HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 8/16/2011 (3) *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the
Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
'Illi
III
GLENDr
MINUTES OF THE
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION
Council Chambers—Workshop Room
5850 West Glendale Avenue
August 16, 2011
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and
Councilmembers, Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, and Manuel D.
Martinez
ABSENT: Councilmembers H. Phillip Lieberman and Norma S. Alvarez
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager; Craig
Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
WORKSHOP SESSION
1. 2012 LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS RESOLUTIONS
PRESENTED BY: Brent Stoddard, Intergovernmental Programs Director, Jenna Goad,
Intergovernmental Programs Administrator and Ryan Peters, Intergovernmental Programs
Administrator
This is a request for City Council to review and provide guidance on the proposed 24
resolutions, which will be voted on at the August 30, 2011 League of Arizona Cities and Towns
(LACT) Resolutions Committee meeting.
The proposed resolutions provide the basis for the annual LACT Municipal Policy Statement,
which will guide the League's legislative efforts next session.
Each year, the LACT solicits resolutions from municipalities to be considered by the League
Resolutions Committee. At the committee meeting, each of the 91 cities and towns will have an
opportunity to state their position and vote as appropriate on each resolution. The Mayor of each
city represents their municipality on the committee.
On July 20, 2011, the resolutions were initially reviewed by a League Resolutions
Subcommittee, which is made up of various Mayors from around the state. The subcommittee
made initial recommendations about which resolutions should be adopted by the full Resolutions
Committee, which should be amended or combined, which should become critical issues, and
which should not move forward in the process.
The final adopted resolutions will become part of the LACT's Municipal Policy Statement, and
incorporated into the League's 2012 Legislative Agenda.
Staff is requesting Council to provide policy guidance on the proposed League Resolutions.
Brent Stoddard, Intergovernmental Programs, provided a brief summary. He stated that on July
20, 2011 the League of Arizona Cities and Towns convened a resolutions subcommittee to
review the proposed resolutions and make recommendations to the full resolutions committee.
The subcommittee categorized the resolutions into four areas: Recommended Adoption,
Recommended for Adoption with Amendments, Not Recommended, and Critical Municipal
Issues. The Critical Municipal Issue category is new and is intended to recognize issues that are
important to cities, but are not appropriate for the League as a whole to seek legislation. He
added these resolutions do not make up the city of Glendale's legislative agenda. Staff will
come before Council as they do each year prior to the legislative session where they provide
direction and help develop the city's legislative agenda.
Previous Council Position: Support
• #6 - Support the retention and expansion of economic development tools
• #11 -Allow greater flexibility in annexing county islands
• #16 - Establish the mechanism for the creation of sustainable energy financing district
authority
• #19 - Amend Certificate of Necessity process to allow cities the authority to provide
emergency ambulance transportation services within their boundaries
Previous Council Position: Not Support
• #5 - Identify a funding source for Arizona Water Supply Revolving Fund Development
• #13 - Allow cities to publish required notices and agendas to either an official city website or
other third party sites or newspaper in a form and format selected by the city
Subcommittee Recommendation: Adopt Staff Recommendation: Support
• #1 - Preserve shared revenue formulas and prohibit shifting existing state costs to cities
• #3 - Protect the Arizona State Parks authority to generate and use its revenues to keep parks
open
• #17 - Support efforts to reduce the shortage of physicians in the state
• #20 - Oppose new federal mandate that government entities withhold and remit 3% of
contract payments to the IRS beginning in 2013
• #22 - Oppose federal preemption of state and local taxing authority over online travel
companies
2
Subcommittee Recommendation: Amend and Adopt Staff Recommendation: Support
Amendments
• #2 - Prohibit sweeps of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and restore swept funds
• #4 - Restore the funding and the funding mechanism of the State Heritage Funds
• #10 -Adding graffiti to the criminal damage statute as a separate offense and require
community service
• #21 -Urge Congress to enact effective forest restoration efforts
Subcommittee Recommendation: Critical Issue Staff Recommendation: Support
• #15 -Authorize changes to net metering policies to allow for community solar gardens
• #18 -Implement a pilot program to restrict trucks to the two right-most lanes on highways in
urban areas that have three lanes in each direction
Subcommittee Recommendation: Not Recommend Staff Recommendation: Not Support
• #7 -Amend law to clarify that it is illegal to interfere with an election officer during the
course of any official election related duties
• #8 -Add language to current law stating that public employees in their official duties can be
victims of disorderly conduct
• #14 - Require disclosure of development impact fee on purchase contracts for new residential
construction
Subcommittee Recommendation: Amend and Adopt Staff Recommendation: Not Support
• #12 -Authorize cities in certain instances to restrict the number or frequency of public record
requests made by a single individual and to limit overbroad requests
Subcommittee Recommendation: Not Recommend Staff Recommendation: Support
• #9 - Support legislation that institutes licensure requirements, regulations and standards for
body art"tattoo" establishments
Subcommittee Recommendation: Adopt Staff Recommendation: Support
• League Executive Director Resolutions
1. Charter city authority
2. Support reasonable structural reform to the state revenue system
Councilmember Clark asked why #14 was not supported since it would have been a great tool
for transparency and disclosure. Mr. Stoddard explained this was not supported because of the
big impact fee bill negotiated last year. He stated part of those negotiations was that there would
be no impact fee legislation introduced for the next four years.
Mayor Scruggs noted and Mr. Stoddard agreed there were still problems with this resolution.
Mayor Scruggs believes this would be something the home builders would be interested in
introducing since it discloses to the buyer all the excessive fees that have to be paid.
Mayor Scruggs asked for any comments or questions. There were no changes to additional
comments from the Council.
3
2. REDISTRICTING PLANS
PRESENTED BY: Pamela Hanna, City Clerk; Dr. Alan Heslop, Consultant with National
Demographics Corporation and Sara Larsen, Consultant with National Demographics
Corporation
This is a request for City Council to review the initial draft plans and citizen input received
during the public outreach process. Draft plans include those submitted by National
Demographics Corporation, the city's redistricting consultant, as well as plans drawn and
submitted by the public.
This item addresses Council's goal of one community with high-quality services for citizens by
creating a redistricting process that ensures the public's voting rights will be protected and that a
diverse and engaged citizenry will have a voice in developing the new Council district
boundaries. Redistricting protects voters' rights by ensuring population equality in Council
districts.
On March 10, 2011, current figures were released by the United States Census Bureau.
Glendale's population grew to 226,721. Based on the new Census population of Glendale, the
ideal district should contain 37,787 persons (the total population divided by six Council
districts). City Charter requires that redistricting be done at least every ten years and, in order to
be on the county ballot, Maricopa County requires the redistricting plan be submitted by October
1, 2011. The United States Department of Justice is required to approve any redistricting plan.
On May 24, 2011, Council adopted the criteria to be used in the redistricting process; May 17,
2011, Council reviewed and discussed the criteria to be used; April 26, 2011, Council awarded
the proposal to National Demographics Corporation, and on April 5, 2011, Council discussed
redistricting.
An aggressive public outreach plan was instituted. Meetings were held in each of the six current
Council districts between June 20 and July 13, 2011. These meetings included a presentation, as
well as an opportunity for citizens to ask questions. On July 18, an additional citywide
workshop took place for citizens to draw their own maps and submit additional comments. A
total of 134 people attended the meetings and workshop. Advertisements for the meetings were
placed in a number of newspapers including The Glendale Star, Glendale Republic, La Voz,
Prensa Hispania, and Thunderbolt. A citywide mailing containing information about
redistricting and notice of the public meetings was sent to every household in Glendale and
included housing on Luke Air Force Base. A comprehensive bilingual redistricting webpage, in
English and Spanish, was developed. Items contained on the internet page included participation
kits, an interactive comment section, as well as an interactive mapping overlay system to allow
visitors to see the current and suggested plans. Social media messages and press releases were
distributed regularly in both English and Spanish. Two segments were filmed for "Glendale
from A to Z" containing information about redistricting and associated activities. The segments
aired on Glendale's Channel 11 and are available on the Redistricting webpage as well as the
video vault.
4
Staff is seeking guidance from Council on which plan, or plans, are the "preferred draft" plans,
and any additional changes that should be tested on the preferred draft plans.
Ed Beasley, City Manager, introduced the item. He read a prepared statement from
Councilmember Alvarez who was absent due to an accident. She stated that at this time, she
expects a recovery period of approximately two months. During this time, she will remain
actively involved in Council matters by providing comments to the City Manager as appropriate.
She asked to be excused from Council workshops and meetings until her recovery. He noted
Councilmember Lieberman was out of town, however, has been briefed on this topic. Mr.
Beasley stated there will be another opportunity for City Council, at a September 6, 2011
Workshop, to discuss this issue.
Pamela Hanna, City Clerk, provided a brief summary. She reminded the Council and public that
the Maricopa County Elections Department submission deadline for the redistricting plan was
October 1, 2011 and in order to comply, they must submit the cities adopted plan by Friday,
September 30th. If the city does not meet the deadline, the city will not have input on the county
precinct lines within the city. The county needs the city's district plan to conform county
precincts lines, as much as possible, to city district lines to avoid split precincts which result in
voter difficulty. The County Election Department has a deadline to submit their re-predicting
plans to the County Board of Supervisors on November 30, 2011. In addition, should the city
not meet the September 30th deadline, the city will be required to conduct independent city
elections in 2012, which would more than double the cost of the election process as well as add
to voter confusion, reduce voter turn-out and increase the time required for election results.
Ms. Hanna introduced Dr. Alan Heslop and Sarah Larsen, with the National Demographic
Corporation who have been assisting the city through this process.
Councilmember Martinez asked when the final decision would have to be made by Council. Ms.
Hanna stated the final decision would be September 13, 2011 at a formal meeting. She added
today's meeting was for input and to provide direction. At the Workshop on September 6, 2011,
staff will be requesting a Council recommendation so a final plan can be presented for
consideration of adoption at the September 13 meeting.
Dr. Alan Heslop stated this redistricting process began three months ago and has been a good
process resulting in quality public input which was the goal of this exercise. He noted the
amount of public input, however had been less than in previous redistricting. He noted that
every effort was made by the city clerk's office to achieve a remarkable degree of outreach.
Through the process, there has been heavy emphasis on assuring easy access by Spanish
speakers and the Clerk Department and consultants have done their best to be responsive to
public concerns. He reported on a citizen mapping workshop held on July 18, 2011 to assist the
public in the use of redistricting software. He noted that at every public meeting, they would
cover the reasons and the importance for Glendale to redistrict. He outlined federal requirements
such as Voting Rights; population growth as well as a decline in some districts, and the
importance of providing the ability for minority populations to be fully and fairly represented, as
well as the redistricting criteria adopted by Council. In addition, the minority population
benchmarks for redistricting were explained.
5
Dr. Heslop stated a general theme carried over from former redistricting processes was the
importance of communities of interest. He indicated the draft plans were rarely criticized on this
basis, and comments were made that most communities have been well respected in the three
maps. Citizens concerned with particular communities of interest wanted them kept together in a
single district, including commercial areas such as Arrowhead Towne Center. Special attention
was given to explaining the importance of data on the Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP)
and the Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population (HCVAP) in redistricting. He noted very few
comments were received from Hispanic attendees at the general public hearings; however, the
public workshop resulted in additional Hispanic input.
Dr. Heslop explained that out of plans A, B, and C, plan A attracted the most positive comments
from Hispanic commenters. Plan A has the most minimal changes and seems to be the best plan
that follows the concept of leaving as much of the existing districts intact; it is compatible with
the recognition of necessary population redistribution and preserves the need to maintain
benchmark minority population. Plan B did not receive favorable input. It shifts Ocotillo
district and disrupts the Cactus and Yucca districts more than the other plans. Plan C is the
middle of the road plan between Plans A and B and achieves preserving the core of existing
districts, however, not as well as Plan A. It received fewer favorable comments from the public
than Plan A. He explained the purpose of these plans was to obtain citizen reaction and ideas for
change. The public submitted 11 plans - two were single-district plans, two were two-district
plans were, one was a four-district plan, and six were full, citywide six-district plans. He noted
that all of these plans were using Plan A as a template. He hopes the public's interest and input
has been helpful to Council, however, recognizes that the final decision was the Council's. They
will make every effort to make any changes to any of these plans and present them to Council at
the next workshop.
Councilmember Clark stated that in nearly every map except Plan B, the O'Neil Ranch
neighborhood was divided. She explained the O'Neil neighborhood was one of the first
annexations done by the city and was a very recognized community of interest. Therefore, she
was very concerned that it will be divided and would like to see it kept together. It is her belief
that this was a very important issue to the city and community. Dr. Heslop agreed to look into it.
Vice Mayor Frate stated that Plan C makes the most sense for the Sahuaro/Cholla District line
and it is the plan that was more in the middle of the road. He explained that Plan A takes a
neighborhood into the Cholla district which does not share characteristics with Arrowhead
Ranch. He noted this neighborhood is large lot homes and horse properties; it does not have a
Homeowners Association. It does not want to be associated with Arrowhead Ranch but with
adjoining similar neighborhoods. Dr. Heslop agreed to look into it.
Councilmember Martinez stated he preferred Plan C which provides the least critical change for
the Cholla District. He agreed with Vice Mayor Frate's comments. He explained that Plan A
adds parts of Sahuaro to Cholla such as the neighborhood identified by Vice Mayor Frate that do
not wish to be in the Cholla District because it doesn't share that community of interest. He
noted that Plan B would take the West Glen Homeowners Association out of Cholla District
which totaled 49 homes in that area. Their homeowners association is against this change and it
6
is the only homeowners association we received public comment from in this process. Dr.
Heslop agreed to look into it.
Councilmember Knaack remarked that she was not in favor of Plan A. She noted that in Plan B,
there was a large problem with the Cactus District in the way it was rearranged. She indicated
that in her view, Plan C was the most favorable and the most compact for each district.
Mayor Scruggs commented she was listening to each Councilmember as they were the experts
on their districts and their constituents.
Vice Mayor Frate discussed the public's participation process in obtaining critical input from the
communities. He noted that this had been an open process with staff and the city clerk's office
working overtime to make sure everyone's concerns and questions were answered. Dr. Heslop
remarked that Vice Mayor Frate's comments were absolutely true and no one can complain that
they lacked an opportunity to discuss these plans. He noted this had been a very good public
process.
Mayor Scruggs asked to further discuss the Special Tabulation and American Survey Sections.
Dr. Heslop explained that in public hearings, often times there is a conflict between the two sets
of data contained within the American Survey and 2010 Census tabulations. Sometimes the
numbers for citizen voting age population in the American Survey are the same as or greater than
voting age population in the Census, which was contradictory to common sense. This occurs
because the sources are different. The American Community Survey was an ongoing survey.
He stated that 2010 census numbers are no longer the real numbers since the population has
since changed. He noted that courts, when they used this data, typically use percentages. The
(National Demographics Corporation) NDC also rely on percentages, which make the process
less mysterious.
Mayor Scruggs noted that the courts will look to percentages when making decisions. Dr.
Heslop stated she was correct and added Hispanic population is a major concern. She remarked
that most Councilmembers prefer Plan C and provided comments to help support their decisions.
She commented that Councilmember Alvarez had stated her desire to have more diversity
throughout the city. Therefore, Plan C seems to address Councilmember Alvarez's request to
have a greater Hispanic growth in other districts as was quoted in her newspaper interview. Dr.
Heslop agreed with Councilmember Alvarez's remarks to not over-concentrate Hispanic voters
in one area, thus, none of these plans are guilty of that. He stated he will provide City Council
with plan alternatives created in different templates for the next workshop.
Councilmember Martinez asked Dr. Heslop to comment on retrogression. Dr. Heslop stated that
the Department of Justice will look very carefully to see they have not fallen below the bench-
mark and to improve upon the benchmark for minority representation.
Mayor Scruggs explained it had been suggested by the City Manager to have another workshop
on redistricting on September 6th and bring forth new sets of maps to review. Dr. Heslop stated
they should have the maps ready in a few days for public and Council viewing. The new maps
will be put on the city's website for citizen input. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Hanna if the
7
citizens, who have already participated will be contacted and received that confirmation. Mayor
Scruggs thanked Dr. Heslop and staff for their great work on this item.
As no further business was discussed, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
8