Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/8/2012 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. GLEN1V1 MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue September 18,2012 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and Councilmembers Norma S. Alvarez, Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez, ALSO PRESENT: Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE PRESENTED BY: Jamsheed Mehta, AICP, Executive Director, Transportation Services Walter Fix, A.A.E., Airport Administrator The purpose of this presentation is to provide the City Council with an update on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Corrective Action Plan (CAP), an agreement made between the City of Glendale Transportation Services Department and the FAA after the Glendale Municipal Airport was found to be in violation of several federal grant assurances. Completion of all components of the CAP is required for the airport to continue to receive federal grant funding for airport projects. This presentation is for Council information only. Jamsheed Mehta, AICP, Executive Director, Transportation Services, stated that in 2009, Valley Aviation filed a discrimination lawsuit and was awarded $2,275,000. They also filed a complaint with the FAA. Today's presentation focuses on the matter dealing with the FAA and the Corrective Action Plan that followed FAA's determination. The Glendale Airport has received 91% to 95% federal funds to pay for capital improvements and the state pays almost half of the remaining costs. Hangars are built with private funding and rules and regulations apply to all property and activities at the airport. Recipients of federal grants are required by the FAA to comply with 39 grant assurances. The city has received millions in grants for the airport. Moving forward on the 20 year Master Plan, the city is eligible for up to $62 million in eligible federal funding. He noted that Valley Aviation Services claimed the airport was in violation of five grant assurances; however, the FAA found three. The violations were that they failed to control non-aeronautical items, causing the airport to be in non-conformance with its airport layout plan, and had to lower rental rates at Valley Aviation Services. The city was allowed 30 1 days to respond with a corrective action plan. The city met that deadline. He said about a year ago they began group meetings with airport tenants and facilitated meeting between pilots and FAA officers. This was done in order to provide guidance of what was allowed with the rules and regulations. Councilmember Martinez asked if the $2.2 million award came out of the Risk Management or some other place. Mr.Mehta replied it came from the general fund. Councilmember Clark asked what the city's role was when the hangars were built. She asked if the city set up any parameters or reviewed the leases. Mr. Mehta explained all the hangars are privately built on city airport property. The airport property is managed via ground leases which identify the rules and regulations the tenants follow. Councilmember Clark asked if the city reviewed the ground leases and blessed them with being compatible with the rules and regulations at the airport at the time. Mr. Mehta explained it is the city's lease and it includes all the City's rules and regulations. Councilmember Clark inquired if all ground leases have verbiage stating they all must comply with FAA rules and regulations and City of Glendale airport rules. Mr. Mehta believes each lease has FAA regulations included. Councilmember Clark asked if at the time these leases were developed, did the owners know the hangars could be used only for aeronautical use. Mr. Mehta explained that from the city's perspective, that was written into the lease. However, he was not sure if the owners understood the terms. Councilmember Clark indicated she heard from some owners that the language was not clear and it's only now with the FAA being involved that they must abide by those rules and regulations. Mr. Mehta reiterated the lease agreements did reflect that language. However, the issue could have been the lack of aggressiveness by the city to enforce the terms of the lease and the rules and regulations after inspections. Councilmember Lieberman commented he did not believe anybody realized the hangars were strictly for aeronautical purposes. Walter Fix, A.A.E., Airport Administrator, presented a slide presentation on this subject. He said the first thing in the corrective action plan was to send a letter to Valley Aviation to rescind the rental rates that were imposed by the city in 2009. The next larger task was the inspection of all 257 hangars and 110 shades. Additionally, they notified 115 tenants to remove specific items and come into compliance. When they re-inspected the hangars, only a handful did not comply. He said 12 hangars remain in noncompliance. They will continue to seek their compliance. The corrective plan consists of annual inspections, random inspections, and for cause inspections in plan. The FAA identified two non- aeronautical entities as requiring payment, the city's material lab and the APS solar facility. The fair market rate required will amend their lease. Councilmember Martinez inquired how long the non-compliant owners had to correct the violation and if not, what was the penalty. Mr. Mehta stated the FAA directed a comprehensive inspection program; these hangars do need to come into compliance. He said some have needed more time and the city has accommodated them. However, enforcement of lease and rules and regulations need to proceed to get compliance. They will seek additional FAA opinions on questions regarding the delayed violations and will also initiate answers from the City Attorney's office. 2 Mayor Scruggs asked what it is about the space at the airport that is needed by the engineering materials lab. At this particular time that's worth incurring $17,000 a year in rent versus them being some place they don't have FAA regulations saying that they must pay fair market value. Mr. Skeete stated the materials lab is used to test street construction material. When they became aware of the violation, they asked public works to look at moving. However, the FAA offered to consider a fair market price to stay. The other option would be to pay about $100,000 to move into another facility. However, if it becomes more economical to move, they might do so. The $17,000 cost is a general fund subsidy and the public works department wouldn't have to incur additional funding for the materials lab as the City already provides general fund subsidy. Mayor Scruggs commented that was a good answer and made her feel a lot better about why the city was doing that. Because the city had quite a history of when things were good just randomly setting up shop wherever and incurring expenses that go along with it. Regarding the inspection situation that Councilmember Martinez received a very complete answer to, it kind of dilutes down to some people that say that's just not how they understood it and the city did not enforce it and it went through a revolving door with airport managers. But now the city has Mr. Fix. So they are saying you're just wrong. The people you are referring to are the ones featured in the Glendale Star that say that other airports allow multiuse hangars allowed by the City Council and airport management and Glendale should do the same. Mr. Mehta stated she was correct. Mr. Fix explained the FAA rules and regulations. He stated there might be other airports that at any point in time may not be in compliance with the rules and regulations, but they need to address it sooner or later, and then be required to get into aeronautical compliance. Mayor Scruggs commented that in the 1980s when the airport was built and the first operating standards were written and she was on the airport commission and the manager was quite a stickler for doing things by the book. She remembered the city had a lot of conversations about doing business out of the hangars and the only time when non-aeronautical items would be stored in the hangers would be if they were incidental to the aeronautical uses of the hangers. So if somebody wanted to put their RV and they could prove it had to be in there to tow out the airplane or something that would be the exception. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was a current lawsuit now or one about to be filed. Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney replied there was a lawsuit pending with Valley Aviation Services. Mayor Scruggs cautioned that Council should be mindful of what was said. Councilmember Clark noted they have to come into compliance since they have no choice but to comply with the FAA. She has heard from a lot of annoyed people at the airport that feel the city was not being open with clear information. She explained that recently, an aircraft was identified as being in a hangar and that was not so. The owner advised the city that he did not have that plane. She wondered why the city relied on that information instead of checking to see if the plane was indeed there. Mr. Fix stated their record keeping relied on the hangar's association sending them information which is also sent to ADOT. He explained the same erroneous information had been kept on the same spreadsheet for 1 1/2 3 years until it was caught. Since then, they have taken steps to correct that problem. He explained the new process they had put in place. Councilmember Clark suggested they require the association to physically or in some other manner verify their findings and what is reported is true and correct. Mr. Fix agreed and added since those incidents, they have been striving to improve their record keeping. Councilmember Clark asked why they were not placing the responsibility on the associations to have them verify the information they are providing is correct. Mr. Fix agreed. Councilmember Clark indicated she heard from some people at the airport there might be an opportunity for the city to declare some portion of land to be non-aeronautical. She asked him to explain. Mr. Mehta explained that request had come to them about eight months ago. They in turn sent their request to the FAA and the response that was given was still an emphatic no. As far as other airports practicing this method, it was only because the FAA had not caught up with them yet. Councilmember Clark stated other airports were getting away with this because they haven't had any complaints. However, when that occurs, they may not have non-aeronautical uses anymore. They must comply with FAA regulations. She said airport owners have a lot of angst about having hangars empty. Therefore, she wanted to be sure they received the correct information moving forward and what the city was being required to do by the FAA. Mayor Scruggs commented on an element of personal responsibility that no one has talked about here. These aircraft owners are personally responsible, not only for their aircraft but for the use of the property they are leasing and for following all FAA rules and regulations or whatever you want to call it. But, there has been an interesting shifting. It has been very popular to find fault with the city with everything and anything that happens in the city. And that appears to be what has happened in this situation. She thought perhaps a little stronger representation of the situation that was presented today would have been helpful. The fact that they don't want anyone in their hangars is clear. Each owner should fill out information on planes, putting the responsibility with the owner. General aviation is not on an upswing now, not many can afford them. So the city wants to keep tenants and the airport but there has to be personal responsibility. Mr. Mehta stated that in May of 2012, they met with the FAA and gave them details of what the city has substantially completed. Once the FAA reviews their finding they will issue a final closeout letter. He also noted that all grant applications in the pipeline have continued and FAA has recognized the City's efforts in resolving its grant assurance issues and continues to accept additional applications. Councilmember Martinez asked if the city will continue with regular inspections. Mr. Mehta replied yes. He said the first annual inspection begins in October, followed by both random and of-cause inspections. Mayor Scruggs thanked staff for their work on this long standing issue. 2. COMPENSATION PRESENTATION PRESENTED BY: Jim Brown, Acting Human Resources Director 4 This presentation to review the Human Resources compensation policy and procedures is being made at the request of Council. The purpose of this presentation is to develop an understanding of our current compensation practices. Mr. Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager provided a quick introduction to this item. He said when doing the budget workshops, there had been a lot of confusion regarding public record requests and about city employee pay raises. There seemed to be many misunderstandings at the time, therefore, the consensus was to bring back discussion on compensation and how some employees received increases when there were no increases across the board. Jim Brown, Acting Human Resources Director, reviewed the compensation program as well as the pay structure. He mentioned that in 1999 a comprehensive study was done by Watson &Wyatt. The recommendation was to shift to a market-based pay structure instead of the point system and also move to a performance driven pay plan and to have the public safety move to step plan. In 2003 Human Resources recommended a pay structure and that is what they have today. He explained the market- based pay structure. Mayor Scruggs commented she had read in the newspaper that several of the benchmark cities are now going to be giving pay raises to their employees. She would like to understand how this market driven structure will work in the City of Glendale where the city was not in the situation to be giving out pay raises. Is this an autopilot thing without regard to the ability to pay or is it something that is built into the budget that accommodates for the fact that — well she actually read in the newspaper that Phoenix had been giving step increases to their employees all along. So let's say half of these cities are going to give raises and Glendale wants to stay competitive. How does that happen given the budget situation? Mr. Brown explained they don't base their pay structure on actual pay but on the pay ranges for those positions. He explained the process. Mayor Scruggs commented it seems like an exercise in futility at this particular point and it leads to other problems on down the road. But the fact that later on equity adjustments won't occur anymore, even though there were tons of them before. But she remembered years ago, Tempe always said 'we are going to be the highest paying city. We don't care what anybody else does. If somebody else raises their pay we will too since we want to be number one.' Well what kind of a cycle will Glendale be going in if the city was going into a competition like that? So she understood that the city was told back in the 2000's or the 1990's or whatever, that the way to go was market driven. She didn't see how anything can be on autopilot around here anymore. And Council was leaving it to you, the professionals, to make sure it's not. Because there are other cities that are going to try to go up and for Glendale to try and keep up with them is going to drop a lot of people off at the other end. She stated she was not comfortable with how it works. Mr. Brown understood her concerns. Mayor Scruggs commented and just like anything else, maybe it's time to review the philosophy and the system and if it doesn't quite fit this city at this time. And she has every confidence that if staff feels a change should be done; they will take that on as their responsibility. But she just felt it needed to be said. 5 Mr. Brown stated staffs practice to be somewhere in the middle range and conduct regular market reviews. He explained that in the past,they have made adjustments to the range. Councilmember Clark clarified that staff looks at the pay range but not necessarily increases the salary. However, the range shifts so a new employee comes in at a higher pay range. As a result, they are essentially adjusting to a hire range and setting up equity adjustment. Mr. Brown explained that not all new hires were hired at the bottom of the range. He added they will not bring in a new hire making more than the existing employee was making. Councilmember Clark asked how long had this practice been in effect. Mr. Brown replied a short time. Councilmember Alvarez asked for information as to how promotions are being made within the organization. She questioned the recruitment process and bringing in temporary employees to fill positions. Mr. Brown noted he was not familiar with that matter and would be happy to speak to her after the meeting. Mayor Scruggs commented there have been some selected higher management situations. Councilmember Alvarez stated it was useless to discuss this matter when the policy summary was not correct. Mr. Brown stated the policy was correct and he would be interested in talking to her about this issue after the meeting. Mr. Skeete stated that after extensive research, he has acknowledged this process has been inconsistent and makes no apologies. He explained he really did not spend time trying to understand and explain their thought process at the time they made these prior decisions,therefore he does not know if there was a point to them he does not see. He indicated staff did review in detail the policies and have made adjustments to the process. Therefore, having reviewed and evaluated the policies moving forward, if changes are needed, they will be reviewed by the personnel board in October. He stated city policies will no longer be administered in a haphazard manner. Councilmember Alvarez explained she was not trying to put blame on any one administration; however, it did happen and they all knew about it. She noted this happened when Mr. Skeete became manager, therefore the language was incorrect. Councilmember Clark noted they need a definition with regards to personnel issues on what is within the purview of Council and what is not. She believes all of these issues have a direct line to the budget for which they are all responsible. She suggests these issues be brought before the Council, not just the personnel board. She noted the Council needs to know how these policies will affect the budget. Mayor Scruggs commented she was going to ask about the personnel board and its function. Not everything the personnel board deals with comes to the City Council. But if it has to do with an appeal of an employee that was terminated, however, she thought she heard Mr. Skeete say that the personnel board is going to look at these policies to see if they agree with them. Human Resources is going to present them in October and then she thought Mr. Skeete said they would be given to Council for action. She was not sure if he did, but this is not about an appeal or about somebody's disciplinary action, this, as Councilmember Clark said, directly affects the budget. She asked Mr. Skeete to answer her question and Councilmember Clark's as to once this goes to the personnel board then what happens? What if 6 they don't like what he proposes, will Council see it? Or what if they like it but we don't? So what is the process? Mr. Skeete stated that the personnel board was advisory and only makes recommendations to Council. Council will then determine if they want to consider implementing those policies. Mayor Scruggs commented she thought Mr. Skeete was getting these questions from Council because she couldn't remember ever getting anything from the personnel board brought to them for consideration. But yet Council had a very lively discussion brought by Mr. Tindall that setting pay ranges was the responsibility of Council because the Council has to develop the budget or the Council has to be part of developing the pay structure and so forth. So she didn't know what was being done in Human Resources, or your predecessor, sorry. And she thought what was being said was that the certain practices will stop and policies will be presented to Council and look at the broad picture to see if it all works together along with everything else in the city. Councilmember Knaack explained that just like everything else, this has not been very transparent. She would like to see more information on how pay is based. She would also like to know what happens with internal employees and their salaries when they move from one department to another. Councilmember Alvarez agreed with Councilmember Clark that this affects the budget and the Council should be involved. Councilmember Clark remarked this topic provided for more opportunities and more questions and concerns about policy. They cannot continue to look at anything in a vacuum anymore and must work to be imminently fair to all employees. Mayor Scruggs commented Councilmember Knaack said something about, finally there was some transparency. She said to set the stage here,staff was bringing transparency to an issue that stunned Council, literally stunned them. There had been page after page of increases to employees while others got nothing while Council was told there will be no raises or whatever. Mr. Brown explained how employee salaries change and what affects that change. He further explained how pay affected the structure. He mentioned that the city had a market adjustment in 2007 which can affect merit adjustments. However, the city has not had a merit increase since 2008. Councilmember Clark believed the Council did not understand or ask the right questions before when they went through this. However,they know the right questions to ask now. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Mayor Scruggs commented the salary was just presented, Council did know it was because staff was going to hire 50 more people, promote some people or this business of the adjustments. When staff does a market adjustment, the people that were hired last suddenly find themselves below the market adjustments. And that is the only point Council was trying to make is that the market driven philosophy does require that there be increases because adjustments are made to match all these other cities and those newer folks at the bottom are now outside the market range. So all Council was saying was give more information on the policy and when the next budget is presented, lay out why the salary figures would be what they are. How much you predict from those market driven analysis. Or maybe you're not going to do market driven analysis, she wasn't sure. But to say that the Council approves this is 7 100% correct- Council was sick and tired that every time something pops up that is not the way that it was presented — you say well, the Council approved it. When it was never presented and never explained. It was one lump figure for salaries, but you approved it. So she thought what was being said was nobody wants to do it that way anymore. Mr. Brown explained the equity and promotion adjustments. Councilmember Martinez inquired about what happens when reorganization occurs and someone ends up with a higher salary. He asked if that person received a pay cut. Mr. Brown explained in that case, the employee gets red lined and receives no further pay increase. However, their salary does not get reduced. Councilmember Alvarez thought when the reorganization happened, all the employees assigned to other departments received pay increases and some deputies were given assignment pay. Mr. Brown stated that as part of the reorganization, some deputy level employees moving to the executive director level, did get pay increases. Councilmember Alvarez noted just to be clear, some directors did get adjustment pay and some did not. Mr. Brown replied he would have to go back and look to make sure. Mr. Skeete indicated he had the answer. He said everyone did not receive additional pay with the reclassification, but most did receive it. Councilmember Alvarez questioned having that additional money in the budget to cover the additional pay. Mr. Skeete explained each department had enough money to cover their employees;therefore, current departments are funded in the budget. Councilmember Alvarez remarked that it had been agreed to drop the Diversity Director, however, the position is still there and they have no funding for it. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Skeete to explain. Mr. Skeete explained that during the budget crisis, the decision was made to cut the Diversity Director and remove the $84,000 from the budget. However, a coordinator is being funded by the police department. Councilmember Alvarez commented that there was no money for activities for this department. Mr. Skeete agreed. Mayor Scruggs commented she wanted to go back because she thought she saw a perfect thing here to go to the personnel situation. Everyone knows all this discussion has been about major changes in the organization structure. Councilmember Clark was calling them promotions and adjustment. Promotions happen when there is a change in classification. So all those classifications, those jobs belong to someone at classification level. Correct? So it sounds like there have been changes in classification levels because new positions have been created and other positions have been done away with. Those things don't go to the personnel board? Those just happen administratively, is that what the deal is? Mr. Brown replied they don't go to the personnel board. Mayor Scruggs commented that all this promotion business can go on administratively by just creating a new classification, deleting a classification, creating a classification; you make up the pay range that you want for the classification and move people in and out of that classification. And that's what happens, all administrative. 8 Mr. Skeete replied everything she just described has been done administratively. However, staff has taken a hard look at the entire process and ways to improve transparency. He agrees they need to do a better job with full disclosure. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City Manager could override a classification to make a particular employee happy. Mr. Skeete explained the City Manager has had that responsibility in the past. Councilmember Martinez remarked on the Diversity Director position. Mr. Brown explained that position was eliminated from the budget; however a coordinator is still being funded by the police department for citywide use. Councilmember Martinez asked why this was moved to the police department if this is for citywide use. Councilmember Clark explained it was done so the police department could pay for it. Councilmember Martinez noted that change does not make sense to him. Vice Mayor Frate asked if this was full time job. Mr. Skeete replied it was not a full time position. It was treated as a contract position. Vice Mayor Frate stated he would rather that money be used to fund a police officer. He explained diversity is important, however, in this time of budget challenges, he hopes funding would go to a core service. Mr. Skeete explained when this position was moved to the police department about two years ago, the Police Chief indicated the value of this position and asked to keep it and find funding for it. He said that was how this was moved to the police department. Councilmember Lieberman explained he had a meeting with Mr. Brown about two weeks ago and talked about much of what has been discussed today. Councilmember Knaack said she does not believe Chief Conrad wanted the Diversity Director and others forced this on the police department. She does not think people have been honest about this and does not buy it. She said the salary for this was close to $60,000 which would definitely put another police officer on the street. She noted when the Council decided to do away with the program, they meant the whole thing. She does not believe this has been handled properly and would like to see this changed. Councilmember Clark agreed 100%. She explained that the Diversity Coordinator would have had set responsibilities, however once programs were cut, what responsibilities are left for this employee to do. She questioned this person's availability citywide and if so then the expense should be to the city. She said the money the police department was using could be used for an officer on street. She explained it would be nice to have this position; however, it was not a necessity. Councilmember Alvarez said she doesn't think anyone was as interested in diversity as she has been and also voted to do away with this position for now. She stated that putting it in police only moved it around. She indicated they need to do away with the position since it was less than 20 hours and the person really can't do anything with that. She agreed with Councilmember Knaack that possibly this was pushed on the police department. She explained that at times things happened in this organization that not everyone was comfortable with. Mayor Scruggs commented well this has been one of the most candid meetings she could remember, since forever. But she thought the overriding message was it has been duly noted that when situations arise, and maybe there are individuals that can function for whatever reason whether it is lack of funding or whatever or some other situation has occurred, there is always room, especially in the fire department 9 and in the police department to some extent. There is always room and she thought that was what Councilmember Knaack was alluding to and certainly Councilmember Alvarez. This has been a very candid conversation. Can we go on with Mr. Brown's presentation? Mr. Brown continued his presentation with equity and the step program in the fire and police department. Councilmember Clark stated that when pay adjustments occur there was a never a thought to reduce. So more money is given and they never reduce the pay of supervisors because it might seem unfair. However, from a civilian view of life, life is not fair. She said that something was wrong with this system that looks for reasons to raise people's salaries when it has nothing to do with performance. Mayor Scruggs said usually a supervisor was in a different classification and they received no overtime like the other people do so it was different. Vice Mayor Frate noted most organizations do pay supervisors more. He would like people to know that just because you're a supervisor, you will not be making twice as much as the others. He said they were talking about a nominal fee increase. Councilmember Martinez asked if this has ever happened when the supervisor was making less than the employees under him. Mr. Brown stated typically that does not occur but it has occurred at rare times because of the reorganization. Councilmember Martinez noted a supervisor should get paid a higher range. Councilmember Clark replied that normally that was the case; however, they were discussing reorganization situations. Mayor Scruggs stated she thought Council should move on. But let's be reasonable, the supervisor, if something goes wrong in the department, who gets called in? The supervisor. Mr. Skeete explained the MOU issue in the police department. He said they have seen that request and have placed it on hold because funds are not available. He noted this was a compression issue. Mayor Scruggs said she knew there had been compression issues in the past but if there is one pending she knew nothing about it. Mr. Brown stated they had a situation where they moved represented employees into a new step plan pay ranges, and as a result they do have compression issues. Additionally, they have not done an equity adjustment. He said it has been requested but has been placed on hold. He added they had the same situation in the police department. They will be reviewing the police as a whole on how they do business. Mayor Scruggs said this was a request for FY 12/13, she was guessing because the current adjustments have been made in previous years and they show up as equity adjustments. Mr. Brown agreed and explained the compression pay issue. Mayor Scruggs said the handout says there have been no merit increases to employees since 2008. But yet she noted the sheet indicates everything but eight items on this sheet is called a merit increase. So 10 how does she reconcile no merit increases given with this whole sheet having merit increases? And yes they are in public safety. Mr. Brown explained those were likely step increases, not merit increases. Mayor Scruggs asked how high up in the ranks do you get step increases? Up to what level? Mr. Brown stated in the fire department it will be up to the captain level and for police it would be the sergeant level. Mayor Scruggs stated these things should have been coded appropriately. Because this looks like everybody is getting merit pay increases. Mayor Scruggs asked what is a criteria-based increase. Mr. Brown stated a criteria-based increase occurs when a department head sets specific criteria for their employees and if they achieve that goal they receive an increase. He added that has not happened recently. Councilmember Martinez asked if that was common in other cities. Mr. Brown replied yes. Mr. Brown continued with his presentation. He reviewed other types of pay. The first was pay that was based on non-exempt employee hours, skill-based pay, allowances, longevity pay and assignment pay. He also reviewed overtime, standby, bilingual, specialty, voluntary call back and shift differential pay. Councilmember Clark asked to have copies of the slides for Council's review. Mayor Scruggs asked if all items listedwere budgeted. Mr. Brown replied departments do budget for overtime. Councilmember Clark stated that from FY10/11 to FY 11/12 overtime pay has gone up $1.5 million approximately. Mayor Scruggs noted the landfill was not included in this slide or not the bulk of it. It will come later in this budget year. Councilmember Knaack asked Mr. Brown to explain non-exempt employees. Mr. Brown stated those employees were paid hourly and can receive overtime pay. Councilmember Clark inquired if most of that overtime pay can be attributed to the fire department and their training. Mr. Brown explained the breakdown stating both departments had significant overtime. Fire came in at $2.6 million and police at $3.5 million. Councilmember Clark commented that fire was a smaller department, yet it was close to what police was spending. Vice Mayor Frate noted the reason might be because they would rather pay someone overtime than hire a new person who will require benefits as well. 11 Mayor Scruggs commented on the reimbursement they will receive from HALO and the stadium that will offset these numbers. So we really should not be concentrating on these numbers too hard until they are adjusted. Mr. Skeete agreed. Mayor Scruggs stated that if Council should see those numbers again they should also see the offsets. Mr. Brown continued explaining the non-exempt employees and ways they can receive additional pay. He also discussed allowances some employees receive. They are cell phone, tools, uniform and safety equipment. Councilmember Clark mentioned remembering the cell phone allowance of$50 a month flat rate. Mr. Skeete explained there had been a lot of discussion about the different rates and options and ultimately $50 was decided. Mr. Brown reviewed longevity pay which includes stability, retention and succession pay. Councilmember Clark asked what retention pay was. Mr. Brown explained it was basically time in position and pay based on the number of years served and the knowledge it brings to the department versus training a new hire. Vice Mayor Frate agreed. Mr. Brown explained assignment pay. This occurs if an employee has retired and the position is vacant pending recruitment. Additionally, if an employee in a lower level classification is assigned to service in that position until the recruitment is completed. Mayor Scruggs asked to go back to shift differential and who was that available to. Mr. Brown stated it was in water,transportation, police, public works, park and recreation. Mayor Scruggs said and there were seven people who received differential pay. But there are probably people in this organization who collect from other areas, they are not inclusive. Mr. Brown agreed. Councilmember Clark asked for examples of how much an employee can accumulate collecting different kinds of pay. Mr. Brown agreed to run some examples and get back to them. Mayor Scruggs commented she had less trouble with most of these since most should be compensated. But just one bothers her but she would wait until they get to the budget stuff to talk about it. Vice Mayor Frate asked if these policies were in line with other cities in the valley. He also asked what his biggest concern was in moving forward. Mr. Brown noted he was comfortable for the most part with their policies and how they are written. However, he does see some things they can maybe look at and adjust. As far as any concerns, he would like these policies to reflect both equitable and fair practice to employees. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the standard police pay was. Mr. Brown replied starting pay was $52,492. 12 Mayor Scruggs thanked Mr. Brown for the presentation. 3. CITY MANAGER UPDATE ON GLENDALE CENTERLINE AND THE SINE BUILDING PRESENTED BY: Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager This is an opportunity for the Acting City Manager to provide an update regarding the Glendale Centerline and the city-owned Sine Building. This is for Council information only. The Acting City Manager and staff are available to answer any questions regarding the information provided. Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director, provided a summary on the Glendale Centerline Overlay District. The Overlay District is specific to Downtown Glendale. He explained ten projects have received Design Review approval and of those ten, two have been completed. Two substantial projects, located just outside of Glendale Centerline, are under construction, one is a church and the other Sands Chevrolet. He believes the Overlay District has been a success and thus far, two property owners have received overlay approval. He listed other developments that are being planned for the future. Additionally, staff coordinated the demolition of a long vacant property and non-conforming sign located at 56th and Glendale avenues. The Planning Department will proceed with what can be developed at that parcel. Staff will also be revisiting the Zoning Ordinance as needed to advise Council with any updates on future modification that may be needed to the Overlay District. Other projects being worked on were the Beet Sugar Factory and Jive Mind. Dave McAlindin, Assistant Economic Development Director, stated that for the past three years, they have been working with GCC and other partners to create a Glendale Small Business Assistance Center. The Assistance Center will be a unique, one of a kind program where people that were either in business or wanted to get into business can come and get specialized technical assistance. The types of programs they envision were having a small business development center, procurement technical assistance program, workforce development institute and career counseling and training for people that need retraining. He said this project will have a tremendous impact and provide businesses owners the ability to start or expand the business. He promised to make a more formal presentation in the coming months. Councilmember Lieberman stated this project sounded very good. However, he would rather sell that building than lease it since the city was desperate for money. However, if the city receives a fair rate, that was fine also. He suggested GCC pay a fair rate for the facility. He added this project was great but does not create one cent for the city of Glendale. Mr. McAlindin stated a fair rate would be about $70,000 rent annually. He explained once he comes back with a full presentation, he will be able to show its worth to the community of much more than the $70,000 in rent. Councilmember Lieberman stated he will be willing to listen to his proposal. Mayor Scruggs said the information on these wonderful opportunities was written in her State of the City speech and she very proudly stood up and told everyone the stuff that was written for her. And then she found out from a document that was going around that Glendale was not getting any rent and she felt like she had been suckered on that one. But she talked to Mr. Skeete, this was way back in the spring, 13 and at that time he indicated the entities that would be occupying the building would pay all the utilities and that would be about $60,000 a year that the city would not be paying. Is that still the thought? Mr. Skeete replied yes. Mayor Scruggs continued so the rationale was when Glendale had city departments in there and there are no city departments there anymore, that it was costing the city $60,000 or more. So therefore these folks would take it over and it would be a wash. But she was still uncomfortable with it and this would probably come before Council after she has left so she would like to tell everyone her thoughts. She didn't like the no-rent idea. She thought they were probably paying rent where they are right now and she just didn't see how this works especially now. But beyond that, the gift clause, since this thing had not gone out to bid to anybody, it's been a privately arranged transaction, good as it is, will there be some issues raised since others were not afforded the opportunity to have a building for no rent. She continued that it would be something if the city offered this building and they were willing to pay$1000 a year. But to offer it to somebody and get no rent, she thought there will be a lot of agencies that would also want that chance at no rent. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs and was also troubled with the no rent clause. Additionally, he agreed with Councilmember Lieberman's comments that at this time the city needs some sort of rent coming in. He would like to consider the sale of this building. Councilmember Clark stated she would like to keep an open mind regarding this project. She recognizes a couple of potential things that can generate some revenue to the city, partially the virtual office incubator program. This might offset what they will lose in rental. She was willing to listen to the full presentation and then make a decision. Mayor Scruggs clarified Glendale is already the state center of STECH at GCC. Vice Mayor Frate agreed to listen to the full presentation before making his decision. He thanked them for bringing this exciting project to the table and also thanked them for a great job. Councilmember Lieberman would like a report on what businesses this program has helped in the last three years. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Lieberman, the Economic Development Department does a marvelous job and this thing sounds wonderful, but it has to be balanced. And she thought comments would be different next year with a new group of people. But if the stress is on the city and the citizens as to if they are being deprived of services and there was an asset that was being given at no charge you have to balance the great economic potential that might be there with reality. And she thought that was what was being said. So everyone had the buckets of cold water thrown on them right now and are now looking at things very, very, differently. Going back to the idea of selling buildings, when Council received that list many months ago, all the buildings said, but they are worth so much less than what was paid for them. Folks, they are not going to go back to what was paid for them, at least not in any time frame that can help the city. Well the city was not going to sell that because the city paid three times more than what would be received for it now. The city can't just wait a long, long time for things to change, cash is needed now. She knows five or ten years from now things are going to be better, but right know it's a problem. 14 Councilmember Lieberman asked what the status of the Circle K on 43`d and Glendale avenues was. Mr. Froke stated that the project has been approved and they should be obtaining building permits shortly. Councilmember Lieberman also asked about the Beet Sugar Factory. Mr. Froke explained that the building plans have been reviewed but have to be resubmitted by the property owner for another review. He said he did not have a time frame on that item. Councilmember Lieberman also inquired as to the status of the project at the 51St and Missouri avenues scrap yard. He said that should have been opened by now. Mr. Froke explained several issues have occurred such as new ownership. However, Planning is working with the new tenant that bought the property and is anxious to proceed with a new development project from the ground up. Councilmember Lieberman thanked Mr. Froke for all his work on these projects. Mayor Scruggs thanked the presenters. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. 15