Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/23/2021City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85309 C &7 Glendale A R I Z O N A Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:30 P.M. Workshop Meeting Civic Center City Council Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aidama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Hugh called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Absent: Mayor Jerry Weiers Councilmember Bart Turner Also Present: Kevin Phelps, City Manager Michael Bailey, City Attorney Julie K. Bower, City Clerk Vicki Rios, Assistant City Manager Jack Friedline, Assistant City Manager Councilmember Turner arrived at 12:43 p.m. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Presented by: Jim Burke, Director, Public Facilities, Recreation & Special Events The item was continued to the next Council workshop. 2. COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST — LED Light Conversion Presented by: Michelle Woytenko, Director, Field Operations Ms. Bower read the item by title. Ms. Woytenko said the item was a follow up to Councilmember Tolmachoffs Council Item of Special Interest regarding LED lighting. She provided background information and an update on the following: • Development of Lighting Standards • Determination and evaluation of cost/benefits and cost savings for conversion of lighting to LED • Evaluation of Energy Savings Performance-based Contracts (ESPC) • Phased implementation of energy savings conversion projects Councilmember Clark said while manpower costs were saved, if a light cost four to five times more than a fluorescent, it should be factored into the real cost savings. Ms. Woytenko said it had been factored into the cost of replacement. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked for clarification on the savings difference between streetlights and in buildings. City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Ms. Woytenko said the lights in buildings were estimated for 2,300 hours and streetlights were 4,380 hours annually. The estimated payback for buildings would be eight years and streetlight would be four years. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if other outdoor lighting was included in the analysis. Ms. Woytenko said it was and the different options were included in the presentation. Councilmember Clark asked if the City was required to split the difference with the contractor if the savings was more than what the contractor guaranteed. Ms. Woytenko said any funds from over performance would belong to the City and could be put into savings. Councilmember Clark asked if the projects would be eligible for possible federal funding. Ms. Woytenko was aware there was a potential for federal funding and would work with Budget and Finance to determine the best funding mechanisms for the projects. Councilmember Tolmachoff felt the item was moving in a different direction from her initial LED lighting request. She asked for more information on the economics and efficiencies of including the other types of conversions. Mr. Phelps said the LED conversion was being addressed as well as the concept of using evaluation of energy savings performance (ESPC) based contracts as one method of project delivery. Each project would be analyzed and brought back to Council with recommendations. Councilmember Tolmachoff requested an explanation of the efficiencies and economics of ESPC contracts. Mr. Phelps said staff hoped to provide an explanation of the efficiencies of the concept during the presentation. If Council requested more information, follow-up detail would be provided. Councilmember Malnar was familiar with ESPC contracts and found the contracts to be very effective. He supported the LED conversion project and moving forward with ESPC-type contracts. Councilmember Turner requested more information on ESPCs and more clarity regarding the topics to be presented to Council in the future. Councilmember Aldama was concerned with the monitoring of the savings. The presentation indicated the savings would be monitored by an independent auditor. He was disappointed with Council Items of Special Interests being brought back to Council timely. He suggested staff work with Councilmember Tolmachoff to redraft the scope of work for the item. Councilmember Clark requested more information on how the ESPCs worked. She was not concerned with the expansion of the scope of work to include other means of cost savings besides LED Lights. Councilmember Tolmachoff understood the widening of the scope but was frustrated by the lack of communication regarding her Council Item of Special Interest. Mr. Phelps said the number of light fixtures in the City had been initially underestimated. Staff City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 3 of 9 wanted to demonstrate how savings were calculated while also providing information on other possible funding mechanisms such as ESPCs. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if an analysis of the LED conversion was included in the presentation. Ms. Woytenko said earlier slides addressed interior and exterior lighting at specific locations. If Council direction was to reduce the scope to LED only, staff could return with the information. Mr. Phelps said staff was not making a recommendation on any contract, only showing alternative ways to capture savings. Councilmember Clark wanted to approach the concept building -by -building and depending on the outcome, other City buildings could be scheduled. Councilmember Malnar asked if Combined Project 2 would be eligible for a fully funded contract. Ms. Woytenko said, based on preliminary assessment, the capital cost for replacement of Combined Project 2 would be $5.9 million and the next step would be to refine the numbers and ensure the guarantees were in the contract. Councilmember Malnar asked if $950,000 was the amount of the City's cash output. Ms. Woytenko said the City had the option of paying no upfront costs. The costs would be paid over 18 years by paying the $327,000 guaranteed savings or the $950,000 as programmed in the CIP. There was also the potential for federal funding of shovel -ready renewable energy projects. Councilmember Malnar was in favor of moving forward with LED and other related projects. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked for clarification on the contractors and proposal process. Ms. Woytenko explained staff selected firms based upon state contracts and entered into contracts with the companies. The best company for the project would be selected and pricing would be negotiated. The other option was to select an architect, conduct a full design, and go out to bid. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked which vendors had a contract with the City. Ms. Woytenko said the contracts were with McKinstry and Midstate Energy. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the Midstate Energy contract was set to expire in October 2021. She asked if the contract would be renewed or would McKinstry be the only contract. Ms. Woytenko believed both contracts expired in the fall. The City could extend both or one of the contracts. Councilmember Tolmachoff clarified if a company was given direction to do an assessment on a facility and it was decided to move forward, the company would get the contract. Ms. Woytenko said that was correct. The City had the option to go with any company before the investment grade audit was obtained. After the audit, the City would be committed because the company would have invested a significant amount of money to guarantee the City savings. City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Councilmember Tolmachoff asked who decided which contract was brought back to Council. Ms. Woytenko said an evaluation committee would bring forward a recommendation. The recommendation would be reviewed by Procurement, Engineering and the City Attorney's Office before being brought to Council. Councilmember Clark asked if both companies would look at the buildings holistically. Ms. Woytenko said that was correct. Mr. Phelps said if there was general Council consensus to consider the use of ESPCs, staff could move forward with the two pilot projects. If the projects worked well, the use of the ESPCs could be ramped up. If not, staff would find a different way to fund the conversions and energy efficiencies. Councilmember Turner was not ready to make a decision. Councilmember Clark agreed with Mr. Phelps' suggestion. Vice Mayor Hugh was ready to move forward with the next steps. Councilmember Tolmachoff was concerned but was willing to move forward if a side-by-side comparison based on performance would be done. Councilmember Aldama was comfortable moving forward. Mr. Friedline said one contractor would do the audit on Project 1 and the other contractor would do the audit on Project 2. Councilmember Clark said Project 1 and Project 2 encompassed a great deal more than what she envisioned. Mr. Phelps explained the consensus requested was to move forward with developing a performance-based contact. He said Council had the ability to reject one or both of the projects. He said McKinstry and Midstate had not received funds to date from the City. The contractors invested time on the front-end recognizing it might not lead to any type of business with the City. He disclosed that his son was employed by McKinstry but did not have any affiliation with the project, and any potential conflicts would be brought forward. Vice Mayor Hugh confirmed consensus to move forward. 3. PRESENTATION REGARDING AMENDING CITY CODE TO ADDRESS VEHICLE NOISE PENALTIES Presented by: Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. St. John said the item was a recommendation from the Code Committee. He was seeking Council consensus to amend Section 25-67, Subsection (e), making a first offense a civil offense and setting a mandatory fine amount. The section addressed radio noise and engine noise coming from vehicles and prohibited the noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and included a proposed first offense fine of $100.00. City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Councilmember Turner asked if the ordinance applied to vehicles driven on public streets or in spaces not publicly owned but open to the public, regardless of the time of day. Mr. St. John said the ordinance would apply to any vehicle on any public roadway or private or public properties. Councilmember Clark asked if there was a time constraint. Mr. St. John said unreasonable noise was between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., however an unreasonable noise disturbing the peace within a neighborhood could be enforced at any time of the day. Councilmember Malnar suggested increasing the fine to $500.00 for a second offense within twelve months and the second offense would be a misdemeanor. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Malnar's suggestion regarding penalties. Vice Mayor Hugh also agreed. Councilmember Aldama asked if the ordinance would apply to someone working in their garage if the sound system in the garage was loud. Mr. St. John said that was correct. Councilmember Aldama supported the $500.00 fine for the second offense. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the second offense would be within a specific time frame or indefinitely. Councilmember Malnar said it would be within twelve months. He suggested a third offense in twelve months to be considered a Class I misdemeanor. Councilmember Turner recommended consistency with similar loud noise offenses and fines. The concern from residents regarded vehicles on City streets and in public areas. He supported the recommendations of the Code Committee. Councilmember Malnar asked if the amendment only applied to vehicular noise. Mr. St. John said the offense applied to noise coming from the vehicle or the radio inside the vehicle. Councilmember Malnar said $100.00 for a first offense and $500.00 for a subsequent offense was reasonable. A stricter message needed to be sent to violators. Mr. St. John said radio noise was covered in other sections of the Noise Ordinance and was a Class I misdemeanor. He suggested separating the standards so that Subsection 1, regarding engine noise, was a civil offense, punishable by a $100.00 fine on a first offense, $500.00 fine on a second offense, and misdemeanor for a third or future offense in a twelve-month period. He suggested leaving the radio noise with the section on noise, which classified it as a Class I misdemeanor on a first offense when warnings were ignored. Councilmember Malnar supported Mr. St. John's suggestion. City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Vice Mayor Hugh confirmed consensus. 4. THE CUBES AT GLENDALE AN -224 ANNEXATION LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REEMS ROAD AND NORTHERN AVENUE Presented by: David Richert, Interim Planning Administrator Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Richert requested Council direction to move forward with the proposed annexation process and provided the following information: • 75.6 acres, south of Northern Avenue, east of Reems Road, and north of Luke Air Force Base • 1.2 million square feet of industrial and manufacturing Councilmember Malnar asked if the location was eligible for any type of residential housing. Mr. Richert said it was not and did not suggest residential housing at that location. Councilmember Malnar asked if it would be zoned for commercial use. Mr. Richert said it would be for industrial use that tied in with the annexed area to the south. Councilmember Clark supported the project. Vice Mayor Hugh confirmed consensus to move forward. 5. FALCON PARK AN -222 ANNEXATION NORTH OF THE 152ND AVENUE & CAMELBACK ROAD INTERSECTION Presented by: David Richert, Interim Planning Administrator Ms. Bower read the item by title. Mr. Richert requested Council direction to move forward with the proposed annexation process and provided the following information: • 78 acres, north of Camelback Road, west of 152nd Avenue, and south of Luke Air Force Base • 595,080 square feet of industrial and manufacturing Councilmember Tolmachoff asked for clarification on the difference in the zoning classifications from the previous annexation request. Mr. Richert said the Planned Area Development (PAD) was more restrictive but allowed some flexibility that the property owner would like to have. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if R-43 was strictly residential. Mr. Richert said that was correct. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the PAD would go through the approval process or if there was an agreement to be annexed in as a PAD. City Council Meeting Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Mr. Richert said it would go through the normal zoning process. Councilmember Tolmachoff said there should be an opportunity for the public to be notified of the change. Councilmember Clark supported the project. It was in line with Council goals. Councilmember Tolmachoff said if the annexation policy needed to be amended regarding zoning and consistency, she was in favor of further discussion. Vice Mayor Hugh confirmed consensus to proceed. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Phelps said Amazon had announced it was building a 270,000 square foot facility in Glendale in the west part of the growth area Mr. Phelps said the Glen91 groundbreaking, located at Glendale Avenue and 91 st Avenue, would be held on March 30, 2021. HCW was developing a 296 -unit, four-story residential complex. Mr. Phelps said a second round of COVID vaccine distribution would be held for City of Glendale employees on April 1st. Two hundred doses of Johnson and Johnson single-dose vaccine would be administered. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT No report COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Councilmember Tolmachoff requested a discussion on a general maintenance policy for facilities located in neighborhoods. Councilmember Turner asked Council to consider putting the remaining parcel of land at the former Glen Lakes Golf Course up for sale and engaging the neighborhood regarding desired uses for the parcel. He also requested a presentation regarding the re -opening of facilities and services throughout the City. MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Councilmember Jamie Aldama, seconded by Councilmember Ray Malnar to hold an executive session. AYE: Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Other: Mayor Jerry Weiers (ABSENT) City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Passed EXECUTIVE SESSION Council met in executive session at 2:47 p.m. for discussion and/or consultation, to consider its position, and to provide instruction/direction regarding the appointment of a Judge in the Glendale Municipal Court and discussion/consultation for legal advice with the City Attorney pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1)(3). A motion was made by Councilmember Joyce Clark, seconded by Councilmember Bart Turner to adjourn the executive session AYE: Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner Other: Mayor Jerry Weiers (ABSENT) Passed Vice Mayor Hugh adjourned the executive session at 3:28 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Hugh adjourned the meeting at 3:28 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 23rd day of March, 2021. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 5th day of April, 2021. K. Bower, MMC, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021 Page 9 of 9