HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/27/1989MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 AT 3:05 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Falbo, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, and Tolby. MembersAbsent: None. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, CityAttorneyandLindaGinn, Deputy City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION
City Manager Vanacour summarized the first three items
on the workshop agenda and informed the Council he was
presenting them for their information and review before they
were heard on the regular City Council agenda that evening.
1. ORDINANCE CHANGING SEWER USER CHARGE FORMULA
Mr. Vanacour stated that the City Council has reviewed,
on several occasions, recommendations regarding the
reallocation of sewer user charges to bring the city into
compliance with state and federal regulations. The proposed
ordinance modifies the existing City Code provisions
regarding these rates, and meets the requirements of both the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
He said it is also necessary to generate a total revenue
of $8.4 million to meet the needs of the sewer fund in the
next fiscal year. That revenue includes the $6.8 million
from the existing rate, the revenue needed to compensate for
the $1.2 million Sun City revenue no longer received, and a
5% increase. Because of the EPA mandate, that all rates be
relative to the volume and strength components, all
restructuring must comply with those requirements. Staff has
prepared a restructured rate that meets the revenue needs and
the EPA requirements which will come before the Council as
resolutions to adjust the rates. While the EPA restructuring
does not generate additional revenue for the City, it
redistributes monthly sewer charges based upon water used by
residences or commercial establishments.
A sewer charge appeal process provides relief to users
with substantial irrigation or non -sewer related water usage.
The process has been developed to assist the citizens and
will be widely publicized to insure fair and equitable
treatment.
x:11
2. RESOLUTION AMENDING SEWER USER CHARGESTheproposedresolutionmodifiesthe existing City Codeprovisionsregardingtheserates, and meets the requirementsofboththeArizonaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityandtheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency. The rateincreaseprovidesforthelossofrevenuesfromSunCityplusafivepercentrateincrease. The five percent rate increaseisnecessaryfortheoperationandmaintenanceofthe91stAvenueTreatmentPlant, operation and maintenance of liftstations, other scheduled capital improvements andmaintenanceoftheCity's coverage for it's bond rating. While the EPA restructuring does not generate additionalrevenuefortheCity, it redistributes monthly sewer chargesbaseduponwaterusedbyresidencesorcommercialestablishments.
An appeal process provides relief to users with
substantial irrigation or non -sewer related water usage. The
process has been developed to assist the citizens and will be
widely publicized to insure fair and equitable treatment.
3. RESOLUTION ADJUSTMENT OF WATER RATES
In May 1989 the Utilities Committee gave conceptual
approval to a water rate increase of seven percent, effective
October 1, 1989. This item was also discussed by the City
council and included in the 1989-90 budget. The rates were
to be structured to increase all customer categories in the
same amount to ensure equitable treatment of all system
users. The increase is necessary to meet operating
requirements and to meet debt service obligations for FY
89/90 issues. The increase will produce approximately
500,000 in revenues in FY 89/90 and $800,000 in subsequent
years.
The increase is necessary to meet the City's obligations
for Cliff Dam water replacement, it's share of the Indian
water settlements, necessary telemetry upgrades, water
transmission upgrades, and to maintain necessary coverage for
it's bond rating.
The typical single-family residential customer uses an
average of 13,000 gallons per month on a year-round basis.
The proposed rates are based on use in the lowest three
winter months.
Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, Public Works,
reiterated that all of the sewer rates are reflected by
average water bills and the average is figured on the use in
the months of January, February and March for each customer.
This average will have to be refigured annually so those
users conserving water during those months could realizelowersewerrates. Vice Mayor Tolby asked staff how people who have waterservicebutarenotconnectedtothesewerwouldbecharged. Mr. Reedy responded that if they are in an area that can notbeconnectedtothesewertheywouldbechargednothing. Iftheyareinazonewhichcanbeconnectedtothesewerbutarenotcurrentlyconnected, they would be charged $7.77. Councilman Huffman asked staff what kind of approach theCitywouldtakeoncontactingthelargeusers. Staff repliedtheywouldtakeanactiveapproachbycontactingthempersonallyandbyletter. Staff also responded that the CitywoulduseanappealprocessthatisspecificallyspelledoutbyEPA. Councilman Bellah asked staff how this would affect
schools. Staff said it would impact them positively since
they would not be receiving the usual high bills in June,
July and August.
These items are for information only.
4. 1989-90 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES AGREEMENT
City Manager Vanacour stated that staff and the Glendale
Chamber of Commerce have negotiated a comprehensive,
performance-based Economic Development Services Agreement for
1989-90. The agreement calls for specific services to be
provided to the City for economic development, with payment
for these services specified at $48,000, down from the
1988-89 total of $70,000. The Chamber will utilize $30,000
in private donations for a total of $78,000 for the 1989-90
Chamber Economic Development Budget.
Mr. Phil Gardner further stated the agreement will also
require more frequent reporting, separation of economic
development activity from regular chamber business, program
staffing, and minimum performance indicators. These
indicators include the following:
Promotional contacts with real estate/development
industry - ten contacts per month.
Maricopa County business recruitment - ten contacts per
month.
Glendale retention/expansion - ten contacts per month.
Mr. Gardner stated in previous years these agreements
have been specific as to task, but without direct relation to
performance indicators or reporting. This year's agreement
50-
is a significant departure from the past. Not only areperformanceindicatorsrequiredinthreeseparateareas, butalsoreportingandcoordinationmeetingsarebuiltintothespecifications. The agreement also requires prompt referralsofbusinesslocationinquiries, records maintenance, anannualfinancialreport, separate economic developmentstaffing, separation of the economic devleopment functionfromotherchamberbusinessandpaymentbytheCitybasedonspecificperformancereviewedeachquarter. Staff has prepared a cost option for the City to providethesameservicesin-house. Total estimated cost for theCitytoperformtheseserviceswouldbe $78,175. Staff recommends that the City continue its economicdevelopmentrelationshipwiththeChamberofCommerce. In sodoing, a continuity is maintained in the City's economicdevelopmenteffortandit's relationship to the private
sector business community in Glendale.
Steve Jonland, Executive Vice President of the Chamber,
introduced Ms. Debbie Wilden, manager of business development
for the Chamber of Commerce, and stated she would be
responsible for the economic development activities for the
Chamber and would serve as liaison for them to the City. Mr.
Jonland stated that the Chamber concurred with the proposed
agreement.
Councilman Bellah registered concern with the goals of
the retention/expansion program. He feels they are not
ambitious enough. Staff replied that this was the first year
for the plan and the goals could be revised as it progresses.
This item will be placed on a future Council agenda for
formal consideration.
5. GLENDALE BICYCLE PLAN
Tim Ernster summarized the plan by saying it was
developed with input from the public through a survey of 300
citizens; and public meetings with the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the City Urban Transportation Team and a city staff task
force. The task force was made up of Larry Stephenson, Chief
Strategic Planner; Scott Loper, Police/Accident
Investigations; Jim Baughman, Planner; Hugo Malanga and
Richard Janke, Traffic Engineering; and Lee Stanley, Leisure
Services. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
recommends approval of the plan and report.
Major features of the plan, other than construction or
maintenance, suggest establishment of a citizens' bicycle
advisory committee, the teaching of bicycle safety to adults
and children, and cooperation with the Police Department in
51-
the enforcement of bicycle laws and motorist behaviorrelatingtobicyclists. The estimated total cost to implement the plan is10,071,000, and will be phased in over a number of years. The major costs will be for engineering and improvements suchasright-of-way, paved curb lanes, signing and striping ofcollectorstreets, bike paths, bridges over canals, andfreewaycrossings. Summary of Improvement Costs: Street improvements $ 500,000Collectorbikelanes/routes 356,000Bridgesovercanals (4) 825,000
Bike paths 2,250,000
Freeway bridge crossings (20) 6,140,000
TOTAL $10,071,000
It is anticipated that the funding for these
improvements will come from a variety of sources. For
example: Streets budget/bonding, Arizona Department of
Transportation, state lottery or gas tax funds, park bonds,
etc. Also, self -funding mechanisms such as mandatory
registration of bicycles, fund raising events and traffic
fine surcharge, can be used to assist with annual operation
costs.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommends
approval of the plan and report. The Commission also
recommended that a bicycle coordinator be hired in FY 89/90,
but, if funding was not available for this position, that a
citizen bicycle advisory committee be established. Staff
suggests that, because of current budget restrictions, the
citizens' committee be formed and allowed to make
recommendations to city staff.
Funds in the amount of $50,000 have been proposed in the
FY 89/90 Parks CIP to implement the following suggested first
phase improvements:
1. Under the direction of the Traffic Engineering Division
establish a citizen Bicycle Advisory Committee.
2. Provide a continuous system of signed bike routes using
collector streets.
3. Develop an education program that will increase the
level of safety and enjoyment associated with bicycle
52-
use in Glendale by working with school officials, adultcyclists, motorists, and the Police Department. 4. Provide a program of continual inspection andmaintenanceoftheright -most portion of roadways wherebicyclistsride. A dedication of staff time will be necessary if theaboveitemsaretobeimplemented. Vice Mayor Tolby registered concern about the use thebikepathswouldget. He stated he was reluctant to go totheconsiderableexpenseofstripingthepathsandputtingupthesignsforauseasyetunknown. The consulting staffpresentrespondedthatbyimplementingtheplaninphasesthecitycouldgearthecoststotheusethepathreceives. Discussion ensued and the general consensus was that
Council would like the Parks and Recreation Commission to
further define some of the aspects of the plan and bring back
for further discussion.
This item will be placed on a future workshop agenda for
further discussion.
COUNCIL CON14ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
FA IVirel I i
There being no further items, the meeting adjourned at
5:25 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk
53-