Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/17/2017 City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 1!' a EN Di VI Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 17, 2017 1:30 P.M. Workshop Meeting Council.Chambers City Council Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner CALL TO ORDER Mayor Weiers called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren,Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Also Present: Kevin Phelps, City Manager; Michael Bailey, City Attorney; Julie K. Bower, City Clerk; Tom Duensing, Assistant City Manager; Jack Friedline, Assistant City Manager WORKSHOP SESSION Mayor Weiers announced that Goodwill had withdrawn its application and was no longer planning on opening a store near the 101 and 59th Avenue. He commended Goodwill for being a good business partner. 1. WEST PHOENIX/CENTRAL GLENDALE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT UPDATE Presented By: Jean Moreno, Executive Officer, Strategic Initiatives & Special Projects Presented By: Jack Friedline, Assistant City Manager Presented By: Tom Duensing,Assistant City Manager Ms. Bower read the item by title. Ms. Moreno said the purpose of the presentation was to review the West Phoenix/Central Glendale High Capacity Transit(WPCG) preliminary cost information presented to the City Council at the workshop session on August 15, 2017; to review the preliminary cost information in the context of the Glendale Onboard (GO!)Transportation Program projects; and, to seek Council direction on the following: • Did Council need any additional information regarding the preliminary cost analysis? •Was there an end-of-line preference that Council wished to advance? •Were there alternative funding options that Council would like to consider(depending upon the end-of-line preference identified)? •Did Council have any specific direction regarding continued public outreach? Ms. Moreno said in 2001, Glendale voters approved Proposition 402, adopting a half cent sales tax to: improve traffic flow; relieve traffic congestion; increase transportation choices; reduce air pollution; promote economic viability; and provide for regional transit connections. It also established the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC). The purpose of the CTOC was to ensure public input and accountability. Ms. Moreno said the transportation purposes included: • Intersection improvements •Street projects •Expansion of existing bus services • • Increased Dial-A-Ride service City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 2 of 18 • Express bus service • Regional light rail connection • Pedestrian and bicycle improvements •Airport projects •Safety improvements Ms. Moreno said the project was in the alternatives analysis phase and had been ongoing for several years. There had been a lot of study between the regional partners—the City of Phoenix, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and Valley Metro. The phase would conclude with the adoption of a locally-preferred alternative (LPA). The LPA would be expected in the spring of 2018 in order to move the project forward. Ms. Moreno said considerations included: •Transportation investment policy—discussion pending •Community desire to understand City's intent •Grand Avenue crossing far exceeded programmed amount •Any end-of-line west of 51st Avenue required staff research on alternative funding options •2018 LPA action would signal intent, lead to 30% design •2020 financial plan/commitment, refined costs •2021-2023 expenditures began, depending on project timing Mr. Duensing said, if Council desired, it could look at alternative funding options, such as: •Research and review GO! expenditure timing •GO! Program debt restructure options •Model GO! Program based on estimates •Examine reductions in other GO! projects •Non-Transit Funding-General Obligation bonds for capital •Non-Transit Funding-General Fund supplement for O&M Mr. Friedline referred to a chart entitled "Preliminary Cost Estimates GO Program Analysis." It looked at the end-of-line options for 43rd & Glendale, 47th & Glendale, 51st &Glendale, 55th & Glenn, 58th & Glenn and 61st&Glenn. The preferred alternative was 58th &Glenn. He said the capital estimate was $8.4 million more than the current model. There was also a $2 million per year deficit in O&M, starting in 2026. Mr. Friedline said, with regard to 61st&Glenn, there was a very large difference in the capital costs to get it over Grand Avenue, $50.8 million more than modeled and $2.8 in O&M. It the line ended earlier, the difference in capital costs got closer but was still off$1.2 million per year in O&M. At 51st& Glendale, there was a$17.4 million surplus in capital but O&M would have an annual deficit of$400,000. If the end-of-line was 47 th & Glendale, there would be a$52 million capital costs surplus and it was estimated that O&M would have a surplus of$400,000 per year. Some of the surplus was cash and some of it was debt service savings. Councilmember Turner said 51st& Glendale seemed to be the break-even point. If Council continued to the next phase, cost-saving opportunities might be identified. It was worth continuing. It would create economic opportunity along the line and at the stations. The economic potential, based on MAG numbers,would be 1,700 jobs for the whole route, $7 million annually in increased property tax revenues and $20 million in sales tax revenues. If only the Glendale stations were included, the economic potential was 1,000 permanent jobs, $3.4 million in property tax revenue and $11.5 million in sales tax revenue. The numbers showed that the City should at least go to 51st& Glendale and as it was engineered, there could be capital savings to get all the way to 57 th&Glenn. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what the debt service would be on capital costs of$88.4 million. She Also asked if$25 million per year was received in GO!funds. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 3 of 18 Mr. Duensing said that was correct, approximately$25 million per year was received in transportation fund sales tax revenue. The total debt service on $105.8 million was approximately$7.5 million per year, so $88 million would be approximately$6-6.5 million per year. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if$10 million per year would be a good estimate for the annual debt service and O&M costs. Mr. Duensing said that would be about right. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked how dedicating $10 million to light rail per year would affect the rest of the transportation plan. Mr. Friedline said there were a lot of needs which had to be prioritized and light rail should be part of that discussion. When the transportation plan was discussed, staff would be looking for direction from Council regarding prioritization. He suggested waiting until the November 7th discussion. Councilmember Malnar did see some good things happening along the existing light rail line as well as some not so good things. He said options were provided to the voters and light rail was one of the nine presented. He asked if it was in the minds of the voters that one item would take most of the approved tax and impede other projects. Councilmember Malnar didn't think so. He said future annexations would take resources and the tax would be needed to support those items. Councilmember Malnar said it was difficult for him to approve a partial route now, knowing that in ten years, a billion dollars would be spent to get across Grand Avenue. He said it was difficult to take the amount of money required for one project out of the transportation program to fund something that only a small percentage of the population used. The comments he had received from his constituents were that it would cost more than the benefit that would be derived. Councilmember Malnar said his concern was what would his constituents gain from light rail coming to 51st Avenue or to downtown Glendale. The answer was very little, if anything. He agreed that light rail might improve economic development in downtown but that could be accomplished in other ways. He was not in favor of moving the item forward. Councilmember Aldama did believe that light rail could be the catalyst for downtown and more. Without it, Glendale would be an island surrounded by communities with light rail. He clarified that what was being decided today was to take it to the 30% design. Ms. Moreno said staff was looking for direction from Council to move forward to the next steps which would be to move towards the LPA adoption and then on to the 30% design. Scott Smith, Valley Metro CEO, said there were two steps to get to the 30% design. The first was an environmental assessment and the second was some preliminary engineering work. It was an 18 to 24 month process. The 30% design included where the line would be as well as the location of the stations. At 30%, the big decisions were made and allowed for accurate cost estimates. Councilmember Clark said Councilmember Malnar had expressed her position very well. Alternative financing impacted the GO! Program and general fund monies. There were too many needs to divert resources to light rail. In other cities, there was significant public funding to spur economic development along the light rail line and that cost ranged from 3% to 30%. In reviewing the Valley Metro material, the trend she noticed was that retail opportunities were replaced by multi-family opportunities. She didn't know if that was the vision everyone had for downtown. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 4 of 18 Councilmember Clark did not favor moving forward. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if light rail reduced traffic congestion. Mr. Smith said that was a broad question and generally, it depended on the location. It did change traffic flows, making it more consistent. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if light rail reduced pollution. Mr. Smith said it could be argued that when it took drivers out of cars and put them into light rail, a zero-emission form of transportation, it did reduce pollution. Vice Mayor Hugh wanted to know if there was a good reason to put tracks down on perfectly good roads. The City would have to use the general fund. He was not in favor of moving forward with light rail. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked Council to wait until the transportation plan was presented and see how light rail fit in and look at the whole plan. Councilmember Aldama had confirmed that to get to the 30% design would not cost the City anything. He knew of developers who were sifting on vacant properties and wouldn't do anything until there was certainty whether or not light rail was coming. Councilmember Aldama supported moving to the next step. Councilmember Tolmachoff clarified that she was only asking to wait on a decision until after the transportation plan was presented. Councilmember Turner said, regarding the impact of light rail on the general fund, in the long term, light rail was a net positive to the general fund. The plan, approved by the voters, had the ability to get to 51st Avenue and possibly further. The voters approved the proposition by a 64% vote. Over the period of 15 years, the City had been spending the money on all of the items the voters had approved except for light rail. There would still be plenty of money in the GO! Fund to continue doing other projects. Councilmember Turner said there had been anecdotal reports that light rail had increased crime and vagrancy. The fact was that dispatched calls along the light rail extension in Phoenix, increased less than 1%. It was a manageable issue. The voters approved light rail, it made financial sense and should move forward. Councilmember Malnar said Valley Metro had just approved $500,000 to improve security so there were issues with light rail. He said Council had discussed the issue several times. The transportation money needed to be reprogrammed away from light rail and used to improve the transportation infrastructure. He agreed that downtown transportation should be improved. Councilmember Malnar wanted to see if there was consensus to move forward or not. Councilmember Aldama said, according to census data, one-third of Glendale's population was in the age range of 17 to 40. Those individuals needed to get to work and school. It wasn't always Glendale being the destination, it was where residents had to go to. He said there would be a lot of economic growth with light rail. Councilmember Clark said when the sales tax proposition was offered to the voters, light rail was an afterthought. It was a divisive issue back then and was not a major consideration for voters, who were looking for local improvements. She didn't need to wait for the discussion on transportation to see diverting funds to light rail was going to hurt the City. Councilmember Clark wanted to free up the funding for light rail and use it in the community now. There were too many City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 5 of 18 streets that needed attention. Councilmember Clark said light rail was estimated to be a$10 million hit to the general fund and would probably be even more than that. There were too many needs and she wasn't willing to divert funds to light rail. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what the$10 million cost to the general fund was based on. She had not heard that discussed. Councilmember Clark said it was debt capacity and operations and maintenance. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the debt service would be coming from the GO! tax. Mr. Duensing said the $10 millionwas a scaled-down version of the total debt service if an $88 million capital infrastructure project was constructed and $3 million operating costs. The majority would be funded from the transit.tax. He said it was the projected surplus deficit which was the recurring O&M impact in the transit fund and the projected surplus deficit under the capital portion on the construction. Councilmember Tolmachoff said 51st and Glendale would be net zero. Mr. Friedline said that was correct. Councilmember Turner said it was not a given that there would be a $10 million hit to the general fund. It was based on the option. If Council moved it forward today, it still had all of the options available, including rejecting it. Council didn't have enough information to say no. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if light rail would increase transit ridership. Mr. Smith said in some cases it increased ridership in some areas and did not in other areas. The cost of gasoline also impacted ridership. Ridership on light rail had increased steadily each year. Generally, light rail did increase ridership but also took riders away from bus ridership. Vice Mayor Hugh asked how much ridership increased with light rail compared to bus. Mr. Smith said theexperience had been where light rail replaced bus routes, ridership on light rail was higher than what it had been on the bus routes. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if the bus ridership decreased. Mr. Smith said it did decrease on that route but in other cases, ridership increased on bus routes because of the shorter stop frequency. Mayor Weiers asked Mr. Smith to explain where GO! funds and HURF funds came from. Mr. Smith said the GO! fund was a dedicated tax for transportation issues and came from Glendale shoppers. HURF funds were a combination of gas taxes and registration taxes that were funneled through the state into local transportation programs. Councilmember Aldama had the Prop 402 ballot language in front of him and didn't understand, based on the language, why light rail was an afterthought. He asked for an explanation. Ms. Moreno said the language would have been directed by Council but she could not answer the question. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 6 of 18 Mr. Bailey said he would have to read the ballot language. Councilmember Aldama read the ballot language regarding light rail. Councilmember Clark said maybe "afterthought"was imprecise. There were nine items on the ballot. Voters were thinking about their local streets, more bus routes and better ways to get around locally. Light rail was inserted into the language and was controversial. It was not a priority at the time for voters. Councilmember Aldama disagreed. The information he had indicated the voters' mindset was to approve light rail. Councilmember Turner was a resident and voter for Prop 402. Whether or not it was contentious for Council or an afterthought, the language was on the ballot and 64% of the voters voted for it. It passed by a landslide. He had a duty to the voters to make their will be heard. Councilmember Malnar said 58th and Glenn was projected to have a $10.6 million deficit and that could be where the $10 million was coming from. He asked if voters today would vote for light rail in downtown Glendale. He was sure it would not pass. Maybe the solution was to put it back out to the voters and let them decide. They were not the same voters that passed it previously. Councilmember Malnar said things had changed it the past 16 years. When it was approved, it was not known what the costs would be or that the City was committing to $114 million plus in operating costs. Should Council push it further down the road knowing that 51st and Glendale would cost$88 million plus $3 million in annual operating costs. Those dollars could be used in much better ways for the City's transportation system. He was ready to either move it forward or put it on a permanent hold. Councilmember Clark said there were nine items on the ballot. Council figured that out of the nine items, different items would appeal to different voters. That was why it was approved by 64% of the voters. She was not willing to divert money to what would turn out to be a sinkhole and would rather use it on other community needs. Vice Mayor Hugh said economic impact was not guaranteed and he was not in favor of it. Mayor Weiers said Council owed it to business owners to decide what was going to happen so that they could make decisions and move forward. He said everyone wanted to see the downtown thrive. It was shortsighted to take on the additional costs without knowing how the economy was going to do. If there was a downturn, where would the City get the money. Mayor Weiers didn't support moving forward with light rail. Councilmember Aldama said bringing light rail to Glendale was for the betterment of the community. He said it was what the voters overwhelmingly voted for and it was his responsibility to move it forward. Mayor Weiers asked if there was a consensus on an end-of-line preference. There was not a consensus. Councilmember Turner asked if there was a consensus to study 51st and Glendale as the end-of-line. There was not a consensus. Mayor Weiers asked if there was consensus that Council not move forward with light rail. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 7 of 18 There was a consensus not to move forward. Mr. Phelps said he would reach out to Valley Metro to see what the next steps were and would inform Council. 2. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT SONORITA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT Presented By: Jon M. Froke,AICP, Planning Director Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Froke said the proposed residential overlay would benefit the Sonorita neighborhood. The Sonorita neighborhood was located in downtown Glendale, bounded by Grand Avenue and the BNSF Railroad, Maryland Avenue and 59th Avenue. It consisted of approximately 52.9 acres of land and was part of the original area of incorporation of Glendale in 1910. The existing zoning was established in 1940 and the neighborhood was zoned M-1, Light Industrial and C-2, General Commercial. Mr. Froke said the overlay district could be accomplished through a zoning text amendment (ZTA). The Planning Commission initiated the ZTA application at its August 3, 2017 workshop. The ZTA would establish an Overlay District for the Sonorita neighborhood. Staff continued to process the application and details would be worked out with property owners. Mr. Froke said the Overlay District would be written to establish the following: •Participation would be voluntary and requests to opt into the district would be reviewed and approved administratively •Would only be applied to properties zoned M-1, not C-2 Mr. Froke said it allowed existing single-family homes to shed non-conforming status and allow for future expansion of existing homes. It established modified R-16 development standards for lots that currently had an existing home. New home construction on vacant lots would not be permitted. Mr. Froke said the Planning Division would facilitate the citizen participation process. Councilmember Aldama held a neighborhood meeting in Sonorita on February 7, 2017 and discussed the concept of the overlay district. The neighborhood was receptive to the concept. Another neighborhood meeting would be scheduled to discuss the district in detail with property owners. Councilmember Aldama said the neighborhood only had 26 homes and was exempt from federal grants because of the railroad. There was a need for the families to be able to build additions onto their homes or add parking. Currently, the neighborhood was exempt from being able to do such things. The overlay would address those issues and he asked for Council support. Councilmember Clark asked if it affected only 26 homes. Mr. Froke said he had heard there were 15 to 26 homes. Councilmember Clark asked if all of the homes were M-1 properties and asked how many vacant lots there were. Mr. Froke said that was correct. All of the homes were zoned M-1. He said there were 10 to 15 lots that would allow new commercial construction. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 8 of 18 Councilmember Clark asked why no homes were allowed to be built on vacant lots. Mr. Froke said that was the direction received from Council at a previous workshop. Councilmember Clark asked if the 26 homes become part of an overlay and the M-1 zoning was removed, what happened when the home was sold. Mr. Froke said the overlay stayed with the property when it was sold. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what happened if a home burned down. Was the property owner allowed to rebuild. Mr. Froke said the owner could rebuild. Councilmember Tolmachoff said there were properties where the home had burned down. Would those owners be able to opt in and rebuild. Mr. Froke said yes, the owner could rebuild. Councilmember Turner asked if, in the case of a rebuild because of fire,was there a stipulation that the reconstruction would have to occur within one year of the overlay being put into place. Mr. Froke said that was correct. Councilmember Turner asked about the logic behind having the overlay follow the property in the case of a sale. Mr. Froke said the same requirement was used in the Glendale Centerline overlay and he was not aware of any problems that were caused by the requirement when ownership changed. Councilmember Aldama asked if the new owner could opt out of the overlay. Mr. Froke said that situation had not occurred in the overlay district. The new owner could request to opt out. Councilmember Malnar asked if Council would want to allow new build residential to spur residential revitalization. Mr. Froke said the residential properties were currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial. Over time, many of the homes were converted to industrial uses or were torn down at end-of-life. With Council direction, staff could look at that issue. Councilmember Aldama said the neighborhood was too far gone and it was not possible to create residential. The overlay was a reprieve from the M-1 zoning. Councilmember Clark said if that was the intent, then why had there not been a proposal to revert the property back to M-1, if the owner died or the property was sold. Mr. Froke said that would be difficult to monitor and administer. Council consensus was to proceed. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 9 of 18 3. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT HIGH IMPACT LAND USES Presented By: Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Froke said staff had been requested to review and research high impact land uses on neighborhoods. Staff was seeking guidance from Council on how to proceed with the topic should certain land uses be requested to be removed from certain zoning districts or altered. Mr. Froke said the Planned Area Development(PAD)zoning district allowed the applicant to set their own development standards and establish land uses for projects. The PAD was submitted to the Planning Division who then routed the submittal to the Development Team for review. The land uses that the Planning Division asked applicants to exclude when writing a PAD project narrative generally included the following: Body Piercing Studio Billboard Check Cashing Facility Digital Billboard Drive Thru Liquor Store Sexually Oriented Business (adult land use) Tattoo Parlor Mr. Froke said in 2012, the City Council approved a ZTA that established regulations for where digital billboards could locate in Glendale. A key component of the ZTA was that digital billboards were only allowed in the Sports& Entertainment District located on the Loop 101 between Camelback Road and Northern Avenue. The amendment also eliminated billboards from the C-3, Heavy Commercial zoning district. He said static billboards were allowed in the M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts. There were a number of non-conforming static billboards located in C-2, General Commercial, and C-3, Heavy Commercial, zoning districts throughout Glendale. Mr. Froke said Arizona voters approved medical marijuana through Proposition 203 in November 2010. In 2011 the Glendale City Council approved a ZTA that established regulations for where medical marijuana facilities could locate in Glendale. A key component of the ZTA was that medical marijuana facilities were not allowed in PAD zoned properties. Therefore, the land use was not usually listed as prohibited in PAD project narratives. Mr. Froke said there were currently two medical marijuana dispensaries in Glendale with a third location approved, but not yet open. The land use was allowed in the G-O, General Office, C-2, General Commercial and C-3, Heavy Commercial, zoning districts. A dispensary required a 500-foot separation from a residentially zoned property and a quarter mile (1,320-foot) separation from an elementary, secondary or high school. Mr. Froke said there were also two medical marijuana cultivation facilities in Glendale. The facilities were allowed in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts and required a 1,320-foot separation from residentially-zoned property, elementary, secondary or high school. Dispensaries and cultivation facilities were also required to be at least one mile (5,280 feet)from other medical marijuana facilities. Mr. Froke said there were three blood donation facilities in Glendale with a fourth location approved, but not yet open. The land use was typically found in the C-O, Commercial Office, C-2, General Commercial, and SC, Shopping Center, zoning districts. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 10 of 18 Mr. Froke said there was one adult land use establishment in Glendale with two more located in the Municipal Planning Area on county islands. These establishments, often referred to as Sexually Oriented Businesses, were regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. An adult land use was allowed in the C-3, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts and required a 1;000-foot separation from the following land uses: church, public or private school, public park, agricultural or residentially-zoned property, child care center, designated historic district or other adult business. Mr. Froke said if City Council wished to remove certain land uses from the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Division would work with the City Attorney's Office to determine if such omissions were defensible. Councilmember Clark asked if check cashing and auto title loan facilities required a separation distance. Mr. Froke said no, they could be located in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Councilmember Clark asked if the City had ever considered separation distances. Mr. Froke said many years ago, Council had asked staff to look at regulating such businesses but received no Council direction to proceed. Councilmember Clark said it would be appropriate for there to be a separation distance. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if there was a maximum number allowed for marijuana cultivation facilities. Mr. Froke said there were no state restrictions on the quantity. He said industrial-zoned property in Glendale was mainly located along Grand Avenue and near Luke Air Force base. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked about the Glendale airpark and airport. Mr. Froke said there was industrial zoning at both those locations that would allow a marijuana cultivation facility. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what the requirements were for a cultivation facility. Mr. Froke said a cultivation facility had to be totally enclosed with no odors emanating from the facility. A security plan had to be provided to the City. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if sprinklers were.required. Mr. Froke said that was a building safety issue and sprinklers would be required. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked why the dispensaries in Glendale were located so close together. Mr. Froke said the state regulated the geographic areas. There had been some changes at the state with regard to the regulations. Dispensaries had been given the ability to relocate so it was hard to say what the maximum number was. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the City had any ability to exert authority over the number of dispensaries. Mr. Froke said there was no way to limit the number but the City could look at the separation distance and the types of land uses that required separation. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 11 of 18 Councilmember Clark believed she had heard in a previous presentation, the maximum number in the geographic area, was three. Mr. Froke said he would look into it. Councilmember Aldama asked if billboards were allowed in M-1 and PAD. Mr. Froke said that was correct and M-2. Councilmember Aldama asked how the City could start to eliminate billboards. Mr. Froke said when the property was redeveloped, that was the appropriate time to eliminate the non-conforming billboards. Councilmember Aldama asked if there was a list of non-conforming billboards. Mr. Froke said there was a list. Councilmember Aldama asked what the process was to create a buffer between billboards and residential areas. Mr. Froke said, if there was Council consensus, staff would add it to the list to research. Councilmember Aldama asked for Council consensus on the issue. Councilmember Malnar agreed with Councilmember Aldama. He didn't want to infringe on property rights but there should be restrictions. With regard to medical marijuana, he wanted to expand the language about land use types and public notification. Councilmember Malnar would also like to add distance requirements for blood donation centers. He also wanted to review the requirements for adult businesses and for check cashing facilities. Councilmember Tolmachoff also wanted to review the regulations for vape shops. Mayor Weiers suggested breaking up the reviews over time so the items could be discussed in detail. Councilmember Clark asked to add hookah lounges to the list. Mayor Weiers said there was a consensus. 4. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST: RECOMMENDATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE DISCOUNTED USER FEES FOR VETERANS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND LOW-INCOME PERSONS Presented By: Erik Strunk, Director, Public Facilities, Recreation and Special Events Presented By: Stephanie Miller, Program Manager Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Strunk said Council gave direction to staff to research the potential of offering user discounts. to disabled citizens, veterans and low-income persons. Staff presented recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommended the following discounts: City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 12 of 18 •Veterans-a 25% discount for all parks and recreation programs, services and rental fees would be offered to Glendale residents who were veterans. •Low-Income Persons- rather than providing a discount for all low/moderate income Glendale residents, a one-year pilot program that provided a 25% discount for low-income youth (17 years of age or younger)was recommended. The discount would include all department programs and services that were fee-based but did not include rentals • Persons with Disabilities: a discount for persons with disabilities was not recommended. Ms. Miller said staff was recommending the permanent 25% discount for all parks and recreation programs, services and rental fees to Glendale residents who were veterans. Veterans would be required to provide "proof of service" and it applied only to the veteran, not family members. The estimated annual revenue impact was $8,247. Ms. Miller said staff was also recommending the one-year pilot program to provide a 25% discount for low to moderate income residents, 17 years of age or younger. A discount card would be provided to be used for passes, youth sports, memberships and special interest classes. The estimated annual revenue impact was $4,069. Ms. Miller said staff recommended that the current fee structure be offered to persons with disabilities. There were over 130 disabilities recognized by Social Security for adults and over 110 for youth. Staff was not qualified to verify and was generally prohibited from asking about a person's disability. Mr. Strunk asked for direction from Council regarding moving forward with the recommendations. Mayor Weiers said although he strongly supported veterans' issues, he was concerned about the rental fee discount. What if the veteran wanted to rent the civic center. The way it was written was unclear. Mr. Strunk said it would be made clear that the discount applied only to parks and recreation services. Councilmember Clark suggested that the youth discount be prominently displayed and advertised inmultiple locations. Councilmember Malnar asked what those with disabilities would have available in the City. Mr. Strunk said the City complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all facilities were as accessible as possible. Disabilities were accommodated. There were organizations that worked with disabled persons to assist them with taking advantage of the recreation options available. The City had a 5-year agreement with Special Olympics Arizona to assist the City with its adaptive needs program. Councilmember Malnar wanted citizens to understand that there were discounts available to disabled persons through other organizations. Mayor Weiers said there was a consensus to proceed. 5. POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PARK LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Presented By: Erik Strunk, Director, Public Facilities, Recreation &Special Events Presented By: Tim Barnard, Assistant Director Ms. Bower read the item by title. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 13 of 18 Mr. Strunk said staff had previously presented a Council Workshop item on the possible acquisition of a new City park irrigation telemetry system, to be paid for with water savings over a fixed period. Council provided direction to staff to move forward and explore the concept. Mr. Strunk said staff was requesting Council direction on the following irrigation concepts with no additional expense to the General Fund: • Possible contract for installation of a web-based irrigation system to more effectively and efficiently manage the City's park irrigation systems for neighborhood parks and retention basins • Possible conversion of the contract for irrigation repair services to a new"in-house" irrigation crew Mr. Barnard said staff conducted a request for proposals (RFP)to pilot a new irrigation telemetry system. The vendor would provide all capital funds for purchase and installation of new infrastructure for 53 neighborhood parks and 20 retention basins. The vendor would also train, monitor, warranty and measure all activities related to the new infrastructure. Mr. Barnard said the new infrastructure would include: •Weather Trak"hydropoint" irrigation controllers •Flow sensors at each master-valve •Rain sensors and soil moisture content sensors Mr. Barnard said the City would own all infrastructure once installed as well as all of the data collected. The vendor would assume all of the risk. He said additional services included: •Cloud-based monitoring •Monthly water reports &"real time" data •Software updates at no additional charge • Inspections of turf and plant material appearance • Evaluation and adjustments to water use to meet industry standards and best agronomic practices Mr. Barnard said a baseline was established based on the five-year average cost paid for water and the vendor would be paid on the cost savings. The savings were estimated to be $2,000 in February, $40,000 in August and $11,000 in October. Mayor Weiers asked what if there were no savings. Mr. Barnard said his research had shown that all of the vendor's installed systems had realized savings. If there were no savings, the vendor would not receive payment. Mayor Weiers asked how staff would know the trees and plants were getting enough water. He didn't want the vendor to reduce watering to realize a cost savings. Trees needed water just as much in the winter as they did in the summer. Mr. Barnard said the vendor would adjust the water schedule to make sure trees and plants remained healthy. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if City staff would be monitoring the vendor. Mr. Strunk said the incentive to the vendor was, in order to get paid, they had to perform. Staff would receive reports from the vendor and would be able to access reports any time. If there were problems, staff would be working with the vendor. Mr. Barnard said the vendor would also be visually inspecting the parks to make sure the system City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 14 of 18 was correct. City staff would also be trained and would be inspecting the parks. Councilmember Tolmachoff said, over the five years, the vendor would be paid less and less because the City would be using less water and the savings would be less. Did the City take over after the fifth year? Mr. Barnard said that was correct. The incentive to the vendor was to perform well with the possibility that the City would expand the program. Councilmember Clark asked if there were sensors in the ground so that the system knew when to water. Mr. Barnard said the system included the flow meters and irrigation controllers but it also gathered satellite weather information for"real time" data to make adjustments. There would be rain sensors and soil moisture sensors as well. Councilmember Clark said the look of the park was subjective. Had a common standard been set so that the vendor knew what the expectation was for the level of service. Mr. Barnard said the neighborhood parks were chosen so that more of the City could be greened up. Visual inspections would be conducted with the vendor so that everyone was clear on the expectations. Councilmember Clark asked if the City's maintenance staff would be reporting back on the condition of the parks. Mr. Barnard said that was correct. Staff would be inspecting the parks. Mr. Phelps said Council should look at it from a technology standpoint. Staff was usually in a reactive position because of limited tools that didn't allow it to identify infrastructure that had failed. The proposed technology would allow staff to know when there was a break in the line and solve it quickly. The vendor would be investing close to a $1 million to allow the City to use the right amount of water. Councilmember Turner asked if the system had the capability to let the City know if an emitter wasn't emitting. Mr. Barnard said any anomaly in the standard flow would trigger an alert and shut off the system so that staff could respond. Councilmember Tumer said his concern was that trees and vegetation were being under-watered. If an emitter wasn't working and a tree was lost,who would be responsible. Mr. Strunk said it was ultimately the City's responsibility. Mr. Barnard said the flow meter would detect a very small difference in flow so a non-working emitter would be caught right away. Councilmember Turner asked if each tree would have a sensor to make sure it was getting enough water. Mr. Barnard said no, the sensors measured the average soil moisture. Staff would be conducting visual inspections. Councilmember Aldama said the system was only as good as the response. The system would City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 15 of 18 not tell staff which tree was not getting enough water or which emitter was not working. Staff response would make the difference. Mr. Bamard said when the alert was received, staff would go out and investigate to troubleshoot the problem. Councilmember Aldama asked if the current maintenance contract was based on the height of the grass. Mr. Barnard said that was a different contract but it was based on the height of grass and the frequency of mows. Mr. Barnard said the current irrigation maintenance contract was month-to-month. An RFP was conducted for a new maintenance contract and the city received three bids. The bids ranged from $249,674 to $319,921. Staff was proposing to bring the maintenance in-house at a cost of $245,905. There would be no budget impact because the costs would be covered with the existing budget. Mr. Bamard said the savings of approximately$70,000 would be used to keep parks green. There would be more responsive quality control and follow-up by staff and immediate response to irrigation system water repairs and issues. Mr. Strunk said both proposed items were reviewed and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. Staff was asking Council to approve a pilot program. If Council concurred, new contracts, recruitment and hiring would be completed by January 1, 2018. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the in-house option included hiring full-time employees. Mr. Strunk said the positions, 2 full-time and 2 part-time, would be contractual. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if additional equipment would also be necessary. Mr. Strunk said existing vehicles would be used during the pilot program. If it was made permanent, a budget request would be made to purchase two new vehicles. Mayor Weiers said there was Council consensus to proceed. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Phelps had no report. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. Bailey had no report. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Councilmember Aldama requested that staff research and report back to Council what the future was for the Triple J Trailer Park, located east of 67th Avenue along Myrtle Avenue. The property was owned by the City and had fallen into disrepair. Councilmember Aldama said the City was losing a significant amount of trees. He requested a status report via memo. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 16 of 18 Councilmember Clark said there was an app called."See, Click, Fix"that allowed citizens to report problems such as potholes. There were other similar applications on the market. She would like a staff report on the kinds of application available, the costs and functions and consideration of a one-year pilot project. Councilmember Clark said it was known that the City did not recover all of the revenues from rental properties in the City. She wanted to explore ways of increasing the reporting of rental properties to staff so that staff could reach out to property owners to get the rental properties listed. Councilmember Tolmachoff had received citizen complaints about cigarette butts in City parks. She wanted to explore posting parks to prohibit throwing cigarette butts on the ground. Mayor Weiers requested a brief overview regarding the changes made to Glendale Glitters. MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Councilmember Joyce Clark, seconded by Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff to hold an executive session. AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh • Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Passed EXECUTIVE SESSION Council entered into executive session at 5:07 p.m. A motion was made by Councilmember Joyce Clark, seconded by Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff to adjourn the executive session. AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bait Tumer Passed The executive session adjourned at 5:48 p.m. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Councilmember Ray Malnar, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Clark to adjourn the meeting. City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 17 of 18 AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bait Turner Passed Mayor Weiers adjourned the meeting at 5:49 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 17th day _ -_ of October, 2017. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 28th day of November, 2017. J r - `re K. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes-October 17,2017 Page 18 of 18