2002, with the exception of the commercial deposit of meters measuring up to one and a half inches, which was increased in July 2007. In 1992, this deposit represented two month's worth of the average residential/commercial water, sewer, and Sanitation bill. Accounts that become delinquent and require shut-off typically have approximately two months of unpaid water, sewer and sanitation service charges. The deposit would cover the unpaid charges as well as the staff costs associated with turning off delinquent accounts. In reassessing the average residential monthly water, sewer, and sanitation bills for calendar year 2010 usage, it was determined that the deposit fee should be increased from $84.20 to $200 to reflect current costs. For owner-occupied residential accounts, the deposit is refundable to property owners whose account remains in good standing for at least six consecutive months and who submit a written request for a refund. Due to the nature of the rental property accounts, the deposit will be kept until the account is closed and final reconciliation is complete; at that time any remaining funds will be returned to the account holder. In reassessing the average commercial monthly water and sewer bills for calendar year 2010 usage, the deposit fee should be increased from $130.98 to $250 for meters measuring up to one and a half inches and from $168.42 to $300 for meters measuring two inches and larger. Deposits for commercial accounts would remain on the account until it is closed. These proposed deposit amounts for residential and commercial accounts are comparable to other valley cities including Avondale, Mesa, Peoria, and Scottsdale. This increased deposit has no effect on monthly utility bills and is only paid by new customers. The Arizona Association of Realtors and the West Maricopa County Regional Association of Realtors provided the city letters of support regarding these proposed changes. On May 8, 2007, Council adopted the Utilities Miscellaneous Customer Service Fees which included an increase to the commercial deposit of meters measuring up to one and a half inches from $80 to $120 with an annual CPIUU increase. Council adopted an increase to the residential and commercial water deposits with an effective date of January 1, 1992. Increasing the deposit amount for new water accounts to the calendar year 2010 usage allows the city to better manage those accounts that become delinquent. Avoiding losses due to 9 delinquency is one of many ways the city demonstrates its commitment to providing water, sewer, and sanitation at the lowest rates possible. Staff has also received favorable support on this measure from the realtor community. The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution declaring the city's intent to increase the water deposit amount for residential and commercial customers effective May 16, 2011 and set a public hearing for April 12, 2011. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on this item. Ms. Diane Goke, Finance Director, explained that under current law, the city only contracts with the property owners for utility accounts. However, starting on May 16`h the city will change their administrative procedure to contract with both tenants and property owners for service. The tenant will be required to have a signed lease agreement to open an account. Councilmember Clark said she understood that the $200 fee for new accounts has been calculated to cover an average bill for two months. Ms. Goke stated she was correct. Councilmember Clark asked if the landlord was still required to pay the city if the tenant leaves without paying. Ms. Goke replied no. She added that because of the 2010 legislation, the city can no longer hold the owners responsible. Councilmember Martinez asked if this policy was just reverting back to the previous policy before the city held the owner responsible for past due accounts. Ms. Goke responded by reiterating the new procedure. Councilmember Alvarez asked if the $200 fee would be sufficient because of the current increase in utility rates. Ms. Goke said that staff's calculation of a $200 deposit fee was based on the current average of two months utility bills. Resolution No. 4464 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THIS NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INCREASE THE DEPOSIT FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS FOR WATER, SEWER AND SANITATION SERVICES; SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED INCREASES; AND FILING A WRITTEN REPORT SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED INCREASES WITH THE CITY CLERK. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 4464 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES 7. FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Sherry M. Schurhammer, Management and Budget Director, presented this item. This is a request for City Council to adopt an ordinance approving the FY 2009-10 budget amendments. This action is done after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the prior fiscal year is completed. 10 Review of the FY 2009-10 budget amendments is consistent with the Council's goal of ensuring sound fiscal management to support the city's financial stability. A budget amendment is a transfer of appropriation authority and most amendments are done to reconcile the prior fiscal year's actuals savings with requested carryover. Council is requested to adopt an ordinance approving the amendments to the prior fiscal year budget as a final action. Most of the budget amendments are associated with capital projects. During the course of FY 2009-10, capital project carryover was reconciled to actual savings from the prior fiscal year. When departments prepared their FY 2009-10 capital project budgets, they estimated their amount of carryover savings. The Management and Budget Department subsequently reconciled each department's actual savings from the prior fiscal year with their estimated carryover budget for FY 2009-10 and then increased or decreased their budgets accordingly. This type of action is done after the annual audit for the prior fiscal year is completed. For example, Council approved a similar ordinance for FY 2008-09 on December 8, 2009. Overall, the City of Glendale's total FY 2009-10 budget appropriations across all funds remain unchanged. The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance approving the FY 2009-10 budget amendments. Mayor Scruggs stated since many of the Councilmembers had sent in lot of questions regarding the appropriation authority issue, she would like Ms. Schurhammer to address some of her responses and comments to those questions. Sherry M. Schurhammer, Management and Budget Director, stated there was a difference between appropriation authority and the actual funds used to back the appropriation authority. She explained that budget amendments, also known as interfund transfers, were transfers of only appropriation authority and had nothing to do with transferring actual funds. She noted that the Clean Up Ordinance deals with budget amendments. Ms Schurhammer further explained that there were questions about the CIP Reserve account for various capital-related funds as shown in Exhibit A attached to the ordinance for this agenda item. She explained that every year, when staff builds the budget for the next FY, departments are asked to estimate carryover savings for their capital projects, and these estimates are then included in the upcoming FY's capital budget as "estimated carryover." Once the year ends, the budget staff reconciles the differences between the estimated carryover amount included in the capital budget and the actual savings. Any differences are then processed through the appropriate fund's CIP Reserve account to ensure the respective capital projects are not allowed to spend more than the actual funds available. She explained that this is done for all of the different funds associated with capital projects because capital funds are strictly established for specific purposes. For example, Flood Control Capital Bond Funds cannot be used for public safety capital bond projects. She also said carryover reconciliation is done for the operating budget if carryover was allowed on the operating side. 11 Ms. Schurhammer also explained that budget amendments are required during the course of a FY for budgets related to grants received. For example, during FY 2010 the city received up to $11 million in federal stimulus money and $2 million in Neighborhood Stabilization grants. When the FY 2010 budget was developed in January 2009, the city knew stimulus funding for capital projects would become available in FY 2010, but we had no idea of the amount the city would actually receive. Therefore a CIP Grant Reserve was built into the FY 2010 budget so sufficient appropriation authority would be available if federal stimulus funding for capital projects were awarded to Glendale. Once the award amounts for Glendale were known, the budget staff then had to establish appropriation authority — the authority to spend funds — for each of the grant projects in order for the funds to be spent. She noted that budget staff moved only appropriation authority from the CIP Grant Reserve account to the appropriate accounts for each grant project. In the case of these grants, the appropriation authority was backed by the grant funds awarded to Glendale. Councilmember Clark asked for additional clarification. She questioned why budget staff transferred appropriation authority from the Airport Fund's CIP Reserve to a project labeled "Records Management — Clerk." She questioned whether a staff position was being funded in the City Clerk's Office. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the Records Management capital project was for the City Clerk's Office and was related to the purchase of software and hardware and related services associated with the implementation of a new records management system for the city. She noted that this specific project was included in the city's FY 2010 capital improvement plan that City Council adopted. She further stated that the project did not fund a staff position in the City Clerk's Office. . She explained that there was excess appropriation authority in the Airport Fund's CIP Reserve so when the Records Management capital project needed some additional appropriation authority, a transfer was done from one to the other. Ms. Schurhammer assured City Council that the city's total appropriation for the CAFR [Comprehensive Annual Financial Report]-basis General Fund (GF) was not exceeded in FY 2010. She elaborated by noting that the FY 2010 CAFR-basis GF total appropriation authority— spending authority — was, approximately $190 million and approximately $162 million was spent. Consequently, the city's CAFR-basis GF had far more appropriation authority than was spent in the course of FY 2010. Ms. Schurhammer also explained that appropriation authority expires at the end of every FY. Councilmember Clark asked if, based on the concept that an airport capital project did not cost as much as appropriated, shouldn't there be some money left from that appropriation. Ms. Schurhammer said no and reiterated the explanation about carryover estimates. She said that departments estimate the amount of carryover savings, in this case the estimated savings from FY 2009. Budget staff subsequently reconciled each department's actual savings from FY 2009 with the FY 2010 carryover budget, then increased or decreased the appropriate capital budgets accordingly. She explained different scenarios as to how increases or decreases happen. She stated Councilmember Clark was correct that having the flexibility to move the appropriation authority around allows operations to continue without having to come back to Council every time there is a movement. She noted there were almost 100 transfers on the Clean 12 Up Ordinance agenda item for tonight's meeting and it is not practical or operationally effective to come before Council 100 times during the course of a FY for each and every interfund transfer [budget amendment] of appropriation authority. She explained operations would come to a standstill every time a budget amendment was needed because of the time needed to get on an evening meeting agenda for City Council. She repeated that the ability to complete interfund transfers of appropriation authority provides the flexibility required to keep operations moving smoothly and expeditiously throughout the course of the year without exceeding the maximum appropriation authority that Council adopted for each of the city's 100 plus funds. The Management and Budget Department staff ensures there is sufficient funding available to support the budget amendments shown on the Clean Up Ordinance. Councilmember Clark asked how decisions are made regarding capital projects that require additional appropriation authority or those cases where a capital project comes in under budget and there are actual fund savings that could be redistributed to other eligible projects. Ms. Schurhammer explained that those decisions generally are worked out through the Management and Budget Department, City Manager's Office and the requesting department. She said that frequently any savings generated from one capital project is reallocated to another eligible project that is costing more than anticipated as long as that project is eligible for the specified funds. She reiterated her earlier explanation that capital funds are strictly established for specific purposes. For example, Flood Control Capital Bond Funds cannot be used for capital bond projects related to parks, streets, or other uses not directly related to flood control. Councilmember Clark inquired about line item 42 on Exhibit A that showed a transfer from the Fund 1000 CIP Reserve to various divisions in the Marketing Self Sustaining Fund. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the Marketing Self-Sustaining Fund is also known as the Marketing Special Events Fund. She explained that the Marketing and Communications Department staff solicits donations from local companies such as SRP and APS for the city's signature downtown events. When the FY 2010 budget was developed in January 2009, the amount of donations to be received during FY 2010 was not known. Once the donations came in during FY 2010, that department needed appropriation authority to spend the funds, at which time the budget staff processed transfers of appropriation authority to the Marketing Self Sustaining Fund. Councilmember Clark also inquired about line item 60 on Exhibit A that showed a $1.5 million transfer of appropriation authority from the CIP Grant Reserve to various GF divisions. Ms. Schurhammer explained that this item referred to the transfers of appropriation authority needed to address the costs of the unusual number of retirements that occurred during FY 2010 as a result of the city's retirement incentive program for those eligible at that time to retire. She noted that the city has obligations to pay such as the value of accrued sick and vacation time for employees leaving the city's employment, in this case those who were retiring, as well as the retirement incentive offered through this one-time program. These kind of costs could not be anticipated when the FY 2010 budget was developed in January 2009, therefore transfers of appropriation authority were required during the course of FY 2010 so department budgets ended the year with sufficient appropriation authority to cover the actual expenses associated with the higher than usual number of retirements. 13 Councilmember Clark stated her concerns that funds were being moved from grant reserves to cover other projects that did not have anything to do with grant funding. Ms. Schurhammer said no grant monies were involved, only appropriation authority, which is distinctly different from actual funds. Councilmember Clark asked why the CIP Grant Reserve was the source of the appropriation authority in this case and Ms. Schurhammer explained that this division was where excess appropriation authority existed. Mayor Scruggs asked for further clarification about lines 60 and 84 in Exhibit A. She noted that the appropriation authority transfers for those two lines total approximately $4 million. Ms. Schurhammer said both lines related to the cost of the unusual number of retirements that occurred during FY 2010. She repeated her earlier assurance that Council had appropriated, as part of the adopted FY 2010 budget, approximately $190 million in appropriation authority for the GF and approximately $162 million was actually spent, so the GF's total appropriation authority that Council approved for FY 2010 was not exceeded. Horatio Skeete,Assistant City Manager, explained how the city addresses the accrued liability of uncompensated absences that is reported in the annual CAFR as required under generally accepted accounting standards. He said that every year the city must recognize the city's obligations related to the payout of accrued vacation and sick leave when vested employees leave the city. In most years, the actual payout would be covered by salary savings (unused appropriation authority in the salary category of expenses that are generated as a result of vacant positions). However, FY 2010 reflected an unusually large number of retirements that could not be covered through salary savings so the Risk Management Fund covered some of the retirement program's one-time expenses. Councilmember Clark inquired if there had been a line item expenditure that Council had approved during budget time to cover retirement cost for employees. Mr. Skeete replied no. He explained those were liabilities funded before and set aside over a number of years ago, not during the last budget cycle. Councilmember Clark asked if staff had estimated as to how much would be required to deal with the retirement issue during last year's budget discussions. Mr. Skeete explained staff did not have an estimate on this issue. Additionally, these were funds that were already set aside in the Risk Management Fund. Mayor Scruggs asked if line items 60, 77 and 84 were related to the retirement incentive program in FY 2010 and Mr. Skeete replied yes. Councilmember Clark remarked it would be helpful to Council if it saw all of the line items for each fund when the upcoming FY's budget was being developed. Ms. Schurhammer encouraged Council to look at the FY 2010 CAFR for more information about the actual expenses incurred during FY 2010. She also said that only the GF and HURF operating budgets were discussed in detail with City Council during the budget workshops each spring because the detailed operating budgets for all of the other funds, which would number 1,000 to 2,0000 pages in length, would be very challenging to address in just a couple of budget workshops. She further noted that the detailed line item operating budget for every fund is available internally on the city's intranet to all city employees and the council members. 14 Councilmember Clark stated her understanding of the process; however, she noted this does raise questions if they are unknowingly approving expenditures that never happen or appropriations that they may never know about. Mr. Skeete stated it was important to note city staff and the city manager only have the authority to expend less than $50,000, with most purchases over $50,000 requiring Council approval. He encouraged Council to look at the budget impact section of each evening agenda item as that section identified the budget for the item being brought forward. He noted that at times, appropriation authority and funding for some projects come from three or four different budgets. He explained that occasionally this must be done as projects are in the building process. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much was left from the district improvement funds. Ms. Schurhammer stated that DIF stood for Development Impact Fees, which are strictly prohibited by state law from being used for anything other than the specified uses spelled out in state statutes. She said that the FY 2010 budget for development impact fees was based on the projected revenue from development impact fees. For the FY 2010 budget, which was developed in January 2009, budget staff estimated that DIF revenues would come in fairly strongly. However, during FY 2010 it became clear that this would not happen, so the spending side of the development impact fee funds had to be reduced significantly. Consequently, budget staff moved only the appropriation authority associated with various development impact fee funds to other funds that had sufficient cash available but not sufficient appropriation authority. Councilmember Lieberman questioned transferring $2 million in appropriation authority to the Special Projects division. Ms. Schurhammer explained that the Special Projects account captures all costs related to hiring outside firms to address legal and economic development projects that the city has undertaken. Councilmember Lieberman asked if item 54 was related to CTOC [Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission for the transportation sales tax program] in anyway. Ms. Schurhammer said "no" and explained that line 54 in Exhibit A deals with a transfer of only appropriation authority from the development impact fee fund for transportation to the debt service fund for Highway User Revenue Fund capital bonds. Ms. Schurhammer suggested she meet individually with Councilmember Lieberman to discuss his list of questions. Councilmember Lieberman replied no, he prefers the public to hear the questions and responses. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much appropriation authority was established for the CIP Grant Reserve. Ms. Schurhammer said she believed the FY 2010 CIP Grant Reserve was budgeted at approximately $10 to $15 million because the city knew in January 2009 that the federal government was planning to make available millions of federal stimulus funds for FY 2010. In January 2009, the city did not know the amount of federal stimulus funding it would receive, so staff estimated that Glendale could receive $10 to $15 million and the appropriation authority for the CIP Grant Reserve was set accordingly. As it turned out, Glendale was awarded about $11 million in federal stimulus funds. She explained that once the actual funding awards were known, appropriation authority was transferred from the CIP Grant Reserve to the specific project accounts set up for the individual projects funded with federal stimulus funds. Councilmember Lieberman asked about the Government Facilities Capital Bond Fund. Ms. Schurhammer explained the types of capital projects that could be covered by this category of general obligation bonds. 15 Councilmember Lieberman asked about the FY 2010 ending fund balance for the Risk Management Fund and the General Fund. Ms. Schurhammer said she did not have the information with her but would do some research the following day and then send the information to the Mayor and Council. Ms. Schurhammer explained that this specific ordinance is the final closing action to the FY 2010 budget. Mayor Scruggs remarked that this ordinance would be the final reconciliation of all expenditures that occurred from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 and Ms. Schurhammer stated she was correct. She stated this was the final budget action for FY ending June 30, 2010. Councilmember Lieberman asked when Council will receive the second quarter statement showing the city's financial condition. Ms. Schurhammer said this subject was scheduled for the March 1,2011 workshop. Councilmember Alvarez inquired about the Special Projects account and the appropriation authority transfer of $2.5 million dollars. Ms. Schurhammer explained that this account was used to pay bills related to the hiring of outside attorneys and consultant to handle several legal cases the city had undertaken. Councilmember Alvarez asked for a detailed list of the FY 2010 expenditures for the Special Projects account. Ms. Schurhammer said she would do so the next business day. Councilmember Martinez asked for clarification on the flood control projects. He asked if overall that funding stayed within flood control. Ms. Schurhammer replied yes. She noted that the total appropriation the Council set up for the flood control fund was not exceeded. Councilmember Martinez remarked the city receives various funding sources; however, that funding has to be spent in certain categories. Ms. Schurhammer stated the city has over 100 funds designated for very specific purposes and cannot be used for other projects. Vice Mayor Frate noted this item comes before Council every year, however, this year Council has had more questions. He thanked Ms. Schurhammer for meeting with him individually and answering his questions. He believes her to be very astute and knowledgeable in a difficult area and when answering their questions. He thanked and commended her on her presentation this evening. He apologized for the amount of time taken and believes this should have been done in a workshop setting. Councilmember Knaack acknowledged the many financial-related awards that the city receives each year including the annual award for a distinguished budget. She explained that budgeting was not an exact science and can be very fluid. She expressed her amazement on the great job the Management and Budget Department does year after year. She thanked Ms. Schurhammer and her staff very much for the job they do. Councilmember Alvarez asked for clarification on the Risk Management Fund and how it is handled. Mr. Skeete stated the city was self insured and the standards for the amount of money that need to be set aside are set by an actuarial study completed each FY. He noted there was a 16 process followed to establish that level of fund balance required for the Risk Management Fund in order to cover the anticipated loss or for any claims. Councilmember Clark stated as a member of the Risk Management Board, she can verify what Mr. Skeete affirmed. She noted that staff made sure the fund balances remained healthy. Mayor Scruggs thanked Ms. Schurhammer for her explanations and believes she learned a lot today. She does not know why they had such a lengthy discussion this year as opposed to other years. She explained they each receive their Council material for a Tuesday meeting sometime on a Friday. The only time she had available to read her material was yesterday. She had emailed some questions to Ms Schurhammer; however, she felt it was helpful to hear her speak on these issues. She somehow feels it necessary to justify why she had so many question tonight because she did not get to work on this material until late yesterday afternoon. She thanked Ms. Schurhammer for being extremely helpful tonight. She believes budget was a very complex and specialized world. She noted it was a great specialty that Ms. Schurhammer has and they truly admire her ability. However, they still need to understand and examine each issue because they were elected to represent the people. Councilmember Alvarez remarked she was told she could not request anything from the departments, but rather go through Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, which she did, but did not receive a response. She hopes that in the future, she can have the same privilege of directly contacting the departments; however, possibly because she was new she was not allowed the same courtesy. Mayor Scruggs explained she sent Ms. Schurhammer an email and copied Mr. Beasley. She stated as long as Mr. Beasley knows the circumstance, Councilmember Alvarez or any Councilmember is allowed to send an email and request information. She apologizes for the miscommunication and added she has no more privileges than Councilmember Alvarez does by any means. Ms. Schurhammer noted that Councilmember Clark's questions had come through the city manager's office. Councilmember Clark stated she had only gone to the manager's office because she needed help with the acronyms. She apologized for the amount of time her questions took and appreciated her patience. She indicated that perhaps Council paid more attention to this item this year because of the current economy. Ordinance No. 2765 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION BETWEEN BUDGET ITEMS IN THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 BUDGET. Councilmember Alvarez stated one of her commitments to her constituents was to get more services to their communities and avoid attorney fees. She will not support this item. 17 It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No. 2765 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": Alvarez. 8. SALT RIVER PROJECT POWER DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT Larry J. Broyles, P.E., City Engineer, presented this item. This is a request for City Council to adopt an ordinance granting an easement in favor of Salt River Project (SRP) for power distribution lines across portions of a city-owned well site at 107th Avenue and Bethany Home Road. Granting the utility easements supports Council's goal of one community with high-quality services for citizens by allowing SRP to provide electrical power to the city's well site which provides groundwater supply to the residents of Glendale. The well was installed to provide potable water as part of the Zone 4 Groundwater Treatment Plant project. In order to provide electrical power to the well sites, SRP must install underground electrical equipment and a transformer. To maintain these facilities, SRP has requested the city grant it an easement. The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement in favor of Salt River Project for power distribution lines across portions of a city-owned well site at 107th Avenue and Bethany Home Road. Ordinance No. 2766 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A POWER DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SALT RIVER PROJECT ACROSS PORTIONS OF A CITY-OWNED WELL SITE AT 107TH AVENUE AND BETHANY HOME ROAD; AND ORDERING THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE BE RECORDED. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance No. 2766 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Alvarez, Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting"nay": none. PUBLIC HEARING- RESOLUTION 9. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2010-11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (RESOLUTION) (PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED) Gilbert Lopez, Revitalization Administrator, presented this item. 18 This is a request for City Council to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a substantial amendment for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) III to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan. This item addresses Council's goal of one community with strong neighborhoods by establishing financing mechanisms and to purchase and redevelop residential properties that are abandoned or foreclosed;demolish blighted structures; and redevelop demolished or vacant properties. On October 19, 2010, Glendale was notified by HUD that it was one of twelve local governments that would be eligible to apply for and receive one-time NSP III funds. These funds are part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to be targeted to areas of highest need as identified by federally collected data and local supporting data. This will allow Glendale to apply for $3,718,377 NSP III funding from the U. S. Department of Urban Development (HUD). In order to apply and accept these funds, the city's current FY 2010-11 CDBG Annual Action Plan must be amended to reflect the use of NSP III program funds. Council approved and adopted the first Neighborhood Stabilization Program Substantial Amendment to the FY 2008-09 Annual Action Plan to address the effects and provide redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed properties in Glendale on November 25, 2008. Any funds received from HUD for Glendale's NSP III program will address the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and other eligible properties in Glendale. This will help to stabilize those neighborhoods in which the foreclosed/abandoned homes are currently located, The CDAC conducted a public hearing in January 2011 to allow for public comment and voted to approve the amendment and forwarded it to Council for final consideration. The proposed amendment was published in The Glendale Star, advising the public of the 15-day comment period, beginning January 7, 2011, and ending January 24, 2011. The NSP III program is a federally funded one-time allocation provided through HUD. If approved, the amendment will allow the city to apply for the $3,718,377 grant to provide for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and other eligible properties in Glendale. This is a federally-funded program; therefore, there will be no fiscal impact to the city. The recommendation is to conduct a public hearing, waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the approval of the NSP III Substantial Amendment to the CDBG Annual Action Plan for FY 2010-11. Councilmember Lieberman read from the resolution stating that the amendment will allow the city to apply for the $3,718,377 grant to provide for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and other eligible properties in Glendale. He stated he was very proud of Gilbert Lopez, Revitalization Administrator. Mr. Lopez is also a chairman on a committee for the National League of Cities. Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 9. 19 As there were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing. Resolution No. 4465 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) III SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO APPLY FOR $3,718,377 IN NSP FUNDING FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF FORECLOSED/ABANDONED HOMES IN GLENDALE. It was moved by Alvarez, and seconded by Frate, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 4465 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS 10. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA10-01 (ORDINANCE) (PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED) AND SITE REVIEW FEE AND LOCATION RESERVATION FEE (RESOLUTION): MEDICAL MARIJUANA—CITYWIDE (ITEM CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 08, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to remove from the table Item Number 10, Zoning Text Amendment ZTA10-01. The motion carried unanimously. Jon M. Froke, AICP, Planning Director, presented this item. This is a request for City Council to conduct a public hearing and adopt an ordinance for Zoning Text Amendment ZTA10-01, which will adopt citywide zoning regulations concerning medical marijuana. This is also a request for City Council to adopt a resolution establishing a $225 medical marijuana site review fee and a$225 location reservation fee. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with Council's goal of one community with strong neighborhoods by limiting the location and concentration of medical marijuana facilities and providing buffers between facilities, neighborhoods, and schools. The site review fee and location reservation fee supports the Council's goal of one community that is fiscally sound by establishing fees to recover costs associated with processing these types of requests. Proposition 203 — The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act was approved by Arizona voters on November 2, 2010. The act allows cities, towns, and counties to enact reasonable zoning regulations concerning medical marijuana. The Arizona Department of Health Services has taken the position that if a city does not enact reasonable zoning regulations, then medical marijuana will be permitted throughout the city with one restriction, that no facility can be located within 500 feet from a school. 20 The proposed zoning text amendment defines various types of facilities, including dispensaries, dispensary offsite cultivation locations, infusion or manufacturing facilities, and designated caregiver cultivation locations. A new section of the General Development Standards of the zoning ordinance is proposed to regulate medical marijuana. The proposed zoning text amendment will apply citywide, with medical marijuana facilities being limited to non-residential zoning districts, specifically the General Office (GO), General Commercial (C-2), and Heavy Commercial (C-3) for medical marijuana dispensaries. The Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2) zoning districts would allow medical marijuana designated caregiver cultivation locations, medical marijuana dispensary offsite cultivation locations, and medical marijuana infusion (or manufacturing) facilities, except qualifying patient cultivation locations, which can be grown at a patient's primary residence, only if the residence is more than 25 miles from a dispensary. The proposed zoning text amendment also provides for separation between each medical marijuana facility so that no concentration of these facilities is permitted. The proposed standards also require separations from residentially-zoned properties and schools. The proposed standards also address required information at time of application submittal, facility size, and aspects of facility operation. As part of the City's zoning regulations, applications for site review and reservation will be required. During site review, research is performed by city staff to determine if the proposed business location meets the separation requirements required by the zoning ordinance. If the site meets the zoning requirements, the application to reserve the location holds the site while the applicant obtains other necessary approvals, including those from the State. A similar two-step process is currently used for Group Homes. A fee of $225 will be required for each application. If the site does not comply with zoning requirements, the $225 fee for location reservation will be refunded to the applicant. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZTA10-01 on January 20, 2011. The proposed zoning text amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at their January 20, 2011 workshop. This proposed zoning text amendment balances the provision of medical marijuana as provided for by the voter-approved Proposition 203, with the benefits of land use regulation which will protect neighborhoods and schools. By establishing fees associated with processing these types of applications it ensures that only those needing or utilizing the services are assessed the fees. A Notice for the City Council Public Hearing was published in The Glendale Star on January 20, 2011. Notification postcards of the City Council Public Hearing were mailed to 56 persons on the interested parties and citywide additional notification list on January 21, 2011. 21 Staff held a neighborhood meeting on January 6, 2011, in which approximately 40 interested parties attended. A summary of questions and comments expressed during the meeting is included in the attached Citizen Participation Final Report. The recommendation is to conduct a public hearing, waive reading beyond the titles and adopt an ordinance for Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 10-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission and as modified by staff, and adopt a resolution establishing a $225 medical marijuana site review fee and a $225 location reservation fee. Jon M. Froke, AICP, Planning Director, presented a zoning map which indicated the city's M-1 and M-2 zoning. He noted the areas zoned M-1 Light Industrial is spread out throughout the city and noted Bell Road and 51St Avenue as an example. The M-2 Heavy Industrial is predominately located on the Grand Avenue Corridor adjacent to the railroad tracks and west of the Glendale Municipal Airport. These are areas where potentially the cultivation and manufacturing facilities might be developed under certain conditions. He explained the draft text amendment previously presented does have other performance standards. They include separation buffers with 500 feet from residential properties, as well as a quarter mile from schools. In regards to Council's concerns with restricting the size of medical marijuana cultivation and infusion facilities, staff suggests offsite cultivation facilities are limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet and the infusion facilities would be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet. He explained those two figures were not available at the last meeting. However, staff believes they are reasonable. In comparison, typical free standing pharmacies average 15,000 square feet. Councilmember Lieberman inquired as to why this had to be completed by March 1, 2011. He was curious as to where that information came from since a representative from Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) told him the city did not have to turn anything in to the state regarding zoning. Councilmember Lieberman noted applicants are expected to turn their applications in to ADHS by May 1, 2011. Therefore, he believes there would have been enough time to have another public meeting so this issue could be further discussed. Mr. Froke stated each individual city and town throughout the state has been busy working on rules that they feel are reasonable for their community. The ordinance would require a 30 day effective date and they would like to have this process completed this month. He discussed the very successful neighborhood meetings and public hearings the Planning Commission had to address this issue. Staff believes the matter was ready to proceed and be dealt with this evening. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was ever a March 1St deadline. Mr. Froke stated there had been a comment from ADHS that if within 120 days of affirmation of Prop 203, cities did not have their rules in place, they would have to abide by only those rules found in Prop. 203. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the law requires that the medical marijuana be non-profit. Deborah Robberson, Deputy City Attorney, stated he was correct, it was a state law. Mayor Scruggs explained each city or town would have to place their own zoning regulations and restrictions if they so wished because the ADHS was not establishing any zoning regulations. They will begin taking applications in April. Councilmember Lieberman stated they actually start taking applications in May. 22 Mayor Scruggs stated she believed the majority of City Council and the citizens would like to have control and regulations on where these facilities can operate as dispensaries as well as infusion and cultivation facilities. Also, this same majority would prefer the city not go along with the Department of Health Services placing them anywhere in the city, as long as they obtain the appropriate license. Mayor Scruggs asked when this item will take effect if it was approved tonight. Mr. Froke replied the ordinance will take effect in 30 days. Councilmember Clark asked if the text amendment already had the square footage restrictions. Mr. Froke replied yes. She asked to offer two amendments on this issue after their discussion. Councilmember Lieberman discussed the broad range of potential locations for marijuana facilities. Mr. Froke discussed the two zoning districts in which the use is allowed and the restrictions. Councilmember Lieberman commented that one of the areas for marijuana cultivation was in his district. Ordinance No. 2763 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION) BY AMENDING SECTION 2.300 (DEFINITIONS), AND ARTICLE 7 (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 7.800 (MEDICAL MARIJUANA); AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to amend Ordinance No. 2763 New Series, to include that the maximum size for an off-site cultivation facility shall be 25,000 square feet and that the maximum size for an infusion or manufacturing facility shall be 10,000 square feet. Motion carried on a roll call vote,with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Alvarez, Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to amend Ordinance No. 2763 New Series, that the separation from residentially zoned property for an off-site cultivation facility be 1,320 feet. It was additionally moved to require that the separation from residential for an infusion or manufacturing facility also be 1,320 feet. Motion carried on a roll call vote,with the following Councilmembers voting"aye": Alvarez, Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 10. Mayor Scruggs entered the comments of Bonnie Steiger, a Sahuaro resident, into the record as opposing the action. Ms. Steiger's card indicated she was unable to speak. Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing. 23 It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance No. 2763 New Series with the two amendments. Mayor Scruggs noted for the record that an amendment to medical marijuana dispensaries hours of operation had been approved at the February 8, 2011 City Council meeting. Councilmember Clark commented the two amendments tonight bring the total number of amendments to Ordinance 2763 to three. Councilmember Alvarez restated her support for staff's recommendation regarding fewer hours of operation and objected to the amendment extending the operating hours. However, she noted the state law allows the use so she would vote to approve the ordinance. Councilmember Lieberman restated his reluctance to support the extended hours of operation amendment, however, will vote to approve. Motion carried on a roll call vote,with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Alvarez, Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. Resolution No. 4460 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND ENACTING FEES FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA SITE REVIEW AND LOCATION RESERVATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 4460 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 11. BUSINESS LICENSE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS (ITEM TABLED DURING FEBRUARY 08, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to remove Item number 11, Business License for Medical Marijuana Establishments, from the table. The motion carried unanimously. Diane Goke, Finance Director, presented this item. This is a request for City Council to adopt an ordinance amending the Glendale City Code by adding Chapter 21.4 entitled Medical Marijuana Establishments for the creation of a business license; and to adopt a resolution establishing application and annual license fees for medical marijuana establishments. This request supports Council's goal of one community that is fiscally sound by providing a provision in the Glendale City Code which allows for the establishment of fees to assist with cost recovery for services provided. 24 Proposition 203, The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, was approved by Arizona voters on November 2, 2010 and provides for certain medical marijuana use, sale, manufacturing, and cultivation including the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the State of Arizona, including the City of Glendale. The proposed Chapter 21.4 will authorize a city business license for medical marijuana establishments. The proposed resolution establishes a $150 application and $250 annual license fee for medical marijuana establishment businesses. This fee is similar to liquor licensing fees, due to public health and safety reasons and the potential for higher calls for service. By establishing fees associated with processing these types of applications it ensures that only those needing or utilizing the services are assessed the fees. The recommendation is to waive reading beyond the titles and adopt an ordinance amending the Glendale City Code by adding Chapter 21.4 entitled Medical Marijuana Establishments for the creation of a business license; and adopt a resolution establishing application and annual license fees for medical marijuana establishments. Mayor Scruggs entered into the record the information submitted by Bonnie Steiger, a Sahuaro resident, who opposed the ordinance based on the proposed fees were too low. Mayor Scruggs asked for additional information on the rationale regarding the fees. Diane Goke, Finance Director, indicated staff had completed some analysis on this issue and based it on the actual liquor license application fees which are considerably higher. Mayor Scruggs asked what their process was to determine the recommended fees. Ms. Goke explained they analyzed the number of department reviews and processes the application has to go through, and then made a recommendation. Mayor Scruggs asked if the recommendation was related to the value of the staff time to review and process the application. Ms. Goke replied yes. Mayor Scruggs asked if this application was similar to a drug store. Ms. Goke stated this was not as simple as a business license for a drug store and more similar to a massage therapy facility in terms of process. Councilmember Clark remarked that drug stores and liquor stores operated for a profit, while medical marijuana establishments would be non-profit facilities. Medical marijuana will be legal in Arizona and should not be penalized. She reiterated this would be for people who were suffering and needed medical marijuana. Councilmember Martinez commented that in regards to the profit issue, he believes medical marijuana facilities will be making tons of money. Vice Mayor Frate asked if the state was going to tax medical marijuana. Ms. Goke stated the state can tax but the cities could not. Mayor Scruggs asked how the state received the right to tax it. Ms. Goke explained that the state made a determination that they can tax medical marijuana under the current state sales tax laws. However, Ms. Goke explained the cities follow the Model City Tax Code and it has been determined by the Model City Tax Commission that it does not allow them to tax it at this time. 25 Mayor Scruggs referenced Ms. Steiger's concerns regarding the fees being low and her own concerns but added she will support the staff's recommendation. Ordinance No. 2764 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 21.4 ENTITLED, "MEDICAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS". Councilmember Martinez noted that he did not like this ordinance, however, will not vote against it. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Knaack, to approve Ordinance No. 2764 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Alvarez, Clark, Lieberman, Knaack, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting"nay": none. Resolution No. 4461 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND ENACTING APPLICATION AND ANNUAL LICENSE FEES FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 4461 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 12. REAPPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING CITY JUDGE Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director, was present to respond to questions. This is a request for City Council to reappoint Presiding City Judge Elizabeth Finn to a two-year term. Her current term expires March 25, 2011. Judge Finn has served as a Presiding City Judge in Glendale since 2003 and is eligible for reappointment to a two-year term. The Judicial Selection Advisory Board unanimously recommends Judge Finn's reappointment based on the results of her reappointment interview, letters of recommendation received on her behalf, confidential survey results conducted by a private research firm and other reappointment materials. The confidential survey on reappointment was mailed to over 230 recipients. Public input on reappointment was sought through advertisement in The Arizona Republic, The Glendale Star and Maricopa Lawyer (official publication of the Maricopa County Bar Association). The survey results and all letters of input have been provided to the Mayor and Council, along with letters of recommendation. 26 The recommendation is to reappoint Presiding City Judge Elizabeth Finn to a two-year term with no change to the annual salary. Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director, stated that she will be happy to answer any questions regarding this process. Councilmember Clark stated Judge Elizabeth Finn has been an asset to this community since she was hired by Council. Judge Finn is well renowned and considered an expert in the areas of domestic violence and DWI. She noted other judges often refer to her as a resource. She indicated they were very fortunate to have Judge Finn as their presiding judge. Councilmember Lieberman said he agreed totally with Councilmember Clark's statement. He stated Judge Finn has done an outstanding job for the city of Glendale. He added she was known nationally for her stands on domestic violence. He thanked Judge Finn for all her outstanding work. Mayor Scruggs stated she agreed completely with the Councilmember's comments. She explained the reappointment process was very grueling. She would like to also mention that managing a court was not an easy thing, especially in a time when resources were limited. She thanked Judge Finn for her administrative skills of managing the city's court house effectively. It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Knaack, to reappoint Presiding City Judge Elizabeth Finn to a two-year term with no change to the annual salary. The motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Knaack, to hold a City Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03. The motion carried unanimously. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Councilmember Lieberman acknowledged his lifetime friend James Spieth, who was in the audience tonight. He added they have known each other for over seventy years. Vice Mayor Frate congratulated the Toops' family for receiving the Business Owner of the Year Award which was presented by Senator Kyl. He stated the Toops' family helps all the service clubs in the surrounding areas with advertisements at no cost. He reminded everyone to watch children around water. He added children needed to be placed in a car seat and be restrained at all times while riding in a vehicle. 27 Councilmember Martinez congratulated the Toops' family for the award they received today as well as all they do in the community. Councilmember Knaack congratulated Judge Finn and added they were very proud and lucky to have her in Glendale. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. All oM — - "-rem€&".- P ela Hanna- City Clerk 28