Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/2/2017City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Meeting Minutes - Final Tuesday, May 2, 2017 1:30 PM Workshop Council Chambers City Council Workshop Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present 6- Vice Mayor Ian Hugh, Councilmember Jamie Aldama, Councilmember Joyce Clark, Councilmember Ray Malnar, Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, and Councilmember Bart Turner Absent 1 - Mayor Jerry Weiers Also present were Kevin Phelps, City Manager; Michael Bailey, City Attorney; and Julie K. Bower, City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. 17-163 FY17-18 BUDGET WORKSHOP Staff Contact and Presenter: Vicki Rios, Director, Budget and Finance Staff Presenter: Tom Duensing, Assistant City Manager Staff Presenter: Terri Canada, Budget Administrator Ms. Rios said a capital improvement was an asset valued at over $50,000 with a useful life of five or more years, including land, buildings, streets and improvements, plants and large equipment. A ten-year capital plan was prepared and funding was identified for projects in the first five years of the plan. Funds would only be appropriated for the first year of the plan. The capital plan was funded through available cash balances, grants, development impact fees and debt financing. Ms. Rios said debt financing included general obligation bonds, excise tax obligations and revenue obligations. The general obligation bond debt was significant through FY23. Future planning for the CIP included determining the capacity for project funding, which was impacted by revenues, interest rates and economic conditions. Projects must be prioritized through multiple workshops and consideration of master plans as well as determining if voter authorization was necessary. Ms. Rios said GO bond projects were typically used for funding assets lasting 20 years or more, including Fire and Police stations, parks and recreation facilities such as community centers, pools and fields, libraries and streets. Ms. Rios said development impact fees were a limited source of funding and restricted to pay for growth -related projects, such as facilities, enhanced service levels and expansion of existing facilities needed due to growth. The funds could not be used for repair, replacement or refurbishment. Development impact fees must be used in the zone they were collected, and funds collected prior to 2015 must be spent by 2020. Funds collected after 2015 must be spent on projects identified in an infrastructure improvement plan (IIP). Ms. Rios said changes to the CIP since the last budget session included an added project for Westgate area street signage, O'Neil replacement in FY23-27, a change in funding source for 59th Avenue and Olive roadway improvements, restored funding for Pasadena Park, a project for citywide park improvements from development impact fees, added ramada expansions, and a change in funding source for Foothills Bike Park. City of Glendale Page 1 Printed on 6/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Councilmember Tolmachoff asked for the total amount of the projects that were added back in. Ms. Rios would need time to gather that information. Councilmember Aldama asked if the items Council placed aside for further consideration at a previous meeting were now included in the CIP. Ms. Rios said the items were not originally in the CIP, but a placeholder was created and the items had been added to the CIP in the latter five years. She said the projects were in FY20-23 in the new CIP. Councilmember Turner asked if it was the first time a dollar amount had been put on the O'Neil Park project. He felt the Council should have more discussion regarding pool replacement and the amount of money to be spent on that project. Councilmember Aldama said the item was going to be a placeholder and Mr. Strunk and his staff had already met with some of the community members. He explained talks were ongoing to formulate what that project would entail and what the costs would be. He asked if his understanding of the item was correct. Ms. Rios said since the projects were scheduled in the out years, no funding source had been identified and staff anticipated that would be part of the larger discussion in the fall. She said it was Council's discretion to make what changes it deemed necessary before adopting the 10 -year plan. Mr. Strunk said they created a placeholder and identified a cost for that project. He said they would have further discussion with Council as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Aldama said it was critical that the City be the voice of communities that lack input. He asked if staff would try and engage the community to determine more specifically what the project would entail. Mr. Strunk said that was always the intent. He said there was also added funding for Rose Lane and O'Neil parks for playground and basketball court equipment, which would be included in the discussions. Councilmember Tolmachoff agreed that using the word "pool" in the budget item description set the expectation that a pool would be built and she did not believe it was a good idea to be that specific, at this point in time. She suggested changing the title of the budget item to use the word amenities or improvements instead of the word pool. Councilmember Clark said any discussion about projects more than five years out was irrelevant. The projects were unfunded and a placeholder was all it was at this point. She said the important thing was that O'Neil Park was back in the budget as a placeholder. She said there was also a request to add a placeholder for Heroes Park which was not in the updated documents. Ms. Rios said staff caught that mistake yesterday and did not have an opportunity to update the book. She said that the Heroes Park project was identified at approximately $53 million and the books would be updated if Council approved. Councilmember Clark said it was important that the projects be included, because they City of Glendale Page 2 Printed on 6/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 were important to the bond discussions the Council would be having. She would like to see the items as placeholders for discussion purposes. Councilmember Turner asked that O'Neil Park description be changed so it did not include pool replacement. He would like the title to be changed to O'Neil Park and other parks, which would create the expectation that O'Neil park would be given due consideration for improvements. Councilmember Clark said it was not the intent to put in a placeholder for O'Neil Park and other parks, but a recognition that O'Neil Park had a pool that was unusable right now and it was a community in need. She said funding sources for other parks should be part of the discussion about bond capacity. She said the placeholder had a specific purpose and she was not comfortable changing the name to O'Neil Park and other parks. Councilmember Aldama said keeping the placeholder open for only O'Neil Park sent the message to the community that the City was finally looking at the singular issue. He suggested adding a second line. He would like to change the title for O'Neil Park from pool to refurbishment or renovation or some other language. He said they had not addressed burying the pool, taking the plywood off the windows and cleaning up that area. He asked if there was a plan for that or if money had to be set aside in the operations budget for that project. Mr. Strunk said that facility had been closed for about 4 years and explained boarding up the windows prevented vandalism and other damage to the building. He heard the request and would talk with staff to see what it could do to clean up that area. Councilmember Aldama said that was all he was asking and he wanted the property to come into compliance. He approved keeping O'Neil Pool as a single item and changing the name to whatever staff recommended. Councilmember Clark asked about using the see-through materials that were being used by Code Compliance to board up the O'Neil Building so it didn't continue to look so abandoned. Mr. Strunk said he would work with Code Compliance. Ms. Rios said there were the three additional development impact fee funded park projects. Additional changes to the CIP included adding funding for New River Trail Zone 2 and a change in the title of project 65102, Ballpark Boulevard to arterial roadway improvements. Ms. Rios went on to discuss further changes to the CIP, including moving the LED project forward to next year, removing the ROAM project and reallocating funds to pavement management, as well as changing the funding source for emergency vehicle pre-emption. She said they would also be changing the amount and timing of funding for Landfill bulldozer replacement and timing of funding for Fire Department air packs (SCBAs). There would be continued budget for arena capital repairs in year 2022, per the contract and they had changed the funding source for TDMA upgrade for RWC as well as reducing funding for ERP replacement. Councilmember Clark asked for a further explanation on the Westgate street signage project. She mentioned removing the ROAM funding and reallocating those funds to pavement management and asked when Council would have had the opportunity to redirect the ROAM funds, if the money was redirected before Council even had a chance to discuss it. City of Glendale Page 3 Printed on 6/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Mr. Friedline said that was an agreement with the Cardinals to enhance signage. Councilmember Clark asked why it was not in the first CIP Ms. Rios said it was the department's responsibility to add the information to the CIP but once Finance became aware of it, it was added at the request of the city manager and Mr. Friedline. Mr. Friedline said there were issues in negotiating the contract and it came in late to the CIP process. Councilmember Clark asked when the agreement was finalized Mr. Phelps said the agreement was adopted on November 11, 2016. He said they had new parking lots and they had to redo the signage and how people moved in and out. He said they had been working with AZSTA and the Cardinals to determine what signage was needed, rather than what signage was spelled out in the original agreement and that delayed getting the item into the CIP. Councilmember Clark asked about the ROAM fund. Mr. Friedline said the ROAM component to street lighting was the electronic system that would let staff know whether the light was on or off. He said the current software system was not supported any longer and staff was looking for a replacement. He said other cities used callouts and inspections for their lights. He explained the proposal was about $2 million with yearly fees. He said they would be better served to spend that money on pavement management. Councilmember Clark said abandonment of ROAM was a good idea, but her concern was that the Council be advised when funds became available to discuss options for the funds. Mr. Friedline said the direction he got from Council was to spend as much money as possible on pavement management and get that project done as quickly as he could. Councilmember Clark said the funds should be identified and discussed with Council before incorporating them into the CIP. She said there should be some opportunity for Council to review the changes and weigh in before changes were made. Councilmember Tolmachoff said there were many products, including sensors, available regarding lighting and asked what other work went into making sure it was the right product for the City. Mr. Friedline said staff believed the best way to go was to utilize the city of Phoenix's bid for lighting. He said it would come before Council for discussion on the available options. He said staff liked the brightening and dimming aspects of the lights. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if they were appropriating funding for the lighting. Mr. Friedline said they were approving the CIP, but they had not yet approved staff to move forward with LED lighting conversion. Councilmember Tolmachoff said she looked forward to that discussion City of Glendale Paye 4 Printed on 6119/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Councilmember Aldama asked where the public could expect the extra dollars to be spent in the pavement management program. Mr. Friedline said the contract was a multi-year renewable contract and staff was moving as quickly as it could to complete the project. Councilmember Aldama said there was nothing specific regarding where the public might see more pavement with the additional funds. He asked if the cost for the pavement could be more in the 2nd and 3rd year of the contract. Mr. Friedline said the contract had a unit price that could not be renegotiated. Councilmember Aldama said the public would ask how many more roads or miles would the City be able to repair with the additional $1.6 million. He said it didn't sound like there would be any additional miles and it was just going into an aggregate cost. Mr. Friedline said they pulled funds from HURF and the pavement management program temporarily to fund the LED street lighting and they were currently balancing all the funding. He said with a good unit price that allowed them to do more with the same amount of money they would be able to fund the project with carryover funds for HURF. Councilmember Aldama said if that was the case, he was on board, but if there were no tangibles for that money, he would rather see it put somewhere else. Mr. Friedline said those funds were needed for the pavement management program or they wouldn't finish with the $35 million for the contract or $77 million they committed to the Council. Councilmember Turner thanked staff for the spreadsheet regarding changes in the draft CIP. He said it was all HURF funds that needed to be used for street transportation projects. He said they saved money in the long run by pulling money from pavement management for the LED lighting project. There was an upgrade for the streetlights already programmed in. There wasn't any reason to do the upgrade now, so the funds would be put back in the pot to be used for the whole City. Ms. Rios provided additional information about the ERP project budget. She said they were able to eliminate some of the costs for the project. Retaining Peoplesoft for Human Resources and upgrading the Financial System, would cost $1.4 million. Staff was proposing a one-time implementation cost of $2.8 million with an ongoing cost of over $1 million. She said there was a question from Council about the cost of only implementing the financial piece of the Tyler system and keeping the Peoplesoft Human Resources system. She said the one-time cost to do that would be just over $2 million. Ms. Rios said if they were to upgrade and retain the Peoplesoft system, the ongoing cost including some required ancillary systems to keep the same functionality, would be $942,000. The Tyler Munis system that included all that functionality, including a budget system and procurement was $998,000. If they were to go with the option of implementing only the financials with Tyler and keeping Peoplesoft for Human Resources, the ongoing cost would be just over $1 million a year. Ms. Rios said with either of the Peoplesoft options, they would not gain any of the efficiencies discussed at the last Council meeting. If they were only to implement the Tyler financials and keep Peoplesoft Human Resources system, they would be introducing a new set of inefficiencies that had not yet been identified because it was not City of Glendale Page 5 Printed on 611912017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 an integrated system and Tyler did not support integration from Peoplesoft. She said there was a high level of risk associated with the last option. Councilmember Turner asked if it was a budgeting question that was before them today and not a contract question. Ms. Rios said it was a budgeting question, and there would be additional opportunities for the Council to review the contract with Tyler Munis. Councilmember Turner asked if they would be limiting their options if they budgeted too low. Ms. Rios said that was correct Councilmember Turner said the Council might want to hear from Peoplesoft and might consider having an advisory group look into the options before making a decision. He would like to do the research so Council could be confident in the decision it made. Ms. Rios said the City did hire a consultant and looked at the exact problem. She said keeping Peoplesoft was always an option. She said Berry Dunn helped identify the inefficiencies and other problems moving forward. Citywide meetings with staff were held to obtain feedback and they had issued an RFP for a potential replacement and Peoplesoft did not bid on that project. Peoplesoft had proposed a different product, which was called Fusion. She said the consultant, Berry Dunn, recommended the Tyler Munis system. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if Berry Dunn was open to looking at multiple solutions to the problem or was it focused on finding one solution. Ms. Rios said that was an option and was reviewed. The RFP was issued so that companies could bid on multiple pieces of the project. The City received three bids, one from Tyler Munis, one from Oracle and one from ADP who only bid on a replacement to the HR/Payroll piece of the system. She said vendors were scheduled to provide a demonstration of their projects. The Tyler Munis product was selected because of its integration capabilities and functionality. Councilmember Tolmachoff had received comments that a two-year implementation was ludicrous. She asked how they would measure success with the product. Ms. Rios said the two-year timeline was aggressive because the systems and processes were very complicated. The software had to be configured to the City's processes. Additionally, process would have to be changed to work better with the software. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked how they were going to measure the success of the project. She also asked if Peoplesoft was asked to try to solve the problems staff was having. Ms. Rios said various things had been done over the last several years and occasionally staff was told by Peoplesoft that the City needed an upgrade or a different module. Staff was also occasionally told they needed a different product. She said they tried to come up with the best solution moving forward, especially since they were no longer marketing the Peoplesoft software. She said it was not that the software did not work, but in order to do other parts of the job, they had created inefficiencies over time. City of Glendale Page 6 Printed on 819/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Mr. Phelps said, with regard to a two-year implementation being too long, government accounting was a different animal than private sector. He had been involved in three very large system changes and upgrades and all of them were multi-year projects. It was important to implement systems at the right time during payroll and accounting years. Councilmember Malnar asked what the determining factor was in choosing Tyler Munis. Ms. Rios said the Tyler Munis product was specifically designed for municipalities. Staff went to the different departments using the system and asked about processes and how to make them better, faster and more efficient. In the RFP, bidders were asked how they would do the processes. The bids were reviewed to determine what best met the City's needs. She said the Tyler Munis system matched the way staff needed to do their processes in the future, not necessarily the way they did the processes now. Councilmember Malnar thanked Mr. Phelps for his explanation of the time management to implement the project. He asked what the original proposed cost was for the project. Ms. Rios said the original cost was $6 million. Councilmember Malnar asked what had been moved to save costs. Ms. Rios said the main items removed were project management on the part of the Tyler Munis Corporation. She said staff could take on some of that functionality instead of having the vendor do it. She also said there were optional modules that were not added. Councilmember Malnar asked if the $750,000 in savings in efficiency would go down or would there be bonuses not included in the savings estimate. Ms. Rios asked if Councilmember Malnar was asking if the identified efficiencies they had of about $700,000 would be impacted by the election not to put in those modules. Councilmember Malnar said that was his question. Ms. Rios said they would not lose any of the efficiencies they expected to gain and would have all the functionality they needed. Councilmember Clark asked what backfill was. Ms. Rios said in a long project, individuals would be moved out of their current jobs to learn, help configure, and test software. She explained backfill was having someone do that individual's job while they were working on the implementation project. She said those figures were estimates and would be figured on how much the positions earned. It was backfill at the lowest level, meaning an accounting specialist was moved up to fill in for a manager and backfill a clerk's position with a temporary person. Councilmember Clark said this issue was very complicated. She supported the allocation of the $3.9 million for something, but was not sure what that something should be. She said there were still unanswered questions. Councilmember Clark said if they approved the cost of $3.9, they had covered the cost of any of the systems. She would like to see the two systems and get an explanation of the inefficiencies. She was not comfortable in making a decision about which option was the best solution. City of Glendale Page 7 Printed on 8/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Ms. Rios provided the one-time cost comparison chart and explained they would have to begin paying the ongoing maintenance for the Tyler Munis system. If they approved the Tyler Munis system, the $3.9 million included maintenance for the first two years. She said there was overlap included to keep the older system up and running until they fully migrated to the Tyler Munis System. Mr. Duensing explained the options other than Tyler Munis would get the City disparate systems which wouldn't talk to each other. Staff had to bring in resources for every major upgrade done in Peoplesoft. He said systems would still not be integrated by choosing only to upgrade to Tyler Munis Financials. Councilmember Clark said the Tyler Munis and Peoplesoft combined issue was not a good option. The options were to upgrade to additional modules in Peoplesoft or go with Tyler Munis. She would like to see on a computer how the systems compared. Mr. Duensing said it was a good exercise for staff to look at the hybrid models. He explained staff had to put up Peoplesoft and all the shadow systems to create the budget book. With the integrated Tyler Munis system, they would use just one system. Councilmember Clark agreed to allocate the necessary cost within the budget, but would like to see how the two systems operated. She asked if there was going to be a workshop for further discussion about Peoplesoft and Tyler Munis. Ms. Rios said staff was looking for consensus and direction as to what to put in the budget. She said if consensus was reached, the next step was to move forward on the contract with Tyler Munis. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the upgrade would have been included in the Tyler Munis subscription and the City wouldn't have had to go outside of the annual subscription and pay for it. Ms. Rios said that was correct Councilmember Clark asked how it benefitted the taxpayer Ms. Rios said on an ongoing basis, all upgrades and enhancements were included in the subscription fee. The City received the benefit of any additional functionality that Tyler Munis might provide to its customer, as well. She also said they did not have to put in a new budget system, e -procurement system or grant management system. The Neogov system could be abandoned and a capital asset system or accounts receivable system would not have to be purchased because they were all included in the yearly cost. Mr. Phelps said it was a good example of software as a service. The cloud -based software continued to make the upgrades as part of the annual licensing fee. It was a great value back to the taxpayers. He said with the option, the product used today would continue to be a modern product in two years for the same price. Councilmember Aldama asked how many users would use the software Ms. Rios did not have the exact number. Councilmember Clark said it was 224 users. Councilmember Aldama understood the need to upgrade and said at some point the City of Glendale Paye 8 Printed on 8/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 system would need to be replaced. Employees were expected to serve at a high level and if the software helped them do that, it was worth the investment. He liked the fact they removed the costs. He asked how long the system was expected to last. Ms. Rios said the Peoplesoft system, which was also an ERP system, had been used for about 20 years. Staff anticipated, with the upgrades and the business model, to easily use the system for the next 20 years. Councilmember Aldama said it was a long-term investment and was well worth the investment. Ms. Rios next discussed Fire development impact fees which needed to be used by 2020. She said staff had determined that development impact fees could be used to purchase a second set of turnout gear for firefighters which would free up funding for fire station capital repair and improvements. Those projects could be carried over into the following year if they couldn't all be completed this year. Councilmember Clark asked what was the cost for the turnout gear. Ms. Rios said it was $650,000. Councilmember Clark asked if there was $1.3 million in the DIF fund. Ms. Rios said there was approximately $1 million in DIF money, but it was new DIF money, not the old funds. Councilmember Clark asked how much of the old DIF money had to be used. Ms. Rios said it was approximately $517,000 in old DIF money Councilmember Clark had received a call from a member of the fire union who was concerned about the HALO unit relocating to Wickenburg. There were highly trained paramedics that worked on those units. She wondered if Council would consider using part of the DIF for a third low acuity unit. It would avoid having to search or train other units for the duty and would utilize highly trained people. It would also put another low acuity unit in place which had been shown to be successful in reducing response times. Mr. Duensing said there was upcoming information on the HALO program and said the funding for that program was going away. He said Councilmember Clark was referring to the investment and capital costs. There was a need to look at the annual ongoing costs for the program. He asked the Council to give staff time to go back and have a discussion about what it was going to do about losing the HALO revenue. He hoped to have that information by the date of tentative budget adoption. Councilmember Clark asked if they would consider the option. Mr. Duensing said staff would look for Council direction on it. Councilmember Clark asked for Council to consider giving that direction. Councilmember Aldama said there had been a considerable investment in the employees for training and he was agreeable to that. He was not very comfortable with losing several employees they invested in because the contract ended. City of Glendale Page 9 Printed on 611912017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Councilmember Tolmachoff thought the Fire Department had the capital it needed already to put out another low acuity unit and the issue was personnel costs. She wanted it to be clear what they were talking about and what the possibilities might be. Mr. Duensing said the stadium operations had already been incorporated in the budget request. He said staff would come to Council with options, including no -cost and possible hybrid options. There might be some bridge funding available for one staff member, but they would have discussions and come back to Council. Ms. Rios went over the follow-up items from the April 28, 2017 meeting, which included Convention/Media Parking, moved and consolidated to Cable Communications; adding $10,000 to restore volunteers in Neighborhood Services; and adding $70,000 to fund the Veteran's Center (Public Affairs budget). She said there would also be ongoing discussion about the HALO program. Ms. Rios provided the general fund forecast and noted there was an increase to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System which had to be absorbed and explained they were budgeting for a surplus next year. The total appropriation for the FY 17-18 budget was $672 million. She explained most of the appropriation was the operating budget. The CIP was $152 million with only the first year being appropriated and any carryover from this year. Debt service was $77 million and contingency was $44 million. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked about the request for the half-time code inspector. She was not interested in approving that unless Saturdays were part of the regular work schedule. There had been discussion about moving a contract employee to regular employee at the CVB, but she did not want to do anything until Council had decided what it was going to do with the CVB. She said they might have to revamp the staffing model at the CVB. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff on both of the items. She said there had been an increase of almost $3 million in the CIP from the first draft to the second draft and asked where that increase came from. She also asked if staff should have considered asking Council what its priorities might be for the extra funds. Ms. Rios provided a worksheet that showed the changes from the first draft CIP to the one they were discussing today. Councilmember Clark asked what happened to the carryover listed for street parking bonds and capital bridge repair. Ms. Rios said staff estimated the carryover and it would appear in the FY 18 budget to be expended there. Councilmember Clark said the first CIP had no carryover listed and the second CIP had the carryover listed. There was not a clear indication of what happened to the carryover in many of the department budgets. She asked what they were doing with the carryover. Ms. Rios said it would be in the FY2018 budget and was put in a separate column. She said it was still in the bridge capital repair program, it was just in two columns. Because it was carryover, it would be available after July 1st to be spent on capital bridge repairs next year. She said it was listed in a separate column because it was carryover from this year, but it was part of the $672 million appropriation. Councilmember Clark asked why the item under parks construction, listed as Sahuaro City of Glendale Page 10 Printed on 0/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Ranch Park Master Plan was not included in the changes listed in the CIP. Mr. Duensing said that was one of the requests from Council for an estimate of the carryover for the current year budgeted projects. He said anything in the carryover column was not included in the previous budget workshop. Councilmember Clark asked about a roadway improvement item and said it looked like two items were combined. Ms. Rios provided the page number where three projects were listed. She said it was a limitation of the current system, because they could not take one project and give it multiple funding sources. They had to list the project three times and give it three funding sources from three different development impact fees fund. Councilmember Clark asked what was the source of funds for the relocation of all the projects listed on the park development zone 1 page. Ms. Rios said these were projects that were submitted in the CIP but not picked up in the original books. She said the funding source was various development impact fees. The impact fee fund was listed behind it. Councilmember Clark asked for a further explanation of the lab data management system that went from $80,000 in the first book to $187,000 in the second book. Ms. Rios said it was a project in the CIP that would have carryover into next year. Councilmember Clark asked if the total budget would be $187,000 plus $80,000. Ms. Rios said it would be carryover of $187,000. Councilmember Clark asked why the street bonds project, pavement management under HURF funds project budget was listed at over $4 million in the first book and listed at $1.5 million in the second book. Ms. Rios said that was a combination of the removal of the ROAM project and reprogramming those funds into pavement management. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked to see a breakdown of the bed tax item professional contractual item. Councilmember Turner agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoff's comments and said discussions seemed to indicate a hiring freeze until further discussions could be held about the CVB. The half-time employee in Code Compliance was also on his list of questions. He spoke about the $10,000 for the volunteer recruitment division and said that department would also be losing a .5 FTE. He said that department provided great leverage for the money put into it and the benefit the City received. He would rather see a .5 FTE added into volunteerism, which would produce more benefit than a .5 FTE in Code Compliance would. Councilmember Aldama advocated for the weekend code enforcement officer and said the City should implement an all weekend shift. He also wanted to look into the staffing of the CVB. He asked for a list of park improvements that were being done at each park City of Glendale Page 11 Printed on 611912017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 regarding the park improvement citywide budget item. He also asked to hear back on the CDL certification. Mr. Duensing said staff was recommending that item be included in the budget. If the item was appropriated, the information could be provided either via email or during a workshop as a Council item of special interest. Councilmember Aldama said his impression was it would be added at this budget meeting and the Council would discuss it at a later date. He said he was more interested in adding it to this year's budget. Mr. Duensing said it was not on the agenda for this meeting. He said Council could direct staff to not fund the item and there could be further discussion. He also said staff could be directed by Council to come back with suggestions on how to fund the item. Councilmember Aldama could not ask to remove $10,000 without further discussion and the item would need to come back. He asked staff to move forward with reporting back to Council. He also wanted staff to report back on the park projects. Councilmember Malnar supported having a code enforcement position working the weekends. Councilmember Turner would like to see a cross-reference of doctors who were qualified to give the CDL exam and the doctors that were available to the employees under Blue Cross/Blue Shield. They needed to make sure there were enough overlap so employees had access to doctors who provided the exam. He also asked for additional money in parks maintenance and suggested looking at money to update the City web page. It would make the quality of life better for citizens. Mr. Duensing went over his list of items that Council had requested, including changing O'Neil Park pool replacement to O'Neil Park improvements, inserting Heroes Park improvements into the CIP and deferring the HALO discussion. He said he recommended keeping the .5 FTE for Code Enforcement in the budget at this time so staff and the city manager could address the service levels. Councilmember Clark said at least four Councilmembers agreed to cover Code Enforcement on Saturdays and they were not asking for further discussion about it. She said they were giving direction on that. Mr. Duensing said they would leave in the .5 FTE in the budget for Code. Councilmember Tolmachoff did not want to give approval for another .5 FTE and not have Saturday coverage. Mr. Phelps heard Council approving a proviso of the .5 FTE only if staff could address weekend coverage. He said Mr. Duensing was saying they needed to look at the hours and integration into the Code Compliance staff. He said they would not apply the .5 FTE position unless they knew it could be applied toward Saturday coverage. Councilmember Aldama reiterated Councilmember Turner's request for park maintenance funding and supported the item. Councilmember Tolmachoff supported trying to find funding. City of Glendale Page 12 Printed on 6/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Mr. Phelps said the proposed budget represented the priorities that the City Manager's Office was asked to do to establish priorities. Priorities were established by elected officials. He said when Council asked to find funding somewhere else, that put staff into a prioritization process, which they had already done. There were some easy fixes for some items, but staff had to be given direction to either use up fund balance or increase revenue assumptions. It would be helpful if the Council would assist staff by identifying the areas to cut. Councilmember Turner had about $100,000 in mind for parks maintenance. It was not Council's job to micromanage and if Council determined it was a priority, then it was a priority. Staff knew their budgets very well and knew where they might find extra funds to meet the priorities. He said they were putting the Council in a position of budgeting in a vacuum. He challenged staff to provide options to the Council. Councilmember Aldama did not know what the proposed budget was from staff prior to going to the chopping block. It was appropriate to ask staff to find options for Council's priorities. He was excited about the fund balance, but asked at what expense would they keep setting money aside. Councilmember Turner appreciated Councilmember Aldama's comments. Council didn't know what departments asked for in their initial departmental budget requests. He said they had a duty to learn what those things were and what needs weren't being addressed from a department's point of view. He requested copies of the departmental requests made prior to the first draft of the budget. Mr. Duensing said the budget they had developed over the last few months held services steady with the overarching goal of getting to the fund balance. Staff would provide the information requested. Regarding the fund balance, Mr. Duensing said they asked their financial advisor directly if the bond upgrade would save the City more money and were told it would. It also provided the City the ability to weather a downturn. Councilmember Clark asked if there would be a final follow-up budget discussion. Mr. Duensing said they were looking for budget adoption and would make room in the budget for whatever discussions they had between now and tentative budget adoption. He said they could see how they fit the HALO issue in the budget. It was necessary to adopt a budget in the black if they wanted to get to the $50 million fund balance policy, which was his recommendation. Councilmember Clark asked when the HALO contract terminates. Mr. Duensing said it was June 23rd. Mr. Phelps said they were not going to recommend a reduction of FTEs within the Fire Department. The existing contract was being reduced and there would be a decrease in revenue assumptions of $100,000. He had heard a desire to keep the positions here and he could try and find a way to make the department whole. He would come back to Council once they came up with a good plan. Councilmember Clark said adjustments were made periodically with regard to positions and she was hopeful the positions could be absorbed or reclassified as they had done previously. Councilmember Aldama was on board with the fund balance, but found himself City of Glendale Page 13 Printed on 8/19/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 questioning it. He asked if they were in agreement about park maintenance. Mr. Phelps acknowledged they were in agreement. Councilmember Aldama thanked staff for its hard work to make the process manageable. Councilmember Tolmachoff had not heard from Ms. Hoffman about the Westmarc membership upgrade. Mr. Phelps said the membership was at the current existing level and if Council desired to upgrade the membership, they just needed to let staff know. Councilmember Tolmachoff agreed to stay with the gold membership. Vice Mayor Hugh said staff had done a great job working through the tough questions. 2. 17-158 WHAT WORKS CITIES OPEN DATA PROJECT UPDATE Staff Contact: Jean Moreno, Executive Officer, Strategic Initiatives and Special Projects Staff Contact: Darcie McCracken, Deputy City Clerk Ms. Moreno said the item was to provide an update on the What Works Cities open data project. The goal was to provide improved service delivery through engagement. Ms. McCracken said open data was a movement and represented a change in philosophy by recognizing that the data cities collected belonged to the public. She said to provide expertise from across the organization they had assembled a project team made of City staff from multiple departments. Ms. McCracken said open data meant information was proactively published online in open forms and bulk downloads, was free for anyone to use for any reason and there were no stipulations on how the information was used. Open data was important because it engaged the community in dialogue. It allowed Glendale to openly share information to encourage accountability and transparency. Stakeholders would be engaged to share what information was important to them. A study had shown that most of the public records requests were for Development Services,and over 30 days was spent responding to those requests. Ms. Moreno said open data was about publishing what was meaningful and telling the story behind it. It was also about providing multi-levels of data and solving problems regarding the data. She said an open data program in Glendale was strategically aligned, provided value to residents, saved time and resources, provided superior service delivery and performance measurement. There were many good uses for an open data plan. Ms. Moreno said a draft resolution had been provided if Council agreed to adopt an open data policy. She provided some best practices associated with open data, which included openness, transparency, proactive release of data, confidentiality and legal interests. She said they were looking for direction from Council. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if there was a cost to implement it. Ms. Moreno said initially they would use a catalog of data sets, so there would be no technology costs up front. She said over time they would assess how the open data could be aligned with the strategic initiatives and performance initiatives to create a more City of Glendale Page 14 Printed on 6119/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes Final May 2, 2017 robust open data program. She said the system would not automatically upload the data, but it would be a place to get started. Councilmember Clark asked if they were shooting for the base Milwaukee model. Ms. Moreno said that was correct. Councilmember Clark asked if any files could be downloaded from the basic model. Ms. Moreno said yes and the documents would be downloadable in an easy-to-use format. Councilmember Clark asked if the file formats would be compatible for most people. Ms. Moreno said that was correct and that CSV files were the types of files that were easily downloadable. Councilmember Clark asked if they would use any of the $100,000, which was going to be for upgrading website, for the project. Ms. Moreno said they have had conversations about the new website and it would have the capability to accommodate the basic Milwaukee example. She said more sophisticated models would require further discussion and exploration. Councilmember Clark asked if the $100,000 was for someone to host the new website and if the model would integrate with the new system. Ms. Moreno said that was correct. Councilmember Clark said the draft resolution mentioned proactive release of select data and asked what constituted select data and who chose what data would not be available to the public. Ms. Moreno said What Works Cities would be obtaining stakeholder feedback from frequent requestors of public records to identify the types of information they would like to see made available. There would be an open data leadership team who would determine how easy it would be to publish that documentation and if it could be made available in the required format. Once that criteria had been established, staff would present that information to Council for further review and discussion. She said not all the City's data could be posted at once so prioritization of those documents was crucial. Councilmember Clark said the City recently received a public records request regarding a time period of contracts and asked if that sort of information would be available in those data sets. Ms. Moreno said they currently did not have a way to post all the contracts online, and they were discussing an open contracts portal. This would require further conversations. She said they would like to publish as much information as possible. Councilmember Clark said the point of the program would be to establish as many open source data sets as possible, bypassing those public records requests and asked what resources might be required to sustain the system. Ms. Moreno said they would need some sort of performance management system for the City of Glendale Page 15 Printed on 8/18/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 strategic plan and said there were many products that would assist combining that with the open data project. They didn't currently have the tools to handle a very large open data project, they did have the basics which would allow some of the documents to be made available online now. Councilmember Clark asked how much time it would take to get the interim system up and running. Ms. Moreno said they hadn't had discussions regarding timing yet. She said the Development Services team was already looking at several data sets they would like to publish. She said they might be able to get the initial phase up and running towards the end of the summer or early fall. Councilmember Clark supported the draft resolution and it was worth pursuing. Councilmember Malnar asked if the project would be integrated with new system that was initiated through the Clerk's Office. Ms. McCracken said Laserfiche could be used as the starting point for posting some of the contracts and other documents the City already created. Councilmember Malnar asked if the new financial and payroll system would also integrate into the system. Ms. Moreno said they struggled with the ability to publish data that was meaningful. They have not had conversation with the vendor, but she expected staff would have more capability to publish data that was meaningful to the public. Councilmember Malnar favored moving forward with the resolution. He said it was important for both the public and the Council to have the information available. Councilmember Turner supported moving forward with the resolution. Vice Mayor Hugh said they were going to move forward. Ms. McCracken said as part of the engagement with Sunlight and What Works Cities, engaging the community and getting their input on the resolution was an important aspect and, as such, would like the City to put the resolutions out for the public to comment on. She added the public engagement portal would be mymadison and would allow for public comment. Councilmember Aldama asked about the certificate the City would get. Ms. Moreno said What Works Cities had a certification program and she said on behalf of the City they had expressed their interest in the certification. By participating in the program, What Works Cities would provide Glendale with an assessment and provide suggestions on how to improve to reach the next level of certification. She said they should receive that assessment in the next couple of weeks so they could move forward establishing a plan of action. 3. 17-186 STRATEGIC PLANNING & BALANCED SCORECARD INITIATIVE Staff Contact: Jean Moreno, Executive Officer Strategic Initiatives and Special Projects City of Glendale Page 16 Printed on BH9/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 Ms. Moreno said she would be providing an update on the status of development of the City's strategic plan, sharing the proposed strategic themes and receiving feedback from Council. The themes would be used to develop specific objectives which would help create a focus on the most important priorities. Ms. Moreno said the value of strategic planning included a shared vision and purpose, accountability, alignment, performance management, an engaged workforce, collaboration and data -driven decisions. She said activity to date included resource planning and training, Council program launch, virtual stakeholder feedback sessions and executive team assessments and theme team recruitment and training. She also said the Council had spent time reformulating the missions, vision and values. Ms. Moreno said the assessments completed by the executive team were designed to address where the organization was now and where it wanted to be in the future. The next step was developing objectives, which was where the theme teams began their work. She said the process required engagement and dialogue and specific assessment. The strategic themes included stakeholder engagement, community livability, accountability and fiscal responsibility and superior service delivery. She said they would develop very specific objectives from the themes. She asked for Council feedback. Councilmember Clark was not sure the community was aware of the whole process and the benefits. She asked about any strategies for updating the public. Ms. Moreno said the community engagement piece had not yet been discussed. Through the stakeholder engagement process, they would be identifying very specific objectives to accomplish. She said they had a membership in the Alliance for Innovation and interested staff met to discuss items such as community engagement. She explained there were many opportunities for creating public dialogue outside of hosting public meetings. For strategic planning, they did do stakeholder feedback sessions that were well-received by residents, businesses and non -profits. Councilmember Clark was only thinking about a general announcement or other information on the website that would alert the public that the City was engaging in the process, what the process entailed and the goals the City hoped to accomplish. Councilmember Clark said comments indicated that employees felt the Council was not engaged in the process. She said all of the Councilmembers had followed the process since the beginning and were waiting for some results to implement. There might be a lack of understanding and communication about the process. She said there had been suggestions such as creating a video or periodic emails to employees to update them. She asked how they had been spreading the news about the program to employees. Ms. Moreno said it was critical they reach all levels of the organization when adopting and implementing the plan. Approximately four citywide messages had been sent to employees, including an email requesting employee involvement. There were currently 48 employees involved in the process and those employees would be involved in developing the department scorecards. Vice Mayor Hugh asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Moreno said the theme teams would be working to develop strategy maps, identifying candidate performance measures and ensuring alignment throughout the organization. She said the final strategy map would be adopted by Council. A performance dashboard would be established and monitored and after implementation of City of Glendale Page 17 Printed on 611912017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 the Tier 1 scorecard, staff would begin working on Tier 2 department scorecards. She said their goal was to implement ten, Tier 2 departmental scorecards by next year. Councilmember Aldama thanked Ms. Moreno for the work she had done. He said he was on board, but knew this was a slow, methodical process. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Phelps had no items to report. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. Bailey had no items to report. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Councilmember Aldama asked staff to research a dedicated funding source to address homelessness in the City. He also asked that HUD funding be included in that funding source. MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Councilmember Turner, seconded by Councilmember Aldama, to enter into Executive Session. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Aldama, Councilmember Clark, Councilmember Malnar, Councilmember Tolmachoff, and Councilmember Turner Absent: 1 - Mayor Weiers EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNMENT The City Council entered into Executive Session at 5:08 p.m. A motion was made by Councilmember Turner, seconded by Councilmember Malnar, to adjourn. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Aldama, Councilmember Clark, Councilmember Malnar, Councilmember Tolmachoff, and Councilmember Turner Absent: 1 - Mayor Weiers The City Council adjourned at 6:30 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Glendale City Council of Glendale, Arizona, held on the 2nd day of May, 2017. 1 City of Glendale Page 18 Printed on 611912017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final May 2, 2017 further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. rfi 1 f Dated thiscA day of `TV AJ -E 12017. Julie K. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City of Glendale Page 19 Printed on 611912017