Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/14/2019 (3) City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 3. 'S kq ; Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 A.M. Workshop Meeting Council Chambers City Council Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Joyce Clark Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner CALL TO ORDER Mayor Weiers called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Absent: Councilmember Jamie Aldama Also Present: Kevin Phelps, City Manager Michael Bailey, City Attorney Chris Anaradian, Assistant City Manager Julie K. Bower, City Clerk WORKSHOP SESSION 1. LANDFILL MASTER PLAN Presented by: Michelle Woytenko, Field Operations Director Chris Young, Principal Engineer Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Young provided a presentation on the landfill which included: • Summary of Services • Revenue Sources • Landfill FY19-20 Budget Request • Landfill 10-Year Plan • North Cell Excavation Phase 1 • Placement of Phase 1 Liner • North Cell Excavation Phase 2 • North Cell Filling Phase 1 • Phase 2 Filling • 50-Year Plan for Use • 5-Year Fund Summary Ms. Woytenko presented scenarios on financing options for the future phases of the landfill that included cash funding and bond funding. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the scenarios included tipping fees and what the residents were charged. Ms. Woytenko said the scenarios included a revenue requirement to recover costs and was a blended rate. She presented information comparing cash funding and bond funding as well as the landfill life span and cost estimates per ton over time. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the increased cost rates of 2.5% was based on the average annual growth rate. City Council Meeting Minutes- May 14, 2019 Page 2 of 11 r - Ms. Woytenko said the number, provided by Budget and Finance, was an inflationary-type number. Councilmember Tolmachoff said if a decision was made to bond and the interest rate was approximately 4% and the average annual growth rate was 2.5%, how would the difference be covered. Ms. Woytenko explained the amortization methodology. She said with the pay-as-you-go cash funding, payer rates would increase and then decrease. Vice Mayor Clark said rates typically never decreased once an increase was made. She asked if any overage would be saved for the next excavation and liner. The bonding indicated a smooth rate curve, but she asked if it included a 2.5% or 4% rate increase for the homeowners. Vicki Rios, Budget and Finance Director, said there were two reasons for bond funding. Cash was not currently available and even if cash was available, the user rates would increase and decrease as described. Because cash was not available, rates would have to be increased to generate the necessary cash, therefore, bonding was the most sensible option. With bonding, residents paid for the landfill projects over time. Analysis was done on a 10-year plan two years ago and it had not changed under the scenario. The assumption of bond funding for the landfill expansion was built into the plan. Ms. Woytenko said the rate increase discussed was for solid waste and the landfill cost was a component of that but there was no landfill increase in the five-year projection. Ms. Rios relayed there was an increase in landfill tipping fees, which continued over time and was necessary in order to fund the landfill expansion. Vice Mayor Clark asked for clarification on the tipping fees for Glendale residents versus outside agencies. Ms. Woytenko said if the outside agency per ton rate was increased by 2.5% each year, on average the cost to Glendale residents would be $21.26. The current rate was $21.00. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the average Arizona tipping fee was over $40.00 and the City was charging outside agencies $28.00. She asked what the reasoning was for the rate. Ms. Woytenko said a market survey of Arizona landfills was recently conducted and there was a difference in what was paid and what was posted as the gate rate. Large contributors to landfills received a better deal than the posted gate rate. Mayor Weiers inquired about the City's plans once the landfill was full. Ms. Woytenko said a series of operational efficiencies, including increased compaction had been completed. Ten years ago, the life of the landfill was fifty years and ten years later it was still a fifty-year timeline. An updated five- and ten-year plan would continue to be presented to Council. The north cell was available for future expansion. Mr. Phelps said there would always be a market for solid waste. The question was to either shorten capacity by 32 years and transfer the costs to outside partners or extend the landfill's life to 2100, which would cost residents more money. It was a policy issue. He was not concerned about reducing capacity because there would be other competitive options. City Council Meeting Minutes- May 14, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Ms. Woytenko said staff was recommending the use of bond financing and to continue with the current landfill tonnage mix of 35% Glendale residents and 64% outside agencies, and seek possible additional outside tonnage. Vice Mayor Clark asked if the lifespan of the landfill changed if outside agency use was increased. Ms. Woytenko said once potential outside agencies were identified, staff could provide numbers for analysis. Ms. Woytenko asked if there was Council consensus to pursue bond funding. Mayor Weiers said there was Council consensus. Ms. Woytenko asked if Council would like to continue with the current landfill mix of 35% Glendale residents and 64% others to keep the rates as low as possible. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked how often tipping fees were reviewed. Ms. Woytenko said the City had five-year IGAs and a rate analysis was done annually. She suggested continuing with the five-year IGAs. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked why Luke Air Force Base was charged more than the gate rate. Ms. Woytenko said there were other services included in the rate, such as special pick-ups. Councilmember Turner asked how long the landfill had been operating at the current mix of resident/outside agencies. Ms. Woytenko said analysis was done on the previous ten years and the mix had not changed more than a percent or two over that time. Councilmember Turner said Council was not making a 100-year decision and it could be changed in the future. The City operated in a regional environment and must keep in mind the impacts to regional partners. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to retain the landfill ratio as recommended by staff. Ms. Woytenko asked if there was a consensus for staff to determine whether there were additional outside agencies interested in landfill use and provide a report to Council. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what outside agencies the City had an IGA with that collected glass for recycling. Mr. Young said the City did not process glass for recycling. Ms. Woytenko said the landfill did not accept any recyclable products from its IGA partners. Luke Air Force Base was the exception. Councilmember Turner confirmed that Luke Air Force Base did not accept glass for recycling. Ms. Woytenko said that was correct. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 4 of 11 Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if glass could be picked up separately to be reused as landfill cover. Mr. Young said there was a bin at the landfill for glass. Residents would need a separate curbside bin for glass and the process would have to be turned into a dual stream. Councilmember Tolmachoff suggested collection sites around the City. Ms. Woytenko clarified that glass could be used as a landfill cover, but the landfill was not permitted to do it. Staff was looking into options to collect glass without degrading the recycling equipment. However, the landfill was not currently prepared to accept glass. Mayor Weiers had received requests from residents for glass recycling. He asked staff to research the cost of accepting glass. There had to be places, such as glass companies with furnaces, that would accept and recycle glass. Ms. Woytenko said staff wanted to continue evaluation and review feasible options. Councilmember Turner asked what was done with the glass dropped off at the landfill. Mr. Young said the landfill had a contract with a company that picked up the glass and the landfill received anywhere from one cent to ten cents per ton, depending on the market. The glass ended up at a mill that processed glass. Councilmember Turner asked what a large roll-off of glass would net the City. Ms. Woytenko said a large roll-off held ten tons and would therefore net ten cents to ten dollars, but it could not be loaded economically. Other use options included mixing glass into the aggregate for asphalt. Staff would do further research and report back to Council. Councilmember Turner asked why residents were allowed to turn in all plastics, except for plastic bags, if not all plastic was marketable. Mr. Young replied the market was substantially different today than it was five or ten years ago. The cost of recycling and the break-even point needed to be considered. Many markets were disappearing. The landfill paid $60/ton to market plastic numbers 3 through 7. There was a market for number 5, but there was still a cost for recycling. Numbers 3 through 7 had been stockpiled at the landfill in the past until a market was found. The plastic quickly deteriorated when exposed to light and was not marketable. Councilmember Malnar asked what the cost was to place the $60/ton plastics in the landfill instead. Ms. Woytenko said if the material was put into the landfill, it would cost $20/ton. If the material was run through the Materials Recovering Facility (MRF) for sorting, it would cost approximately $150/ton plus $60/ton for it to be recycled, a total costs of$210/ton. Councilmember Turner said one of the issues with glass was the wear and tear on collection trucks and MRF equipment. He asked if glass was placed in the regular garbage, did it create wear and tear on garbage trucks. Mr. Young said it had the same effect on the collection vehicles, reducing lifespan by approximately three to five years. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Councilmember Turner agreed with Councilmember Tolmachoffs suggestion of putting glass out with bulk trash. Ms. Woytenko said the bulk trash trucks had a compacting blade too. She clarified Councilmember Tolmachoffs suggestion was to have a neighborhood bin for collections. Staff would analyze the suggestion. Vice Mayor Clark asked if an upgrade to MRF equipment would reduce the cost of recycling. Mr. Young said upgrading the MRF to current technology with a single stream would cost approximately $8 - $9 million. The issue was the return on investment (ROI). Because a market trend could not be identified, it was difficult to predict an ROI or break-even point. Ms. Woytenko said staff was recommending that the recycling program be continued, that glass not be accepted and to reduce the plastics that were accepted in the program. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the Blue Barrel Pilot Program would help with plastics 3 through 7. Ms. Woytenko said the City advertised, including the blue barrels, that it accepted plastics 1 through 7 in the program. Staff was recommending that the City accept only plastics number 1 and 2. There was a market for those plastics. Staff proposed to change the wording on the blue barrels to indicate that only plastics 1 and 2 were accepted. Councilmember Tolmachoff said most people did not know what the numbers meant. Ms. Woytenko said that was correct and it was the reason staff wanted to get away from using numbers and instead use descriptions -water bottles, milk jugs, laundry detergent containers - to keep it simple. The information would be provided on the City's website, mailers, educational material, etc. Councilmember Tolmachoff requested that information include the reasons for the change. Vice Mayor Clark felt residents would be confused by the change because most people did not know to look at the bottom of a product for the recycling number. Even with education and communication, there would still be contamination. Mr. Phelps said staff could come back with a communication strategy for the changes to the recycling program. Ms. Woytenko said it was not a local problem. Manufacturers had made changes that had hurt recyclers. Recycling in most nations was not a money-making proposition, but people felt it was the right thing to do. Mayor Weiers said there was Council consensus to continue the recycle program; to continue to not accept glass curbside and to reduce plastics accepted in the program. 2. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST— LED LIGHTS CONVERSION IN CITY FACILITIES Presented by: Michelle Woytenko, Director, Field Operations City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Ms. Bower read the item by title. Ms. Woytenko said Councilmember Turner had introduced a Council Item of Special Interest regarding a light emitting diode (LED) plan to be developed within City facilities to take advantage of energy efficiencies. Staff had provided a memo regarding an LED program that included deliverables. She asked for Council consensus to move forward. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to proceed. 3. **PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 3 MEET AND CONFER PROCESS Prc:,cntcd by: Kcvin Phclpo 4. REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III, SEC. 2-54 TO CREATE AN INDEPENDENT INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM AND AN AUDIT COMMITTEE. Presented by: Rob Sweeney, Interim Assistant City Manager Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Sweeney said Council had received a redline version of the draft ordinance. He provided a brief background on the item. The proposed creation of an independent internal audit program required a change to the City Code. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked who received the raw audit. Mr. Sweeney said an audit committee would review the initial audit reports. The findings, observations and recommendations would be married with management's response to create the final report. The final report was then presented to the committee. Mr. Phelps noted the Council would set the operating rules and procedures for the committee. He recommended that either the committee be empowered to say the audit was complete and to officially post the audit or once the committee felt the audit was complete and the departments had responded, the audit be reviewed and adopted by Council for official posting. Vice Mayor Clark said paragraph (a) indicated that after the audit was performed it went to the director of the affected department, the City Manager and Council. It was redundant and non-productive at that point to send it to the City Manager and Council. It should go to the committee for review of the raw audit and then to management for further comment. The phrase "without management interference" was the cardinal rule of the program and she felt including the City Manager and Council early in the process violated the intent. Mr. Sweeney said the goal had been to keep as much of the original wording of the ordinance as possible. Vice Mayor Clark wanted to see the City Manager and Council removed from paragraph (a). Mr. Phelps suggested the term "final audit" be used for what was sent to the City Manager and Council. Vice Mayor Clark agreed and asked that there be a distinction between the final audit and the initial audit. The initial audit went to the committee and the final audit went to the City Manager and Council. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Councilmember Tolmachoff said the third line of the paragraph should be changed to "...report final audit findings and recommendations." Vice Mayor Clark asked if a quorum of the committee consisted of voting members or non-voting members. Mr. Sweeney said it was a quorum of voting members. Vice Mayor Clark said it should be clarified in the ordinance. She also felt the draft audit should go first to the committee because the committee might have further comments before it went to the City Manager. The City Manager would then review and make recommendations to the initial draft. Mr. Phelps stated the requested change could be made. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the wording in paragraph (a) of 2-54 and section (c) of the audit duties should be consistent. Mr. Sweeney agreed. Councilmember Turner asked who decided when the draft audit went to the committee. Mr. Sweeney replied the draft audit was received from the outside auditor or audit manager. Councilmember Turner asked who determined when the audit was in its final form. Mr. Phelps said the engagement letter was signed by the committee and the committee made the decision if the body of work was accepted before it was passed onto management for comments. Councilmember Tolmachoff wondered if that process could be memorialized in the ordinance. Mr. Phelps recommended that once the committee was formed, it would develop and propose its own operating procedures. Flexibility should be kept in the ordinance in order to reduce the need for modification. Councilmember Malnar had received feedback that the proposed changes would remove the independent nature of the internal audit. Mr. Phelps said the proposed internal audit program would increase the level of accountability and transparency. Councilmember Malnar asked if the committee meetings were open to the public and could the public have input and provide comment on the audits. Mr. Phelps said it could but there might be some instances where a meeting would not be a public session, such as a technology or security audit. In most cases, the public would be welcome to sit in and listen, thereby increasing transparency. Councilmember Turner supported the establishment of an audit committee and the formalization of the audit plan process. An important issue was who was in charge of the audit program. He recommended forming the committee but leaving the auditor function as it was to see how the new process worked and to get feedback from the committee. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Councilmember Turner said the proposed committee was too small. It should have three Councilmembers and four citizens so that the interest of the Councilmembers did not outweigh the interest of the citizens. It would also alleviate potential quorum issues. Councilmember Turner said the ex-officio members were the City Manager and the Director of Finance and Budget, non-voting members. He suggested the auditor or the audit program manager should also be an ex-officio member of the committee. Councilmember Tolmachoff did not see a need to increase the size of the committee. The public was free to attend and speak at the meetings. Vice Mayor Clark asked for a recap on the suggested changes. Mr. Phelps reviewed the changes: • The committee would receive the draft audit prior to distribution to management and the department head •The quorum was based on voting members present and did not include the ex-officio members Councilmember Turner suggested that a quorum be a majority of voting members, provided that at least one public member was present. There was no consensus for Councilmember Turner's quorum change. Councilmember Turner asked for consensus for his request that the audit program manager be an ex-officio member of the committee. There was consensus for the request. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to proceed with the proposed Code amendment with the changes discussed. 5. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE STAFFING Presented by: Brent Stoddard, Public Affairs Director Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Phelps said there was a discussion at the April 30, 2019 workshop about adding one full-time employee (FTE) to the Council staffing mode. For budgeting purposes, the impact was calculated to be approximately $114,000. Because Councilmember Aldama was not present at the workshop, additional discussion was postponed until today. Councilmember Tolmachoff distributed a spreadsheet, created by Mr. Phelps, that divided the entire Council Office budget up by Council district. Mr. Phelps said the budget model allocated the same amount of funding to each district and each Councilmember managed the district budget in terms of how to allocate resources. In the model, each Council district had $190,000 in its budget and the Councilmember determined how much to use for development, travel, commination, staffing, etc. Vice Mayor Clark clarified that her district could hire a Council Assistant and would still have $38,000 in discretionary funds for communication and structural improvements. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Sweeney said that was correct. Mayor Weiers asked if there was consensus to move forward. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if consensus meant that there would be an equal distribution of resources by district. Mayor Weiers said that was correct. Mr. Stoddard said the change would require some clean-up of Council's guidelines. Staff would return with the proposed changes. Councilmember Hugh was not interested in adopting the change unless it was clear the funds could be spent as each Councilmember determined. Mr. Stoddard said the guidance provided by Council would supersede the current Council guidelines. Councilmember Tolmachoff would not be supportive of the plan unless each district was able to determine how its funds were to be allocated. Councilmember Turner said the current guidelines allowed only a certain portion of the discretionary budget to be used for district improvements and a certain portion for travel, education, and other expenses associated with the office. He was agreeable to opening up the unallocated balance as discretionary. Mr. Stoddard said a clean-up discussion on guidelines would be brought back to Council. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to proceed. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No report CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT No report COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST None MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Councilmember Bart Turner, seconded by Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff to hold an executive session. AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff City Council Meeting Minutes- May 14, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Councilmember Bart Turner Other: Councilmember Jamie Aldama (ABSENT) Passed EXECUTIVE SESSION Council entered into executive session at 12:32 p.m. for discussion and/or consultation, to consider its position, and to provide instruction/direction regarding the evaluation and performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 38-431.03 (A)(1)(4) and discussion of various boards, commissions and other bodies pursuant to .R.S. §§ 38-431.03 (A)(3)(4). ADJOURNMENT Mayor Weiers adjourned the meeting at 1:50 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 14th day of May, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 23rd day of May, 2019. 0 J A K. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes- May 14, 2019 Page 11 of 11