Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/6/2011 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. re i lb GLENIV MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue September 06,2011 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez, PARTICIPATING: Councilmember Norma S. Alvarez (via telephone) and Councilmember Joyce V. Clark(via Internet viewing and Email communication) ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk WORKSHOP SESSION 1. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST PRESENTED BY: Item 1 -Pamela Hanna, City Clerk Item 2 -Erik Strunk, Executive Director, Parks, Recreation and Library Services Item 3 -Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director Item 4 -Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager Item 5 -Craig Johnson P.E., Executive Director, Water Services Item 6 - Chuck Murphy, Executive Director, Technology and Innovation This is the quarterly opportunity for City Council to identify topics of interest they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda. On June 7, 2011, Council asked that staff provide information on items of special interest. The following item has been addressed: 1 • Veteran's Day Event Fees—This was addressed in a memo to Mayor and Council dated August 1, 2011, from Deborah Mazoyer, Building Safety Director. The remaining items of special interest requested by Council will be addressed at today's workshop. Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the information provided. Staff also requests Council to identify future items of interest for follow-up by staff during the next quarter. Mayor Scruggs bean the discussion referring to two emails council member received from staff on the 23`d and 24th of August, that addressed previously requested items of special interest. The first email was in regards networking and meeting with local City Councils. Elected officials from neighboring cities will be invited to Glendale Glitters for a meeting and walk around. This event will not include spouses or a meal. The second email to the Council addressed receiving additional information on purchases over $50,000. The staff proposal is to post an administrative award report semi-annually on the city's interne site; updated every six months. Councilmember Lieberman stated he liked the format of the report; however, it does not resolve what he was requesting. He explained he wanted the Council to have more control at the time of purchase by having the purchase presented at Council meetings so the citizens can see how the money is being spent. He believes the Council should vote on every single item over $50,000. He added the format staff is suggesting provides the Council with no voice or input at the time of purchase. Therefore, he is not in favor of it and it was not what he had in mind. He stated he would like Council to have total control and the report is six months past the purchase. Mayor Scruggs stated she understood Councilmember Lieberman's concern; however, this recommendation is being presented because the majority of the Council indicated they wanted a report. Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager, agreed with Mayor Scruggs' comments on what the Council's direction was to staff concerning reports on purchases over $50,000. The current process does not allow for each individual item to come before Council. Those purchases are usually brought in contracts to the Council or are routine items that add up to $50,000, through the budget approval process. In addition, most are approved through Capital Improvement Projects during the budget process. He provided examples. He noted staff does not engage in anything other than an emergency purchase in excess of$50,000 which is brought to Council after the fact because of the emergency nature. He believes the processes that are in place allow the Council to be involved in the decision making at some point during the course of the year. Councilmember Lieberman stated he understood the process; and provided examples of purchases made though the budget process, which he would have liked singled out and discussed. Mayor Scruggs inquired why staff was recommending a semi-annual report instead of the monthly or quarterly report the Council requested. Mr. Skeete explained that after reviewing the purchases,only two or fewer items would be on a monthly report, therefore, it was more efficient 2 and informative to have it semi-annually. Mayor Scruggs disagreed and stated it would be good to post a quarterly report which showed the city was not spending money. She continued that it would be more reflective of the times we are in. Councilmember Lieberman requested a printout every 30 days. He believes six months is way too long. Mr. Skeete stated it was important to note this information was readily available and can be accessed by the Council's administrative staff at any time. Councilmember Martinez stated he liked the way it currently was; however, he did not have a problem with quarterly reporting, even if there was nothing to report. He added for those Councilmembers that would like to see it more often, they can obtain a copy from their administrative staff Councilmember Knaack agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Vice Mayor Frate stated he supported the quarterly report. Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Alvarez via-phone for her comments. Councilmember Alvarez stated since the report was readily available, quarterly would be sufficient. Mayor Scruggs stated the majority supports a quarterly report to be put on the city's website. • Item 1 -Public Participation at the beginning of the City Council Meetings Mayor Scruggs stated Councilmember Lieberman suggested this item. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he has heard many comments over the years from citizens wanting to move this portion of the agenda to the beginning of the meeting. He explained citizens have to wait until the meeting comes to an end and at times it's been several hours before that happens and they leave early. Councilmember Martinez stated he liked it as it was, at the end of the meeting. Councilmember Knaack agreed and added it works fine the way it is. Councilmember Alvarez stated her agreement with Councilmember Lieberman. She stated times have changed and agendas are getting longer. Since the Council cannot reply to comments not on the agenda, she sees no reason why they cannot accommodate the citizens. Vice Mayor Frate stated he had received no comments from his district, therefore, he would leave it as is. Councilmember Martinez commented that the Council used to have long meetings on zoning applications years ago that included business people and lawyer's time. He explained that was part of the reason this portion of the meeting was changed. However, that was not the case anymore. He supports leaving it as is. Councilmember Alvarez disagreed and added the citizens have rights; therefore, would like to accommodate the citizens first since they are the ones paying taxes and the Council's salaries. 3 Mayor Scruggs remarked that in years past, they did have very long meetings on zoning matters. She noted lawyers for the applicants had been present as well as many interested citizens. She agreed that citizens have a right to comment on any item, especially land development items. She explained the city's meeting agenda was rearranged for citizens to be able to take advantage of every opportunity for citizen comments. She noted how at a recent meeting, the Council had discussed an item concerning water deposits for over an hour. She indicated that these were some of the items that directly impact the residents and businesses in Glendale. However, today's agendas are short compared to those times where meetings would end at midnight. Therefore, items that directly impact residents are placed to the beginning of the meetings to make it easier for people to get there. She strongly supports the current process. She added that according to the state statute, the city must conduct all business on the agenda. In addition, the comment section is not a required part of any Council meeting and only done at Council's discretion. Councilmember Lieberman stated that a citizen can comment on items on the agenda at any time and not have to wait until the end of the meeting. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Councilmember Alvarez remarked that her intent was for the public to be aware of everything that was happening in city government. She restated that the comments from her district have been that it was very important to hear from the public at the beginning of the meeting. Item 2—Bring Special Olympics to the City of Glendale Mayor Scruggs stated she had a question in regards to staff's comment of providing adaptive recreational services and bringing additional activities and opportunities to Glendale's "intellectually disabled" population. She inquired why it did not include the physically disabled. Mr. Erik Strunk, Executive Director, Parks, Recreation and Library Services, explained this request came from the Charter of Special Olympics Arizona which specializes on the intellectually challenged population. The city does offer an Adaptive Needs Program through the Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with the City of Peoria. The difference between the two activities is that one focuses on team recreation efforts and the other is more of a personalized recreational program. Presently, the Special Olympics are more a team effort and are competitive only for the intellectually challenged as opposed to the Adaptive Needs Program, which is for all. Councilmember Alvarez indicated she met with the Special Olympics' liaison who would like to partner with the city and have the use of the city's facilities. She stated this was a good program Glendale was providing to everyone and was glad they were not discriminating. Mayor Scruggs stated that Glendale does not discriminate in any recreational opportunities the city is associated with. Mr. Strunk clarified this item's objective, explaining that Special Olympics Arizona has 22 different team oriented competitive activities and partners with cities and benefactors throughout the surrounding area. The Adaptive Needs Program is more of a personalized activity, such as bowling or an organized dance. This program is done by Glendale staff in conjunction with Peoria. He clarified that the Special Olympics' request was to use Glendale's facilities at no cost. The organization will provide their staffing and organize the 4 event and not impose on city staff time. The cost would be the loss of the use of the facility during the time of the event. Councilmember Alvarez stated that she believes that Special Olympics offer beneficial programs to all children in the City and asked the Council to support Special Olympics. She believes Glendale is a big enough city to be able to help the disabled. Councilmember Knaack remarked that these programs were for intellectually challenged people of all ages, not just for children. She supports the work Glendale was doing on this program and would like to move forward. She supports working and helping them with the facilities. Councilmember Martinez also supports moving forward on this item. Vice Mayor Frate stated he supports working with Special Olympics; however, would like more information from staff on this item. Councilmember Lieberman stated he supports working with Special Olympics. He discussed the many programs he had been associated with over the years. Councilmember Clark, via email, stated she supports moving forward with city support on this issue. Special Olympics offer a segment of the community highly visible and competitive opportunities that the Adaptive Needs Program does not. She supports pursuing this and getting more information. Mayor Scruggs supports staff's recommendation of meeting with Special Olympics to find out if the city can help with facility accommodations. Once the meeting is concluded, staff will come back to Council with cost figures and additional information for Council to make a final decision. Item 3—More Special Events in Downtown Glendale Councilmember Alvarez stated her request was for staff to look at current downtown activities and to also bring forth activities being requested by the community. She noted that for years, they have requested the Mexican Fiesta, Octoberfest and the 4th of July events. She explained these events bring pride to multiple groups around the city. She wants to put Glendale back on the map for having cultural events. She believes having a community of partners can lower the cost to the city. She would like to know if the city was losing money or making money with the current activities. Councilmember Martinez remarked that a few years after being on the Council, he and another Councilmember suggested reviving the Mexican Fiesta that had been held in Glendale for many years. He stated the last two times the Fiesta was held, attendance was very low and disappointing. He commented that the cost of having the event and with the low attendance, he did not believe that it made sense to continue it. He remarked that in the last three years since the Fiesta, no one has ever approached him about bringing it back or questioned why it had been discontinued. 5 Councilmember Knaack agreed with Councilmember Martinez's comments. She attended the last Fiesta and was very sad and disappointed with the turnout. She suggested the business community get involved and put it together as a restaurant festival. She supports the Fiesta if the businesses do it; however, does not support using any city money. She continued that all the events, such as Teddy Bear Day, are not supported with city money. Vice Mayor Frate commented on Teddy Bear Days. He explained that no city money was used and the downtown merchants are the ones that produce it. He listed all the promotional events currently held in Glendale which are produced by the downtown merchants. He continued that Murphy Park gets used excessively and needs time to rejuvenate. Councilmember Alvarez stated she supports the downtown merchants wholeheartedly. She mentioned the overseeing of Murphy Park and how it was affecting festivals. She suggested possibly moving to what Phoenix was doing with grass. She reiterated her support for the Mexican Fiesta and Octoberfest, which she believes will bring the community closer together. She remarked on Councilmember Martinez's comment citing very low attendance at the last two Mexican Fiestas. She believes the success for this event depends heavily on who gets involved. She recommends they try again. She believes the city should have a leadership role regarding diversity. Julie Frisoni, Executive Communications Director, stated it was inappropriate to say the city does not have cultural events. She stated the City of Glendale was a leader in diversity in the events the city produces. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Department has produced the Cinco de Mayo event for the last ten years. In addition the city produces a Hispanic Heritage Breakfast and a Martin Luther King Jr. event. She explained that making the decision to cut the 4th of July event was not an easy decision. However, staff used well-defined criteria to evaluate every festival, in terms of what made sense. The criteria used were attendance figures and duplication of events around the valley. She noted that in July, there were 21, 4th of July events within driving distance around the valley. This month, there were seven Fiestas Partrias events around the valley and five Octoberfest events within an hour of Glendale. Therefore, the decision was made if our city events went away, there would be other opportunities for Glendale residents to go to these other events without the city spending $85,000. She explained these were very difficult decisions made with hard facts, using attendance, revenue factors, and what made sense. She discussed the many events the downtown merchants were producing and were promoted by the city. Councilmember Alvarez commented on the breakfast event being very expensive and how the average citizen cannot afford it. She reiterated the city had to work with the merchants on things the city cannot afford. She asked the Council to think about whether city money was only going to sports or if it was going to serve the community. Vice Mayor Frate asked if Glendale Community College was no longer an option for the 4th of July Event, if it were to be held in Glendale again. He asked if they needed to look for another location. Ms. Frisoni explained that Glendale's 4th of July Celebration outgrew GCC. She reiterated how other cities offer the same event only minutes away. Therefore, at the time the 6 city decided to discontinue it, it did not make sense to look for another location. She believes there may be additional opportunities down the road for an outside promoter to do this event at another location in Glendale. However, at the moment, because of the economy, no one is taking on any new events. Mayor Scruggs stated she learned a lot from the material provided today. She had not realized the amount of work being done by staff on providing events around the city, at no city expense. She inquired if any money has been made from any of these events. Ms. Frisoni indicated that these events were tailored by the merchants to bring foot traffic into their stores. She reported that merchants have seen new non-Glendale visitors and additional. spending due to these events... She noted the merchants reported having very good success and are continuing to work with the city to add merchant produced events. Mayor Scruggs commented on the efforts by the city in the past to engage the merchants in bringing people to Glendale. She continued that she appreciates the merchants taking charge and having such success. Councilmember Knaack commented that the Dog Days of Summer had been a huge success in the downtown area. She was starting to see a brighter future for downtown Glendale and things are beginning to turn around for the better as everyone works together. Mayor Scruggs provided an update on the requirements for Tattoo and Massage Establishments brought forth by Councilmember Alvarez. The majority of the Council supported having staff develop a resolution to be presented at the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. She reported that staff had developed that resolution; however, at the pre-conference resolution subcommittee meeting, the resolution was voted down and recommended for no support. Nevertheless, at the conference, the resolution was further explained, the other cities reconsidered and voted to support it. Item 4—City Operation of Arena Horatio Skeete,Assistant City Manager, presented this item. He stated Mayor Scruggs requested that staff provide a report on what it would cost the city to operate the city-owned arena, as well as potential revenues that offset expenses without an anchor tenant. He explained that staff spoke with and consulted the partners and potential purchasers of the team. After this discussion, the consensus from the parties was that actively pursuing this type of detailed information would possibly impact their ability to complete their transaction, which was to purchase the team and keep it in Glendale. This type of discussion would negatively impact negotiations and hamper their ability to put together a deal that was acceptable to all involved. The NHL was equally concerned with this line of information being discussed at this time. Councilmember Clark communicated that the city was in the midst of securing a new team owner, which should successfully culminate by the end of this year. She believes it more appropriate to wait until January 2012 for this discussion. She stated that spending money on a consultant at this time sends the wrong signal to a prospective buyer of a team as well as the NFL. She does not support moving forward on this issue until January 2012. 7 Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Alvarez also stated her agreement with Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Martinez agreed with staff's recommendation to wait. Vice Mayor Frate agreed with staff's recommendation. He added he was optimistic a new owner could be found and hopes the city does not have to go through hiring a consultant. Councilmember Knaack agreed with Vice Mayor Frate. Mayor Scruggs noted the consensus from the Council was not to move forward on this item until January 2012. She questioned the estimated cost of$22,000-$60,000 and the length of three to four months to hire a consultant for this matter. Item 5 —Citizen Task Force on Water and Wastewater Mayor Scruggs requested information regarding the establishment of a citizen's task force on water and wastewater policies. This would provide citizens an opportunity to learn about the various functions, processes and considerations required to effectively provide water services for the community. She inquired as to the budget cost presented by staff for this project. Mr. Craig Johnson, Executive Director, Water Services, explained he was following the model established by the Project Waters' program. The cost is associated with using a professional facilitator who would manage the operations of the task force. The estimated cost would be under $50,000; however, if the Council decides to move forward, he will research this item fully and bring back more solid figures. Mayor Scruggs remarked that the cost was too high and staff should look for facilitators that don't cost as much. Mr. Johnson explained the role and duties of the facilitator. Mayor Scruggs asked if the average person would be provided with a basic explanation of the water life cycle as well as the four areas in affordability, efficiencies, regulations and future planning. Mr. Johnson stated yes. Vice Mayor Frate inquired as to the time frame on this project. Mr. Johnson noted that the pre- planning, task force advertising, and selection process would take approximately four months. The citizen task force sessions would span approximately six months, which is approximately seven meetings. Mayor Scruggs stated this was a very good community building exercise. She believes Glendale has an abundance of residents who truly care about their community and want to be part of policy making and understanding how things operate. Mr. Johnson stated that people will be selected from all parts of the community. This item will move forward and will be brought back to Council with additional information. Item 6—Technology Advancement Mayor Scruggs noted she had brought up this item for Council consideration. She explained this idea had come about at one of her meetings at the Regional Public Transportation Authority 8 where they were asked to vote on an item to go totally paperless agenda. She noted it surprised her to find out that more than half of the cities had all gone to paperless agendas. She remarked that was the reason behind inquiring what Glendale was doing on this issue. She stated her intent was not to go out and buy a new iPad or a new gadget. She explained her intent was to see what Glendale can do to be prepared and have compatible capabilities and systems to other cities. Vice Mayor Frate noted he did not see a sense of urgency on this item; however, would like staff to look into it and see what needs to be done for the future. Councilmember Knaack believes the city does need to implement new technology. However, also believes it was not a rush. She supports moving forward with this matter. Mayor Scruggs disagrees and believes there is a sense of urgency for beginning the analysis. She believes there is a definite sense of urgency to get on board and figure out what works for Glendale to communicate with other cities. Councilmember Martinez agrees they should start moving forward with this new technology. He asked if the recommendation was for new iPads and user friendly devices. Mr. Skeete explained this item has been somewhat in motion already. He noted these were issues that were already being worked on for business reasons. Staff is reviewing various devices to ensure that the city has devices that are generic and allow for the most flexibility without locking the city into one device forever. Staff is in the process of putting the infrastructure in place and making sure all security requirements are in place. He noted that during this month, they will begin to search for the right device for city needs. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with the sense of urgency. Councilmember Alvarez had no comment. Councilmember Clark communicated she appreciated staff's work on this item. She strongly requests that Councilmembers receive their devices now. There will be a period of familiarization that each Councilmember will need. She added there is a sense of urgency in order to be technically compatible and competent with others. Chuck Murphy, Executive Director, Technology and Innovations, explained the many devices now available on the market. He explained the security issues as well as their capabilities. Currently, the city's technology and security teams are evaluating options to provide a comprehensive enterprise solution that is cost effective, secure and user friendly. Mayor Scruggs asked what the other cities were doing. Chuck Murphy explained that there were many software options available. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a possibility for individual councilmembers to have different devices. Chuck Murphy stated that the goal was to have a selection but to have it be from the same family for support purposes. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the new technologies and some of the capabilities that he has with his laptop and that Wifi is available in a lot of the places he goes. Mayor 9 Scruggs asked if the security would be able to address Wifi issues of others being able to see what individuals are doing on public Wifi feeds. Councilmember Martinez asked what the focus was for the technology report. Chuck Murphy stated that the initial direction was IPAD devices. Mr. Skeete added that a number of the software options and capabilities were available on laptops, traditional and the more modern devices. Councilmember Knaack stated that she did not like the VPN device as it makes it difficult to read documents and that she would like to get away from its use. Councilmember Clark communicated that there were not that many devices on the market, therefore, this should not be very difficult. She explained they can determine software compatibility very quickly. She believes staff is making this more complicated that it needs to be. Mayor Scruggs stated it was Council's consensus to move forward on this item. • New Items of Special Interest Councilmember Clark — Grave site markers along streets. She requests staff to explore if an ordinance can be developed for this issue. She noted many memorial markers to commemorate the death of a loved one are being erected on streets. She explained her concern for safety of visitors going to these sites that are positioned so close to the curb. She asked if it was possible to require that these memorial markers be required to be a certain number of feet from the street curb. Councilmember Clark—Naming Public Facilities after persons. She noted that the recent death of former Mayor Max Klass has caused her to rethink the city's policy of naming public facilities after persons. She now believes the opportunity to honor persons who gave contributed to Glendale, far outweigh any potential for abuse. She suggested that a citizens' committee create a policy on this issue for Council consideration. She also requests staff report back on the policies of other valley cities concerning this issue. Vice Mayor Frate stated he had nothing new; however, he would like an update on the shopping cart ordinance that he brought up quite awhile ago. Councilmember Lieberman — New Council Committee. He requested staff set up a Council Committee with Arizona Sports and Tourism Board of Directors. He explained the committee would come up with ways to entice more businesses into the Westgate area. Councilmember Lieberman — Minute of Silence. He requested a minute of silence at the beginning of Council meetings to honor those who have died and those who are fighting for this country. He noted some cities are currently doing this now and would like Glendale to join them. 10 Councilmember Lieberman — Consulting firm contracts. He requested staff review consulting firm contracts. He would like staff to review contracts in order to possibly cut salaries or review salaries. He believes the city was spending $22,000 a month for three different consultant lobbying groups. Councilmember Knaack commented that she believed that a moment of silence at the beginning of the Council meetings, if approved, needs to be part of the agenda. She added the moment of silence should happen at the beginning of the meeting when everyone stands for the pledge. She stated that if they decided to do this, it should be part of the permanent agenda. Councilmember Alvarez — Utah Compact. She requested information on the Utah Compact regarding immigration. She would like to know more about this issue. Councilmember Alvarez— Feral Cats. She requested information on the ordinance regarding the feral cats. She believes that the city has not been able to get ahead of the issue. Mayor Scruggs — Fireworks. The previous recommendation stated that the state legislation was written in such a way that if a city ordinance was enacted, they would be sued. She would like to know what the opportunities are for banning the use of fireworks in the city. 2. REDISTRICTING PLAN PRESENTED BY: Pamela Hanna, City Clerk Dr. Alan Heslop, Consultant,National Demographics Corporation Sara Larsen, Consultant,National Demographics Corporation This is a request for City Council to review revised plans prepared by National Demographics Corporation (NDC), the city's redistricting consultant, as well as, provide direction on a final plan. 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 August 16, 2011, Council reviewed draft plans and citizen input. Council suggested changes to the NDC drawn maps A, B, and C. On May 24, 2011, Council adopted the criteria to be used 11 in the redistricting process. On May 17, 2011, Council reviewed and discussed the criteria to be used. On April 26, 2011, Council awarded the proposal to NDC. 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 18, 2011. An additional city-wide 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, The Arrowhead Independent 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. Social media messages were distributed in both English and Spanish, to provide a means for learning more about redistricting in Glendale. Press releases were distributed regularly to both English and Spanish language media outlets. 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. Additional mailings, emails, notices and press releases were sent to show the changes to the maps, as well as request additional comments from the public on the changes. Staff is seeking direction from Council on which is the preferred plan to be brought forward on the September 13, 2011, Council Meeting. Ms. Pamela Hanna, City Clerk, said the City Council and the public have been looking at different redistricting maps and plans throughout the redistricting process. After Council's review of the comments from the public generated from public meetings, as well as input on the internet etc., Council commented on Plans A through C at the August 16 workshop. The two Councilmembers that were absent from that meeting submitted their comments prior to the generation of the revised maps D through G. Council then received public comment on maps D through G prior to this meeting. Dr. Alan Heslop stated that on 16th plans were brought before you, A, B, and C, together with the citizen comments on those plans. Some of the citizen comments were in the form of maps, some in the form of fairly detailed comments on the plans. The plans serve the purpose of stimulating citizen interest in and reaction to the redistricting process. At that meeting of August 16th, the Councilmembers commented on those three plans. After August 16th, the two Councilmembers who were absent at that time submitted their comment. Based on those comments, four new 12 plans to reflect that input were drawn. Prior to reviewing the plans, he reminded the Council of several items. Some of the comments from citizens have continued to say, why do we have to have redistricting at all? He stated that the districts in the current plan are not balanced in population. They deviate from the ideal. Dr. Heslop said under the mandate of federal law and the Voting Rights Act, we must provide reasonably equal districts. Dr. Heslop said of the three maps discussed at the August 16th workshop: plan A attracted a lot of positive citizen comment and many of the citizen's plans seem to use plan A as a basic template; Plan B attracted very little positive citizen comment and very little, if any, positive Council comment; plan C drew the most positive remarks from the City Council. However, plan C was not fully satisfactory to all members. Council directed that the Cholla/Sahuaro boundary should be redrawn and that O'Neil Ranch Neighborhood be united. Additional comments received after the workshop from Councilmember Lieberman and Alvarez, expressed that Cactus District should remain the same and Ocotillo District should maintain the neighborhoods between Olive and Northern Avenues, particularly, Manistee and Glencroft. Dr. Heslop said in response to these comments plans D, E, F and G were prepared; all have the Cholla/Sahuaro boundary requested by Councilmembers Frate and Martinez. Plans D, E, G, unite the O'Neil neighborhood. Plan F splits O'Neil and in Plan E, Cactus maintains its current boundaries. In Plan F, Ocotillo maintains most of its current area between Olive and Northern Avenues. Dr. Heslop said the city clerk's office conducted a massive program of public outreach in English and Spanish. As a result, additional comments were received, but not additional plans. Those comments point to plan C as stated. Dr. Heslop continued that in his opinion, it is less significant as a guide to the Council, than the plans and the detailed commentaries that were previously submitted and discussed at the August 16th meeting. The analysis on the second stage applies simply to the question on whether or not an individual voted for one plan or another. Dr. Heslop said he hoped for instructions to develop a final plan because the schedule is tightening. Councilmember Martinez asked Dr. Heslop for confirmation that there were 27 citizen comments in round one and then 30 in round two resulting in a total of 57. Dr. Heslop said correct. Dr. Heslop emphasized that there was a difference between the first round and the second round response because the first round involved the development of actual plans and detail commentary while the second round did not. Also there was a dramatic difference in terms of the preferences expressed. Round one Plan A, was clearly the number one choice, and in round two, Plan C, is clearly the number one choice. Councilmember Martinez commented that the detailed citizen comment sheet with plan preference and the summary sheet by district didn't correlate properly. Ms. Larsen explained that the summary numbers include plans that have been submitted and people who submitted plans did not necessarily endorse a drawn plan as well. She explained to subtract the submitted plans out of that because they would not be in the total for these endorsed plans. 13 Councilmember Martinez said plan C seems to have a lot of support, however, it does not unite the community of interest in O'Neil Ranch. Plan D seems to meet some of the concerns that were expressed by Councilmembers and it was his preference at this point. Mayor Scruggs noted that plan D appeared to be a backup to plan C, for a lot of the people. Ms. Larsen agreed nine or ten people who preferred plan C chose plan D as their second choice. Mayor Scruggs said plan D was basically plan C with the 0' Neil problem resolved. Dr. Heslop agreed. Councilmember Lieberman said plan E leaves Cactus District as it is now and leaves 0' Neil intact, and Ocotillo would lose Glencroft but retain Manistee. Councilmember Lieberman replied he preferred plan E but could live with plan D. Councilmember Knaack said she agreed with Councilmember Martinez and was in favor of plan D at this point, for the various reasons that he stated. Plan D keeps O'Neil neighborhood together. The Barrel District in plan D was pretty compact, except for the little area by 515` and 43rd Avenues. Cholla, Sahuaro, and Cactus districts remain pretty much the same. Councilmember Alvarez said the submittal would be going to the Justice Department. She said population growth is going south, and not to the north. She did not support of any of these plans, because keeping a Council or a district intact isn't the purpose for this. Also, she didn't want to create Ocotillo as a Hispanic district and this is what it's doing. By removing Manistee and Glencroft, the majority of Ocotillo will be Hispanic which the Department of Justice would not allow. O'Neil can be kept intact, if you just give it to Cactus and Ocotillo. Yucca would start at 831-d Avenue. The affordable housing is going to be south of Northern Avenue because of economics. Councilmember Alvarez noted that she was not going to continue in politics and wanted to leave Ocotillo a fair district. She was not in favor of any of these plans. Dr. Heslop agreed that the northern districts are losing population and they must be brought more south in order to add population to the north. As a result, Cactus or Ocotillo will need to change. He continued that he disagreed that there would be issues with the Ocotillo district as depicted in Plan D with a 54.4%Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP). Councilmember Alvarez disagreed and suggested bringing the district lines for Cholla and Sahuaro further south. Dr. Heslop asked if Councilmember Alvarez would prefer Plan B, which has a lower CVAP, or Plan F which has a 45.2%CVAP. Councilmember Alvarez clarified that Plan E removed Glencroft to Barrel and Ocotillo remained with a Hispanic majority. She continued with another plan that moved Ocotillo to Yucca. She explained that she thought it would be better to move Yucca back to about 83`d Avenue. She commented that there were a number of cut-ups and barriers in the plan in the southern areas; however, Cholla has one and Sahuaro has another little corner. She commented that Cactus from 5151 to 43rd was mostly business and doesn't involve people that vote. She continued that she was not in favor of any of the plans. 14 Dr. Heslop asked Councilmember Alvarez if there was a plan that more closely reflected what she would like to see. Councilmember Alvarez stated she didn't agree with removing Glencroft and Manistee from the Ocotillo district. Dr. Heslop asked Councilmember Alvarez in her view of the maps presented, which is the best, or the best among the bad. Councilmember stated she did not believe that the districts should create a Hispanic district. Dr. Heslop reminded Councilmember Alvarez that the city was under a mandate from the Department of Justice. Councilmember Alvarez stated that she gave her opinion. She does not believe that the Department of Justice will approve the maps and believes that it is segregation. She continued that she spoke to a number of people in her district. She declined to state which one she liked or the one she least liked. She stated that she didn't want Ocotillo to become a Hispanic district. She did not agree with moving Glencroft and Manistee to another district. Mayor Scruggs asked Dr. Heslop for guidance. She stated her understanding that the city was supposed to be creating a district that would be giving the greatest opportunity to a Hispanic resident to be elected to represent it and that is why the council has been paying attention to the 18 plus Hispanic population. No other ethnic groups receive the same focus. Mayor Scruggs continued that if what Councilmember Alvarez is saying is correct, the Department of Justice is not interested in the Hispanic population. Mayor Scruggs asked Dr. Heslop to explain Section 2 and Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act as referred to in the memo dated August 29, 2011 under review of criteria. Dr. Heslop stated that the Mayor was correct. The Department of Justice evaluates plans for redistricting based on the criteria in the Voting Rights Act. He continued that retrogression occurs when a district retreats from a benchmark level and fails to either maintain or add to the percentage of minority population. He explained that minority votes can be wasted by either cracking, which is the dividing of the concentrations of the minority population, or packing which is the over-concentration of minority population. He stated there is not a packing problem. He stated that the Ocotillo district will meet the Justice Department's criteria and he believes the voting rights attorneys will agree. He continued that he is confident that all the plans meet the Constitutional requirement, have equal population and will be accepted by the Justice Department. Councilmember Martinez asked if Dr. Heslop had come across any similar issues elsewhere with a concern for too many Hispanics in one district. Dr. Heslop stated that the most common concern comes not from Hispanics but from non- Hispanics who argue against looking at ethnicity as a criterion of any sort. In those cases, he 15 would explain the retrogression standard. He continued that it is unusual for Hispanics to argue for the dilution of their Hispanic voting base. Mayor Scruggs clarified that the benchmark was 53.9%and Dr. Heslop agreed. Mayor Scruggs additionally clarified that the Department of Justice would look more critically if the city avoids getting close to the benchmark when there was the opportunity to do so. Dr. Heslop agreed that the city would need to maintain or add to the Hispanic voting percentage. He continued that Councilmember Alvarez may have the advantage of long local residence and significant local visibility which added to her ability to represent Ocotillo. He stated that her successor may not be able to claim such advantages and would benefit from the increased Hispanic percentage in Ocotillo. Councilmember Frate stated that it appears that Councilmember Alvarez does not like any of the plans. He continued that he prefers Plan D as it does not split the O'Neil neighborhood, it meets the benchmark for Hispanic voting rights population and it contains the characteristics of Plan C. He asked if there could be a lawsuit if a councilmember is not pleased or will not endorse any plan. Dr. Heslop stated that Councilmember Alvarez is seen as a member of the Council and as a representative of the Hispanic community. He stated that every effort was made to reach out to the Hispanic community including special meetings. He stated that he had on three separate occasions attempted to speak to Councilmember Alvarez about her views. He pointed out that if you look at Plan D's Ocotillo, it is a 53.4% voting age population and that may be more than Councilmember Alvarez would need to secure re-election; however, if she is not seeking re- election, who is it that will then seek election. That person may need to rely on the Hispanic voting age population if they lack the personality, charisma or charm that Councilmember Alvarez brings to her task as a representative. Councilmember Alvarez stated that she did not believe that comments from less than 150 people justified changing the district. She stated that the comments were lacking not just from the Hispanic and Ocotillo district but from other districts as well. She added that she knew that Mrs. Hanna had tried everything to get the people there. Dr. Heslop commented that city councils all around the country redistrict without public input and that Glendale is unusual in its efforts to involve citizens in the redistricting process. He stated that the decision is the Council's but that this is one of the few councils that take into account what the citizens want. Councilmember Alvarez commented that it was good that the city was sending information and wanting people to participate. She wondered what cities went forward with no public input. She stated that she did not feel comfortable with any of the plans without public input. Mayor Scruggs clarified that the city has been asking for public input since May. She continued with a summation of the redistricting status. The city is required to submit new district plans for 16 consideration to the Department of Justice and it must be done this month. Without approved plans, the city cannot hold elections in conjunction with the County next October because the county will need Department of Justice clearance on their district plans. She reminded the Council that she wanted the redistricting process to start early and it only started in April. The census numbers came in, criteria was developed to be used, bids for a consultant were taken, and National Demographics Corporation was selected and came on board in May. The city does not have the ability to go back and do it again. She asked for clarification from Dr. Heslop on a number of items. She asked how the city could move the Sahuaro and Cholla Districts further south as Councilmember Alvarez suggested. She also asked about the population shifts in the north and south with one losing and the other gaining. Dr. Heslop stated he had discussed the issue with the planning department. He understands that Yucca isn't built-out and there is raw land to be developed there as well as some infill development in Ocotillo. He believes it is likely for the population growth to continue. Mayor Scruggs stated that she looked at Yucca as being in the west and believes that the eastern edge of Yucca will be at 91st or 99th Avenues in about a decade. Dr. Heslop clarified that in theoretical terms the task is that the northern districts have to come down and population needs to move through Ocotillo or Cactus. Mayor Scruggs asked why the northern districts are coming down if they are losing population. Dr. Heslop explained that the northern districts needed to gain population by picking up population as they moved south. He stated that final plan approval could be used as a way of forecasting population increases. Councilmember Lieberman commented that he believes the Cactus district is at about 97%build- out. He did not believe that the district varied by 100 people, one way or the other in the last 10 years. Dr. Heslop stated that in 2021 that could mean that Cactus district would need to shift. Councilmember Clark commented that she previously supported Plans D, E or G and that her current preference would be Plan D. Councilmember Knaack thanked Dr. Heslop for his hard work. She stated that she was not a numbers analytical type person and she is amazed at what has to go into figuring this out. She stated that the consultants have done a marvelous job. Dr. Heslop stated that this process could not have been completed without the City Clerk's operations. Councilmember Knaack stated that she was also going to thank Mrs. Hanna. She commented that although there was a great deal of outreach done, very few were interested. She stated that Barrel had a great turnout at the meeting held in the district. She continued that she believes the plan is done well and is a well thought-out districting plan. 17 Mayor Scruggs asked what was needed from the Council now. Dr. Heslop stated his understanding that Plan D has the general support of the Council, except for Councilmember Lieberman who gives his reluctant support, favoring E, and Councilmember Alvarez who does not like any of the plans. The consultant will draw a final Map D with all the supporting material and present it. Mayor Scruggs clarified that this item would not be on the consent agenda and Assistant City Manager Skeete agreed it would not. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. 18