Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/28/2019 City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Iry Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:30 P.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 12:31 p.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. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES WHILE DRIVING Presented by: Rick St. John, Police Chief Ms. Bower read the item by title. Chief St. John said earlier in the year, Council had adopted Ordinance 019-01, which prohibited the use of a hand-held device while driving. The State had subsequently passed HB2318, which included language related to wireless communication devices. The City had the option of immediate adoption of the new language or waiting until January 2021 to adopt the language. If the language was adopted, a decision would be needed of whether or not to enforce the language or wait until January 2021 and issue only warnings until that point. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the language was changed, could there be enforcement, or would the City have to wait until 2021. Chief St. John said the language could be enforced. If the current ordinance remained in place, it would be enforced until 2021. Councilmember Tolmachoff favored adopting the HB2318 language with enforcement. Councilmember Malnar supported adopting the new language and with immediate enforcement. Vice Mayor Clark concurred. Mayor Weiers also wanted to adopt and enforce immediately. He suggested a public education campaign to let people know it would be enforced in Glendale. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to proceed. City Council Meeting Minutes- May 28, 2019 Page 2 of 9 2. PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PSPRS) FUNDING POLICY Presented by: Vicki Rios, Assistant City Manager Lisette Camacho, Interim Director, Budget and Finance Ms. Bower read the item by title. Ms. Rios provided information and background regarding the recent legislative changes to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). She presented a draft policy and requested input and consensus from Council on the amortization period. Vice Mayor Clark asked about the funded ratio target. Ms. Camacho explained the 100% target would mean the retirement plan assets covered 100% of the liabilities of the pension. The legislation required 100% funding. Vice Mayor Clark asked for clarification on which area of the graph needed to be fully covered. Ms. Rios explained a decision needed to be made regarding what time period the unfunded liabilities would be paid off. The options would be covered later in the presentation. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the unfunded liability amount would change over time. Ms. Rios said the number was based on an actuarial study of what was required to pay the benefits over time. The number changed because the mix of employees changed and, as it was paid off, the unfunded amount decreased. Mayor Weiers asked what happened if there were additional full-time employees (FTEs) over time and if that increased the amount. Ms. Rios said new hires were under a different system, such as a Tier 2 or Tier 3. Lateral hires, such as those already in the pension system, brought pension liabilities with them along with assets. Councilmember Malnar requested details on the different tiers and what new hires received versus old hires. Ms. Rios did not have the information but would provide it to the Council. Councilmember Malnar asked for clarification regarding qualified payroll. Ms. Rios said a qualified payroll was mainly salary, but also included specialty pay, such as K-9 or hazmat pay, which qualified for pension. The uniform allowance would not qualify for pension. Councilmember Malnar asked about police officers who were contracted out by another organization. Chief St. John said City-paid overtime was part of the calculation. Any pay that was part of a third-party contract for off-duty employment, would not be included. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked for confirmation that new hires under Tier 2 and Tier 3 would not create any additional unfunded liability. Ms. Rios said there was a liability associated with Tier 2 and Tier 3, but it was structured City Council Meeting Minutes- May 28, 2019 Page 3 of 9 differently so there was less liability than the original PSPRS. The formulas for benefits was slightly different. The actuarial formula was for all tiers, but liability decreased for the original employees. Mr. Phelps explained that for Tier 2 and Tier 3, the intent was for a fully-funded system so there was a different cost-sharing between the employer and the employee. If the assumptions were too aggressive, Tier 2 and Tier 3 could become unfunded, however, the exposure was less on the tiers because of the cost-sharing. More research could be done and brought back to Council on how the Tier 2 and Tier 3 funds were performing. Mayor Weiers asked if Council wanted to pay an additional $1 million, would the decision have to be stated now. Ms. Rios said it did not have to be stated. Council was only being asked to confirm pay-off over a 20-year period. If Council wanted to make an additional principal payment, it could be done at any time and would not impact the 20-year period. Councilmember Tolmachoff said, in the event of a downturn in the economy, could a change be made. Ms. Rios said once a 20-year amortization period was adopted, it could not be changed. Some cities were adopting a 25-year period to provide some flexibility. Mr. Phelps said a 25-year period could be chosen with a policy of a shorter time period if the budget allowed. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if additional payments would go to the principal. Ms. Rios replied additional payments would go to the asset base that earned interest. Councilmember Turner said with a 25-year amortization schedule and a 20-year payment plan, the City would pay approximately $3 million more each year that would go toward the asset base. If there was a downturn in the economy, Council could revert to a 25-year schedule, if needed. It would provide a cushion for future Councils. He would support it as long as Council was committed to the 20-year payment plan, even with a 25 or 30-year amortization schedule. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the decision could be memorialized, such as with a resolution. Mr. Bailey said the most effective way was with a resolution after public notice, regarding the amortization and the intent for annual payments. Mr. Phelps said, based on current projections, the amounts would be: 20-year plan - $590 million; 25-year plan - $655 million; and 30-year plan - $735 million. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to proceed with a 25-year amortization schedule. 3. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Presented by: David Williams, AICP, Planning Administrator Jeremy Underwood, Planner City Council Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2019 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Bower read the agenda item. Mr. Williams said the item was a request for an amendment to the Zoning Code for wireless communication facilities. There was also an item on the voting meeting agenda for a public hearing. The amendment addressed development standards for wireless communication facilities, such as heights and setbacks. Mr. Underwood said the item was a privately-initiated text amendment which addressed a Council Item of Special Interest regarding the aesthetics of wireless facilities throughout the City. Vice Mayor Clark asked if the amendment included residential zoning districts. Mr. Underwood said that was current. There were churches and schools zoned residential and the amendment would allow for the placement of facilities. Vice Mayor Clark asked if the 150-foot minimum setback for residential zoning required a conditional use permit (CUP) or was it an administrative process. Mr. Underwood said a setback greater than 150 feet, was an administrative process and less than 150 feet, required a CUP. With the CUP, the setback could be as little as 50 feet with the proposed amendment. Vice Mayor Clark did not support a setback of 50 feet in residential zoning. The language regarding disguised facilities being allowed in all districts but that there was a minimum setback in residential zoning, was confusing. The visible facilities were being allowed more height than the disguised facilities. She felt the visible facilities should be shorter not taller. She asked if a wireless carrier would be allowed to make a deal with a homeowner to place a facility in a backyard if there was no other available location. Mr. Underwood said that situation would be highly unlikely as the facilities were paired with a tower and would not be constructed on different parcels. He said the higher the facility, the fewer that were needed. Typically, the higher, visible poles were in areas such as railroad rights-of-way or sports fields. Vice Mayor Clark said the amendment would not limit the facilities to railroad crossings or ball fields. Mr. Underwood said the taller towers were only allowed in commercial or industrial districts with a minimum setback of 350 feet. The higher the tower, the better the broadcasting was so fewer towers would be needed. Vice Mayor Clark asked why the City could not require the taller towers to be disguised. Mr. Underwood said the City Code currently allowed the towers in industrial zones up to 80-feet and such towers had been allowed in the past. Vice Mayor Clark asked if future poles could be disguised despite what was done in the past. Mr. Williams said it was in Council's purview and authority to adopt lower height standards. The current standard was 80 feet and the request was for 85 feet. Vice Mayor Clark said commercial included shopping centers and there were a lot of subdivisions located around commercial shopping centers. City Council Meeting Minutes- May 28, 2019 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Williams said that was the reason for the additional setback from residential use or zone. Mr. Phelps said allowing higher towers in commercial areas would have less of an impact on residential areas. Mayor Weiers said an 85-foot tall saguaro cactus did not look normal, so a disguised tower could stand out more. Taller towers meant less towers and leasing costs for the carriers, which should result in less cost for wireless customers. Vice Mayor Clark said there were at least five or six carriers and she felt the amendment was giving the carriers carte blanche to install towers in locations that were not allowed before. She suggested a provision that if and when wireless went away, the carrier was responsible for removing the tower. Mr. Underwood said that there was a provision for removal. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the idea was to incentivize carriers to disguise. She asked if there was a way to restrict a tower in the backyard of a residence. Mr. Underwood said the industry was driven to fill holes, which was not typically in residential areas, but rather along arterials and shopping areas. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if a license would be required for a homeowner who engaged in business with a wireless company. Mr. Underwood was unsure if a license would be required. Mayor Weiers said carriers needed 24-hour access to a tower and did not think it would be feasible for a resident. Councilmember Turner asked if all CUPs required public notice and hearing. Mr. Underwood said that was correct. Public notification within 300-feet of the subject property was required with a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Malnar was concerned about a proliferation of poles being installed. Mr. Underwood said the taller pole height was an incentive to allow co-location. Councilmember Malnar asked if all wireless companies were in agreement with the amendment. Mr. Underwood said the applicant was Clear Blue Services, which was a site acquisition firm that worked with various wireless carriers. Mayor Weiers confirmed that all carriers would have the same opportunity under the proposal, if approved. Mr. Williams said that was correct. Vice Mayor Clark proposed including the stipulation that facilities could only be located at churches and schools in the R-16 zone. She asked if there was any requirement in the language that the carriers would remove smaller poles if the carriers were installing larger poles. Mr. Underwood said there was no removal requirement but it could be included at the discretion of City Council Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Council. Mayor Weiers believed a carrier would be inclined to remove unneeded smaller towers to save on leasing costs. Mr. Phelps said there was a higher demand on the bandwidth and more people were using more devices. It would be unlikely to see towers removed because of the demand. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Phelps and also agreed with Mayor Weiers. Wireless companies would remove unnecessary towers due to land-leasing costs. He clarified that vacant parcels zoned R-16 were included and it was broader than only churches and schools. Vice Mayor Clark asked why the taller poles were not required to be disguised. Mr. Underwood explained that the proposal came with the provision of a 300-foot setback and therefore, the intent was that the visible facilities would be farther away and also the setback to the street or driveway of 75-feet was very restrictive. Vice Mayor Clark was thinking of aesthetics not only for the residential neighborhoods, but for the entire City by having the taller poles disguised. She proposed that Council allow the facilities in R-16 but only for churches and schools and not on vacant R-16 properties, because those were potential subdivision sites in most cases. She asked Council to consider the requirement for taller poles to be disguised for the benefit of all in the City. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if there was a state or federal statute that prohibited requiring disguise. Mr. Underwood replied that for existing facilities, the requirement would be prohibited, but for new facilities, changes in the Code could be made requiring disguise. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what the tallest visible pole in the City was currently and the number of such tall poles. Mr. Underwood replied that there were very few restrictions in the railroad and ADOT rights-of-way and there were some over 100 feet. Mayor Weiers said there was not a consensus for mandatory disguise. Vice Mayor Clark proposed to incentivize wireless carriers to disguise poles no matter the height. Mayor Weiers asked what would be used as an incentive. Mr. Phelps said staff could come back to Council with available options. Councilmember Tolmachoff said speeding up the process and saving time was the incentive she was proposing. Mr. Williams stated that the other incentives would include setbacks and height. Councilmember Tolmachoff wanted to include the incentive of administrative approval rather than a conditional use permit and not setbacks. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus to incentivize wireless carriers with administrative approval to disguise poles no matter the height. City Council Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Vice Mayor Clark proposed specifically delineating that R-16 applied to churches and schools only and did not included vacant R16 properties. Mayor Weiers said there was not consensus. 4. *COTTON PROPERTIES ANNEXATION AN 199: PRE ANNEXATION ANALYSIS AND , . *. .. a - B.11110 - * . . a , A. a• BETHANY HOME ROAD AND THE LOOP 303 FREEWAY 5. *PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE HI, DIVISION 3 MEET AND CONFER PROCESS Prcscntcd by: Kevin Phclp,-, CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Brent Stoddard, Government Affairs Director, presented information on a new communication tool that would be used on the City's website. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Councilmember Hugh requested Council consider the appointment of a Council Compensation Committee in accordance with the City Charter. Councilmember Malnar, Vice Mayor Clark, Councilmember Tolmachoff and Mayor Weiers concurred with the request. MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Joyce Clark, seconded by Councilmember Ray Malnar to hold an executive session. AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Other: Councilmember Jamie Aldama (ABSENT) Passed City Council Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2019 Page 8 of 9 EXECUTIVE SESSION Council entered into executive session at 2:30 p.m. for discussion/consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager to receive an update, to consider its position, and to provide instruction/direction to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding Glendale's position in connection with contracts or agreements regarding unclassified employees pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 38-431.03 (A)(1)(3)(4). A motion was made by Vice Mayor Joyce Clark, seconded by Councilmember Ian Hugh to adjourn the executive session. AYE: Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Other: Councilmember Jamie Aldama (ABSENT) Passed Mayor Weiers adjourned the executive session at 3:17 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Weiers adjourned the meeting at 3:17 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 28th day of May, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 17th day of June, 2019. JFK. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes- May 28, 2019 Page 9 of 9