The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - Meeting Date: 3/22/2022 City of Glendale City Council Workshop Agenda Amended on 3/16/22* Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Jamie Aldama Councilmember Joyce Clark Councilmember Ian Hugh Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:30 PM Council Chambers Workshop One or more members of the City Council may be unable to attend the Council Meeting in person and may participate telephonically, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431(4). CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL WORKSHOP SESSION 1.TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE Presented by: Don Bessler, Director of Engineering Dan Cleavenger, Interim Director of Transportation TischlerBise, Consultant Attachments PowerPoint Presentation (Added on 3/16/22) 2.COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST - TRANSIT ASSET ADVERTISING Presented by: Kevin Link, Transit Administrator Attachments PowerPoint Presentation 3.PRESENTATION ON THE CITY'S GRANTS POLICY Presented by: Lisette Camacho, Director, Budget and Finance Kristen Krey, Grants Program Manager, Budget and Finance Attachments PowerPoint Presentation FAP #6 4.COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST – SHORT-TERM RENTALS Presented by: Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Attachments PowerPoint Presentation 5.REQUEST TO AMEND GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 REGARDING CODES FOR FEEDING PIGEONS AND HOLIDAY DECORATIONS Presented by: Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Attachments PowerPoint Presentation CITY MANAGER’S REPORT This report allows the City Manager to update the City Council. The City Council may only acknowledge the contents to this report and is prohibited by state law from discussing or acting on any of the items presented by the City Manager since they are not itemized on the Council Workshop Agenda. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT This report allows the City Attorney to update the City Council. The City Council may only acknowledge the contents to this report and is prohibited by state law from discussing or acting on any of the items presented by the City Attorney since they are not itemized on the Council Workshop Agenda. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Councilmembers may indicate topic(s) they would like to have discussed by the Council at a future Workshop and the reason for their interest. The Council does not discuss the new topics at the Workshop where they are introduced. MOTION AND CALL TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION 6.LEGAL MATTERS A.The City Council will meet with the City Attorney for legal advice, discussion and consultation regarding the City’s position in pending or contemplated litigation, including settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)) B.Council will meet to discuss and consider records exempt by law from public inspection and are specifically required to be maintained as confidential by state or federal law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(4)) 7.LEGAL ADVICE/CONTRACTS A.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 the Glendale Chamber of Commerce (A.R.S. §§ 38-431.03 (A)(3)(4)) B.*Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager to receive an update, consider its position and provide instruction and direction to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding Glendale’s position in connection with agreements associated with the Arena (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)(7)) ADJOURNMENT Upon a public majority vote of a quorum of the City Council, the Council may hold an executive session, which will not be open to the public, regarding any item listed on the agenda but only for the following purposes: (i) discussion or consideration of personnel matters (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(1)); (ii) discussion or consideration of records exempt by law from public inspection (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(2)); (iii) discussion or consultation for legal advice with the city’s attorneys (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3)); (iv) discussion or consultation with the city’s attorneys regarding the city’s position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or contemplated litigation, or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(4)); (v) discussion or consultation with designated representatives of the city in order to consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations with employee organizations (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(5)); or (vi) discussing or consulting with designated representatives of the city in order to consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations for the purchase, sale or lease of real property (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(7)); (vii) Discussions or consultations with designated representatives of the public body in order to discuss security plans, procedures, assessments, measures or systems relating to, or having an impact on, the security or safety of buildings, facilities, operations, critical infrastructure information and information technology maintained by the public body. Records, documentation, notes, or other materials made by, or provided to, the representatives pursuant to this paragraph are confidential and exempt from public disclosure under this chapter and title 39, chapter 1 (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(9)). Confidentiality Arizona statute precludes any person receiving executive session information from disclosing that information except as allowed by law. A.R.S. § 38-431.03(F). Each violation of this statute is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees. This penalty is assessed against the person who violates this statute or who knowingly aids, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in violating this article. The city is precluded from expending any public monies to employ or retain legal counsel to provide legal services or representation to the public body or any of its officers in any legal action commenced for violation of the statute unless the City Council takes a legal action at a properly noticed open meeting to approve of such expenditure prior to incurring any such obligation or indebtedness. A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A)(B). SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS For special accommodations please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 623-930-2252 extension 1 at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. POSTING VERIFICATION This agenda was posted on 3/11/22 at 2:00 p.m. by CV. *This amended agenda was posted on 3/16/22 at 2:00 p.m. by CV. CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE:03/22/2022 SUBMITTED FOR:Don Bessler, Director of Engineering DEPARTMENT:Engineering Subject TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE Presented by: Don Bessler, Director of Engineering Dan Cleavenger, Interim Director of Transportation TischlerBise, Consultant Purpose and Recommended Action The purpose of this presentation is to provide the City Council with an update on the progress of the Glendale Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and Development Impact Fee (DIF) update. Background TischlerBise, Inc. is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal and economic impact analysis, impact fees, market feasibility, infrastructure financing studies and related revenue strategies. The firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over 43 years and has prepared over 700 fiscal and economic impact evaluations and over 900 impact fee and infrastructure financing studies. TischlerBise, Inc. has experience preparing development fees and infrastructure improvement plans in the State of Arizona, particularly taking into consideration Arizona’s development fee legislation, SB 1525. They have completed or are currently engaged with multiple Arizona communities to develop infrastructure improvement plans and development impact fee related updates and analyses. TischlerBise completed the City of Glendale Development Impact Fee Report in 2018, and it was adopted by the City Council in 2019. In that report, the Transportation Development Impact Fee had an *asterisk for development occurring west of 115th Avenue. At that time, the development patterns and land-use assumptions were not fully understood, and therefore it made sense to negotiate those development impact fees on a case by case basis. Subsequently, in an effort to create consistency, staff proposed a Streets In-Lieu Fee, which Council approved on April 13, 2021. Now that there are well understood development patterns and land-uses in this area, updating the Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Plan and associated Transportation Development Impact Fee as a logical next step to ensure that growth pays its proportional fair share. Analysis Staff will provide a PowerPoint presentation to share the analysis based on demand factors and levels of service for necessary Transportation infrastructure; identify capital needs and costs; prepare a draft IIP; conduct funding and cashflow analysis and estimate annual operating costs; and prepare final land use assumptions, IIP, and the development fee report. Previous Related Council Action On September 14, 2021, Council approved an agreement with TischlerBise, Inc., for consulting On September 14, 2021, Council approved an agreement with TischlerBise, Inc., for consulting services to update the Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and Development Impact Fee (DIF) schedules. On April 13, 2021, Council adopted Resolution R21-27 establishing the Streets In-Lieu Fee and a standard form of agreement for administering the fee. On September 24, 2019, Council adopted Ordinance O19-82 updating the DIF identified in the IIP and development fee report. On August 13, 2019, Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed DIF. On June 25, 2019, Council adopted the Land Use Assumptions (LUA) and IIP related to the future adoption of development impact fees by Ordinance O19-63. On May 14, 2019, Council approved bringing the IIP and LUA forward for adoption at the June 26, 2019 Regular Meeting. On February 26, 2019, Council reviewed the Draft DIF Report and the associated LUA and IIP. On February 13, 2018, Council approved an agreement with TischlerBise to develop Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Schedules. On May 13, 2014, Council adopted Resolution No. 4798 repealing the current schedule of Community Development Impact Fees; adopting a new schedule of Community Development Impact Fees; and establishing an effective date. On May 13, 2014, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2891, Amending the Glendale City Code, Chapter 28, Article VI, Development Impact Fees. On March 4, 2014, Council adopted Resolution No. 4772 approving the Infrastructure Improvement Plan. Community Benefit/Public Involvement Development fees allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development and ensure that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which new growth will benefit. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation (Added on 3/16/22) Glendale, Arizona March 22, 2022 City Council Work Session: Draft Land Use Assumptions and Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Plan 2 Overview •Development Fee Basics •Land Use Assumptions •East Glendale •West Glendale •Infrastructure Improvements Plan •East Glendale •West Glendale •Fee Comparison •Adoption Timeline DRAFT 3 Development Fee Ground Rules •Not a revenue raising mechanism, but a way to meet growth-related infrastructure needs •It’s a land use regulation •Provide infrastructure as growth occurs •New development’s proportionate share of capital cost for system improvements •Demographic analysis and development projections •Infrastructure needs and cost analysis •Fee payers must receive a benefit •Geographic service areas •Accounting and expenditure controls DRAFT 4 AZ Legislation: Development Fees •Three Integrated Products: •Land Use Assumptions:10+ years •Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP): limited to 10 years •Development Fees: part of broader revenue strategy •Level of service (LOS) •May not exceed what is provided to existing development •Higher LOS must be paired with non-development fee funding source to cover existing development’s share •Limitations on necessary public services •Parks: 30 acres unless direct benefit to development •Libraries: 10,000 square feet •Public Safety: No regional training facilities DRAFT 5 Overview of Adoption Process Round One • Land Use Assumptions • Infrastructure Improvement Plans Round Two •Development Fees • Modify Based on Round One Input/Decisions •Revenue Projections • Required Offsets DRAFT 6 Eligible Costs TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com •Facilities / improvements required to serve new development -Yes •Maintenance and repairs –No •Excess capacity in existing facilities –Yes •Improvements required to correct existing deficiencies –No, Unless there is a funding plan DRAFT 7 Fee Methodologies TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com •Cost Recovery Approach (Past) •Future development is “buying in” to the cost the community has already incurred to provide growth-related capacity •Common in communities approaching buildout •Incremental Expansion Approach (Present) •Formula-based approach based on existing levels of service •Fee is based on the current cost to replicate existing levels of service (i.e., replacement cost) •Plan-Based Approach (Future) •Usually reflects an adopted CIP or master plan •Growth-related costs are more refined DRAFT 8 Evaluate Need for Credits •Site specific •Developer constructs a capital facility included in fee calculations •Debt service •Avoid double payment due to existing or future bonds •Dedicated revenues •Property tax, local option sales tax, gas tax 8 DRAFT 9 East Glendale 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population Single Family 180,946 181,749 182,552 183,355 183,751 184,146 184,542 184,937 185,333 185,502 185,671 4,724 Multi-Family 82,625 83,107 83,590 84,073 84,729 85,384 86,039 86,694 87,349 87,958 88,566 5,942 Resident Population 263,571 264,857 266,143 267,429 268,480 269,530 270,581 271,632 272,682 273,460 274,237 10,666 Housing Units Single Family 56,796 57,051 57,306 57,561 57,686 57,812 57,937 58,063 58,189 58,242 58,296 1,500 Multi-Family 39,645 39,879 40,114 40,348 40,666 40,984 41,303 41,621 41,939 42,234 42,529 2,884 Total 96,441 96,930 97,420 97,909 98,353 98,796 99,240 99,684 100,127 100,476 100,825 4,384 Employment Industrial 8,051 8,250 8,448 8,646 8,855 9,064 9,272 9,481 9,690 9,826 9,962 1,910 Commercial 26,222 26,491 26,760 27,029 27,265 27,501 27,737 27,973 28,209 28,370 28,532 2,310 Office & Other Services 32,188 33,057 33,927 34,796 35,775 36,754 37,733 38,711 39,690 40,739 41,788 9,601 Institutional 10,860 10,987 11,113 11,239 11,319 11,398 11,478 11,558 11,637 11,763 11,889 1,029 Total 77,321 78,784 80,247 81,710 83,213 84,717 86,220 87,723 89,226 90,699 92,171 14,850 Nonres. Floor Area (x1,000) Industrial 6,956 7,128 7,299 7,470 7,651 7,831 8,011 8,192 8,372 8,489 8,607 1,650 Commercial 12,351 12,477 12,604 12,731 12,842 12,953 13,064 13,175 13,286 13,363 13,439 1,088 Office & Other Services 9,882 10,149 10,416 10,682 10,983 11,283 11,584 11,884 12,185 12,507 12,829 2,947 Institutional 3,584 3,626 3,667 3,709 3,735 3,761 3,788 3,814 3,840 3,882 3,923 339 Total 32,772 33,379 33,986 34,592 35,210 35,829 36,447 37,065 37,684 38,241 38,798 6,025 East Glendale 10-Year Increase Residential: MAG housing unit growth rates for 2020 -2035. Housing units X ACS occupancy factors = population Nonresidential: MAG employment growth rates for 2020 -2035. Employment X ITE employment density factors = floor area DRAFT 10 West Glendale 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population Single Family 1,952 2,395 2,837 3,280 3,722 4,165 4,607 5,050 5,493 5,935 6,378 4,426 Multi-Family 1,555 1,654 1,753 1,852 1,852 1,852 1,852 1,852 1,852 1,852 1,852 297 Resident Population 3,507 4,048 4,590 5,131 5,574 6,017 6,459 6,902 7,344 7,787 8,229 4,722 Housing Units Single Family 732 873 1,013 1,154 1,294 1,435 1,575 1,716 1,856 1,997 2,137 1,405 Multi-Family 1,796 1,844 1,892 1,940 1,940 1,940 1,940 1,940 1,940 1,940 1,940 144 Total 2,528 2,717 2,905 3,094 3,234 3,375 3,515 3,656 3,796 3,937 4,077 1,549 Employment Industrial 5,327 7,874 10,420 12,966 15,513 18,059 19,216 20,374 21,531 22,688 23,846 18,519 Commercial 268 310 353 395 438 480 502 523 544 565 586 318 Office & Other Services 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 0 Institutional 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 4,930 0 Total 10,761 13,350 15,939 18,528 21,116 23,705 24,884 26,062 27,241 28,420 29,598 18,837 Nonres. Floor Area (x1,000) Industrial 14,315 16,515 18,715 20,915 23,115 25,315 26,315 27,315 28,315 29,315 30,315 16,000 Commercial 126 146 166 186 206 226 236 246 256 266 276 150 Office & Other Services 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 0 Institutional 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 1,627 0 Total 16,141 18,361 20,581 22,801 25,021 27,241 28,251 29,261 30,271 31,281 32,291 16,150 West Glendale 10-Year Increase Residential: Development Services housing unit projections. Housing units X ACS occupancy factors = population Nonresidential: Economic Development floor area projections. Floor area ÷ ITE employment density factors = employment Base year includes Luke Air Force Base DRAFT 11 East Glendale IIP •Service Area: East Glendale •Components: •Street Improvements -Incremental •10-Year Demand •Street Improvements: 11.6 lane miles, $30.3 million DRAFT 12 East Glendale Street Improvements Cost Factors Project Location Description Lane Miles Growth Cost 115th Avenue Glendale Ave - Bethany Home Rd New road 2.00 $4,762,851 Bethany Home Road 115th Ave - Glen Harbor Blvd New road 0.66 $1,572,024 New River Road Maryland Ave - Glen Harbor Blvd New road 3.20 $7,619,691 Glendale Avenue 115th Ave - 99th Ave Add EB and WB lane 4.00 $10,235,016 Ball Park Boulevard Bethany Home Rd - Maryland Ave (Phase III)New bridge, add EB and WB lane 1.40 $3,643,396 67th Avenue Beardsley Rd - Arrowhead Loop Rd Add NB and SB lane 0.50 $1,091,169 Ballpark Blvd 99th Ave Intersection - 600' Westward Widen intersection 0.24 $584,205 75th Avenue Loop 101 - Deer Valley Rd Add NB and SB lane 1.90 $4,944,531 99th Avenue Camelback Rd - Glendale Ave (various)Add center turn lane, SB right turn lane 4.00 $8,718,476 83rd Avenue Glendale Ave - Northern Ave Add NB and SB lane 2.00 $5,204,540 99th Avenue Glendale Ave - Northern Ave Add NB and SB lane 1.32 $3,992,614 67th Avenue Arrowhead Loop Rd - Deer Valley Rd (E)Add NB lane 0.80 $3,487,825 Camelback Road 99th Ave - Loop 101 Add EB and WB lane 0.36 $937,775 Camelback Road 43rd Ave - 51st Ave Add EB and WB lane 2.00 $5,204,540 67th Avenue Greenway Rd - Bell Rd Add NB and SB lane 2.00 $5,204,540 67th Avenue Deer Valley Rd - Pinnacle Peak Rd Add NB and SB lane 2.00 $5,204,540 New Collector Streets TBD Extension of existing roadway and/or new roadways 8.00 $17,019,196 Incremental Lane Widening TBD Extension of existing roadway and/or new roadways 5.00 $14,882,549 Intersection Improvements (4)TBD Additional anticipated intersection improvements (4)0.00 $21,371,906 Greenway Rd/57th Ave Greenway Rd/57th Ave Add new signal 0.00 $744,127 41.38 $126,425,512 Source: City of Glendale, Arizona Total DRAFT 13 East Glendale Proposed Street Fees Growth Cost $126,425,512 DIF Balance ($18,433,112) Adjusted Cost $107,992,400 ÷ Lane Miles 41.38 Cost per Lane Mile $2,609,773 Source: City of Glendale, Arizona Existing Lane Miles 417.70 ÷ VMC / VMT Ratio 2.33 Adjusted Lane Miles 179.32 2022 VMT 1,783,579 Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 1.0054 Cost per VMT $262.38 Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 1.0054 VMT Increase 115,663 Additional Arterial Lane Miles 11.63 Weighted Average per Lane Mile $2,609,773 Growth Cost $30,347,523 Cost Factors Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards Fee Component Cost per VMT Street Improvements $262.38 Development Fee Report $0.49 Total $262.87 Avg Wkdy VMT per Unit1 Single Family 16.11 $4,235 $3,635 $600 Multi-Family 11.52 $3,028 $2,819 $209 Avg Wkdy VMT per 1,000 Sq Ft1 Industrial 2.81 $739 $634 $105 Commercial 20.91 $5,497 $4,806 $691 Office & Other Services 9.04 $2,376 $1,831 $545 Institutional 12.44 $3,270 $2,422 $848 Assisted Living (per bed)2.17 $570 N/A N/A Lodging (per room)6.84 $1,798 N/A N/A 1. See Land Use Assumptions Development Type Proposed Fees Development Type Proposed Fees Residential Fees per Unit Nonresidential Fees per 1,000 Square Feet Current Fees Increase / Decrease Current Fees Increase / Decrease DRAFT 14 West Glendale IIP •Service Area: West Glendale •Components: •Street Improvements -Incremental •10-Year Demand •Street Improvements: 6.7 lane miles, $22.6 million DRAFT 15 West Glendale Street Improvements Cost Factors Project Location Description Lane Miles Growth Cost Bethany Home Rd/Citrus Rd Bethany Home Rd/Citrus Rd Add new signal 0.00 $754,960 Bethany Home Rd/Sarival Ave Bethany Home Rd/Sarival Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,258,266 Camelback Rd/152nd Ave Camelback Rd/152nd Ave Add new signal 0.00 $377,480 Camelback Rd/173rd Ave Camelback Rd/173rd Ave Add new signal 0.00 $377,480 Camelback Rd/Alsup Ave Camelback Rd/Alsup Ave Add new signal 0.00 $346,575 Camelback Rd/Citrus Rd Camelback Rd/Citrus Rd Add new signal 0.00 $377,480 Camelback Rd/Cotton Lane Camelback Rd/Cotton Lane Add new signal 0.00 $629,133 Camelback Rd/Reems Rd Camelback Rd/Reems Rd Add new signal 0.00 $692,046 Cotton Lane/Glendale Ave Cotton Lane/Glendale Ave Add new signal 0.00 $503,306 Cotton Ln/Bethany Home Rd Cotton Ln/Bethany Home Rd Add new signal 0.00 $1,038,621 Intersection Improvements (4)TBD Additional anticipated intersection improvements (4)0.00 $4,026,451 Reems Rd/Northern Ave Reems Rd/Northern Ave Add new signal 0.00 $251,653 Sarival Ave/Glendale Ave Sarival Ave/Glendale Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,258,266 Camelback Rd/Sarival Ave Camelback Rd/Sarival Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,258,266 Cotton Lane/Northern Ave Cotton Lane/Northern Ave Add new signal 0.00 $503,306 Cotton Lane/Peoria Ave Cotton Lane/Peoria Ave Add new signal 0.00 $503,306 Glendale Ave/Alsup Ave Glendale Ave/Alsup Ave Add new signal 0.00 $943,699 Glendale Ave/Reems Rd Glendale Ave/Reems Rd Add new signal 0.00 $1,887,399 Northern Ave/Alsup Ave Northern Ave/Alsup Ave Add new signal 0.00 $472,402 Northern Ave/Bullard Ave Northern Ave/Bullard Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,006,613 Olive Ave/Bullard Ave Olive Ave/Bullard Ave Add new signal 0.00 $817,873 Peoria Ave/Bullard Ave Peoria Ave/Bullard Ave Add new signal 0.00 $377,480 Peoria Ave/Litchfield Rd Peoria Ave/Litchfield Rd Add new signal 0.00 $251,653 Reems Rd/Olive Ave Reems Rd/Olive Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,887,399 Sarival Ave/Northern Ave Sarival Ave/Northern Ave Add new signal 0.00 $503,306 Sarival Ave/Olive Ave Sarival Ave/Olive Ave Add new signal 0.00 $1,887,399 Sarival Ave/Peoria Ave Sarival Ave/Peoria Ave Add new signal 0.00 $377,480 Glendale Ave/Litchfield Rd Glendale Ave/Litchfield Rd Add NB to EB and WB to NB right turn lanes 0.00 $754,960 Glendale Ave/Dysart Rd Glendale Ave/Dysart Rd Add new signal and right turn lanes 0.00 $1,006,613 Glendale Ave/127th Ave Glendale Ave/127th Ave Add new signal and turn lanes 0.00 $1,006,613 Glendale Ave/El Mirage Rd Glendale Ave/El Mirage Rd Add new signal, turn lanes, and thru lanes 0.00 $1,509,919 DRAFT 16 West Glendale Street Improvements Cost Factors Project Location Description Lane Miles Growth Cost Glendale Ave Sarival Ave - Reems Rd Add EB and WB lane 2.00 $3,711,884 Litchfield Rd Northern Ave - Glendale Ave Add turn lanes 1.60 $2,970,170 Northern Ave Sarival Ave - Reems Rd (S)Add EB lane 1.10 $2,043,026 Reems Rd Glendale Ave - Northern Ave (W)Add SB lane 0.50 $929,351 Sarival Ave Bethany Home Rd - Glendale Ave (W)Add NB lane 0.20 $371,961 Sarival Ave Bethany Home Rd - Glendale Ave (E)Add SB lane 0.60 $1,113,676 Sarival Ave Glendale Ave - Northern Ave (W)Add NB lane 1.00 $1,856,494 Sarival Ave Glendale Ave - Northern Ave (E)Add SB lane 2.00 $3,711,884 Dysart Rd Orangewood Ave - Northern Ave (E)Add street improvements, acquire ROW 1.00 $1,856,494 Dysart Rd Glendale Ave - Orangewood Ave Add street improvements, acquire ROW 2.00 $3,711,884 Litchfield Rd Glendale Ave - Missouri Ave (W)Add street improvements, acquire ROW 1.00 $1,856,494 Litchfield Rd Glendale Ave - Missouri Ave (E)Add street improvements, acquire ROW 1.40 $2,599,312 Northern Ave Cotton Ln - Sarival Ave (N)Add WB lane 0.60 $1,113,676 Northern Ave Cotton Ln - Sarival Ave (S)Add EB lane 0.40 $742,818 Northern Ave Reems Rd - Litchfield Rd (N)Add WB lane 1.00 $1,856,494 Northern Ave Reems Rd - Litchfield Rd (S)Add EB lane 3.00 $5,568,378 Reems Rd Olive Ave - Peoria Ave (W)Add SB lane 2.00 $3,711,884 Reems Rd Olive Ave - Peoria Ave (E)Add NB lane 0.20 $371,961 Sarival Ave Olive Ave - Peoria Ave (E)Add NB lane 0.80 $1,485,637 Bethany Home Rd El Mirage Rd - 115th Ave New road 2.00 $4,832,183 Glendale Ave El Mirage Rd - 115th Ave (concrete)Add EB and WB lane 1.40 $3,634,622 Glendale Ave El Mirage Rd - 115th Ave (asphalt)Add EB and WB lane 0.50 $999,990 Alsup Rd Northern Ave - Bethany Home Rd (W)Add SB lane 3.20 $7,730,609 Camelback Rd Litchfield Rd - Reems Rd (N)Add WB lanes 1.65 $2,513,221 Camelback Rd Alsup Rd - 1000' W of SR303 (N)Add WB lanes 3.00 $4,271,482 Camelback Rd Drainage and ROW Add WB lanes 0.00 $28,697,292 Incremental Lane Widening TBD Extension of existing roadway and/or new roadways 5.00 $15,041,796 New Collector Streets TBD Extension of existing roadway and/or new roadways 6.00 $14,493,236 45.15 $152,645,313Total DRAFT 17 West Glendale Proposed Street Fees Growth Cost $152,645,313 DIF Balance ($973,937) Adjusted Cost $151,671,376 ÷ Lane Miles 45.15 Cost per Lane Mile $3,359,277 Source: City of Glendale, Arizona Existing Lane Miles 41.50 ÷ VMC / VMT Ratio 4.64 Adjusted Lane Miles 8.95 2022 VMT 81,544 Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 1.0971 Cost per VMT $368.54 Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 1.0971 VMT Increase 61,349 Additional Arterial Lane Miles 6.73 Weighted Average per Lane Mile $3,359,277 Growth Cost $22,609,575 Cost Factors Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards DRAFT Fee Component Cost per VMT Street Improvements $368.54 Development Fee Report $0.49 Total $369.03 Avg Wkdy VMT per Unit1 Single Family 13.65 $5,037 $3,635 $1,402 Multi-Family 9.76 $3,602 $2,819 $783 Avg Wkdy VMT per 1,000 Sq Ft1 Industrial 2.38 $878 $634 $244 Commercial 17.71 $6,536 $4,806 $1,730 Office & Other Services 7.66 $2,827 $1,831 $996 Institutional 10.54 $3,890 $2,422 $1,468 Assisted Living (per bed)1.84 $679 N/A N/A Lodging (per room)5.79 $2,137 N/A N/A 1. See Land Use Assumptions 2. Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee Residential Fees per Unit Development Type Proposed Fees Current Fees2 Increase / Decrease Nonresidential Fees per 1,000 Square Feet Development Type Proposed Fees Current Fees2 Increase / Decrease 18 Fee Comparison –Single Family DRAFT Single Family Fire Library Park Police Street Other Total Peoria - West $1,047 $0 $1,412 $677 $7,559 $0 $10,695 Gilbert $935 $0 $5,167 $435 $2,272 $1,002 $9,811 Peoria - East $1,047 $0 $1,515 $677 $6,306 $0 $9,545 Apache Junction - North (Proposed)$0 $982 $2,540 $1,229 $3,487 $0 $8,238 Glendale West (Proposed)$655 $195 $936 $719 $5,037 $0 $7,542 Goodyear - South $971 $0 $2,255 $820 $3,330 $0 $7,376 Queen Creek $1,175 $167 $3,189 $640 $2,118 $76 $7,365 Glendale East (Proposed)$655 $195 $936 $719 $4,235 $0 $6,740 Chandler $218 $61 $2,338 $127 $3,869 $110 $6,723 Avondale $775 $119 $1,497 $832 $3,171 $0 $6,394 Glendale (Current)*$655 $195 $936 $719 $3,635 $0 $6,140 Apache Junction (Current)$0 $1,004 $1,168 $609 $3,151 $0 $5,932 Goodyear - North $911 $0 $1,375 $820 $2,669 $0 $5,775 Maricopa (City)$674 $131 $1,207 $496 $2,965 $0 $5,473 Casa Grande $589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233 $5,384 Phoenix - Northwest $516 $105 $1,368 $293 $3,080 $0 $5,362 Phoenix - Northeast $551 $105 $1,236 $314 $3,080 $0 $5,286 Coolidge $426 $0 $1,058 $0 $3,235 $0 $4,719 Buckeye - Central $1,060 $289 $1,915 $842 $300 $0 $4,406 Tempe - North $481 $0 $2,797 $619 $454 $0 $4,351 Tempe - South $481 $0 $2,797 $619 $356 $0 $4,253 Eloy $0 $0 $1,852 $526 $1,671 $0 $4,049 Fountain Hills $122 $0 $1,916 $0 $1,935 $0 $3,973 Surprise - SPA 1 $789 $0 $1,845 $385 $0 $235 $3,254 Buckeye - North $1,060 $289 $684 $842 $300 $0 $3,175 Buckeye - Tartesso West $866 $289 $684 $842 $300 $0 $2,981 Apache Junction - South (Proposed)$0 $982 $0 $1,229 $0 $0 $2,211 Mesa $272 $0 $0 $402 $0 $366 $1,040 *Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee in West Glendale 19 Fee Comparison –Multi-Family DRAFT Multi-Family Fire Library Park Police Street Other Total Peoria - West $715 $0 $960 $462 $4,525 $0 $6,662 Gilbert $607 $0 $3,358 $283 $1,761 $651 $6,660 Peoria - East $715 $0 $1,030 $462 $3,775 $0 $5,982 Apache Junction - North (Proposed)$0 $771 $1,993 $965 $1,909 $0 $5,638 Goodyear - South $728 $0 $1,690 $616 $2,582 $0 $5,616 Glendale West (Proposed)$433 $129 $618 $475 $3,602 $0 $5,257 Queen Creek $845 $120 $2,293 $460 $1,479 $54 $5,251 Apache Junction (Current)$0 $979 $1,138 $594 $2,117 $0 $4,828 Glendale East (Proposed)$433 $129 $618 $475 $3,028 $0 $4,683 Glendale (Current)*$433 $129 $618 $475 $2,819 $0 $4,474 Goodyear - North $682 $0 $1,030 $616 $2,069 $0 $4,397 Chandler $161 $44 $1,735 $94 $2,190 $79 $4,303 Phoenix - Northwest $387 $79 $1,026 $220 $2,310 $0 $4,022 Maricopa (City)$454 $88 $814 $334 $2,299 $0 $3,989 Phoenix - Northeast $413 $79 $927 $236 $2,310 $0 $3,965 Avondale $519 $80 $1,002 $557 $1,649 $0 $3,807 Buckeye - Central $828 $225 $1,496 $658 $173 $0 $3,380 Coolidge $361 $0 $896 $0 $2,070 $0 $3,327 Casa Grande $420 $0 $821 $127 $1,744 $166 $3,278 Tempe - North $323 $0 $1,879 $416 $306 $0 $2,924 Tempe - South $323 $0 $1,879 $416 $241 $0 $2,859 Eloy $0 $0 $1,444 $410 $816 $0 $2,670 Fountain Hills $94 $0 $1,479 $0 $964 $0 $2,537 Buckeye - North $828 $225 $534 $658 $173 $0 $2,418 Buckeye - Tartesso West $676 $225 $534 $658 $173 $0 $2,266 Surprise - SPA 1 $481 $0 $1,227 $235 $0 $143 $2,086 Apache Junction - South (Proposed)$0 $771 $0 $965 $0 $0 $1,736 Mesa $230 $0 $0 $388 $0 $195 $813 *Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee in West Glendale 20 Fee Comparison –Industrial (500KSF)DRAFT Industrial/Warehouse: 500,000 Sq Ft Fire Library Park Police Street Other Total Gilbert $240,500 $0 $385,000 $218,500 $398,000 $215,000 $1,457,000 Queen Creek $225,000 $29,000 $557,500 $122,500 $360,000 $13,000 $1,307,000 Apache Junction - North (Proposed)$0 $65,000 $165,000 $340,000 $490,000 $0 $1,060,000 Apache Junction (Current)$0 $60,000 $15,000 $135,000 $595,000 $0 $805,000 Peoria - West $36,000 $0 $7,000 $23,500 $696,000 $0 $762,500 Peoria - East $36,000 $0 $7,500 $23,500 $580,500 $0 $647,500 Fountain Hills $50,000 $0 $280,000 $0 $315,000 $0 $645,000 Phoenix - Northeast $77,000 $1,000 $12,500 $44,000 $493,000 $0 $627,500 Casa Grande $225,000 $0 $60,000 $25,000 $290,000 $25,000 $625,000 Chandler $20,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $585,000 $10,000 $625,000 Phoenix - Northwest $72,000 $1,000 $13,500 $41,000 $493,000 $0 $620,500 Goodyear - South $204,000 $0 $55,000 $166,500 $189,000 $0 $614,500 Glendale West (Proposed)$53,000 $4,500 $24,000 $58,500 $439,000 $0 $579,000 Goodyear - North $181,000 $0 $11,500 $166,500 $151,500 $0 $510,500 Glendale East (Proposed)$53,000 $4,500 $24,000 $58,500 $369,500 $0 $509,500 Coolidge $65,000 $0 $121,500 $0 $317,500 $0 $504,000 Glendale (Current)*$53,000 $4,500 $24,000 $58,500 $317,000 $0 $457,000 Eloy $0 $0 $163,500 $104,500 $186,500 $0 $454,500 Apache Junction - South (Proposed)$0 $65,000 $0 $340,000 $0 $0 $405,000 Mesa $107,500 $0 $0 $159,000 $0 $119,000 $385,500 Tempe - North $39,500 $0 $109,000 $95,500 $107,500 $0 $351,500 Tempe - South $39,500 $109,000 $95,500 $84,500 $0 $328,500 Maricopa (City)$55,000 $1,000 $9,000 $42,000 $133,500 $0 $240,500 Avondale $25,000 $5,000 $40,000 $30,000 $125,000 $0 $225,000 Buckeye - Central $85,000 $7,000 $41,500 $46,000 $13,000 $0 $192,500 Buckeye - North $85,000 $7,000 $18,500 $46,000 $13,000 $0 $169,500 Surprise - SPA 1 $83,000 $0 $16,000 $40,500 $0 $24,500 $164,000 Buckeye - Tartesso West $67,500 $7,000 $18,500 $46,000 $13,000 $0 $152,000 *Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee in West Glendale 21 Fee Comparison –Commercial (100KSF)DRAFT Commercial/Retail: 100,000 Sq Ft Fire Library Park Police Street Other Total Peoria - West $114,700 $0 $12,700 $74,100 $958,700 $0 $1,160,200 Peoria - East $114,700 $0 $13,600 $74,100 $799,700 $0 $1,002,100 Apache Junction - North (Proposed)$0 $18,000 $45,000 $340,000 $507,000 $0 $910,000 Glendale West (Proposed)$78,900 $1,900 $9,700 $86,700 $653,600 $0 $830,800 Apache Junction (Current)$0 $17,000 $18,000 $137,000 $614,000 $0 $786,000 Glendale East (Proposed)$78,900 $1,900 $9,700 $86,700 $549,700 $0 $726,900 Maricopa (City)$158,800 $1,400 $12,900 $121,600 $392,000 $0 $686,700 Gilbert $69,300 $0 $110,900 $62,900 $353,900 $61,000 $658,000 Glendale (Current)*$78,900 $1,900 $9,700 $86,700 $480,600 $0 $657,800 Casa Grande $97,000 $0 $25,000 $38,000 $415,000 $12,000 $587,000 Goodyear - South $52,600 $0 $14,200 $42,900 $451,700 $0 $561,400 Avondale $78,000 $9,000 $54,000 $83,000 $331,000 $0 $555,000 Chandler $22,000 $0 $0 $13,000 $504,000 $12,000 $551,000 Coolidge $82,500 $0 $35,800 $0 $424,500 $0 $542,800 Queen Creek $111,500 $3,900 $74,200 $60,800 $263,000 $1,800 $515,200 Goodyear - North $46,700 $0 $2,900 $42,900 $362,100 $0 $454,600 Phoenix - Northeast $44,600 $500 $6,200 $25,400 $375,800 $0 $452,500 Phoenix - Northwest $41,800 $500 $6,800 $23,700 $375,800 $0 $448,600 Eloy $0 $0 $48,100 $132,500 $242,500 $0 $423,100 Fountain Hills $14,000 $0 $81,000 $0 $286,000 $0 $381,000 Apache Junction - South (Proposed)$0 $18,000 $0 $340,000 $0 $0 $358,000 Buckeye - Central $116,800 $9,600 $57,300 $132,300 $33,700 $0 $349,700 Buckeye - North $116,800 $9,600 $25,200 $132,300 $33,700 $0 $317,600 Buckeye - Tartesso West $92,700 $9,600 $25,200 $132,300 $33,700 $0 $293,500 Tempe - North $39,700 $0 $31,300 $95,900 $107,800 $0 $274,700 Tempe - South $39,700 $0 $31,300 $95,900 $84,700 $0 $251,600 Surprise - SPA 1 $87,600 $0 $3,200 $42,700 $0 $26,100 $159,600 Mesa $21,500 $0 $0 $31,800 $0 $23,800 $77,100 *Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee in West Glendale 22 Fee Comparison –Office (100KSF)DRAFT Office & Other Services: 100,000 Sq Ft Fire Library Park Police Street Other Total Peoria - West $70,400 $0 $21,200 $45,500 $409,500 $0 $546,600 Gilbert $87,800 $0 $140,500 $79,700 $156,500 $78,000 $542,500 Peoria - East $70,400 $0 $22,700 $45,500 $341,600 $0 $480,200 Apache Junction - North (Proposed)$0 $28,000 $69,000 $151,000 $219,000 $0 $467,000 Coolidge $32,200 $0 $45,400 $0 $367,900 $0 $445,500 Chandler $20,000 $0 $0 $11,000 $404,000 $8,000 $443,000 Casa Grande $161,000 $0 $42,000 $15,000 $179,000 $20,000 $417,000 Goodyear - South $91,900 $0 $24,700 $75,100 $211,900 $0 $403,600 Glendale West (Proposed)$30,800 $2,400 $12,300 $33,900 $282,700 $0 $362,100 Apache Junction (Current)$0 $22,000 $23,000 $53,000 $234,000 $0 $332,000 Goodyear - North $81,600 $0 $5,000 $75,100 $169,800 $0 $331,500 Queen Creek $56,900 $5,700 $109,900 $31,000 $113,900 $2,600 $320,000 Glendale East (Proposed)$30,800 $2,400 $12,300 $33,900 $237,600 $0 $317,000 Buckeye - Central $148,300 $12,100 $72,700 $51,700 $14,600 $0 $299,400 Avondale $31,000 $11,000 $68,000 $32,000 $143,000 $0 $285,000 Maricopa (City)$62,000 $1,700 $16,300 $47,500 $149,400 $0 $276,900 Glendale (Current)*$30,800 $2,400 $12,300 $33,900 $183,100 $0 $262,500 Buckeye - North $148,300 $12,100 $32,000 $51,700 $14,600 $0 $258,700 Fountain Hills $18,000 $0 $103,000 $0 $124,000 $0 $245,000 Phoenix - Northeast $35,300 $700 $8,700 $20,100 $169,400 $0 $234,200 Phoenix - Northwest $33,000 $700 $9,600 $18,800 $169,400 $0 $231,500 Buckeye - Tartesso West $117,600 $12,100 $32,000 $51,700 $14,600 $0 $228,000 Eloy $0 $0 $61,100 $51,800 $92,400 $0 $205,300 Apache Junction - South (Proposed)$0 $28,000 $0 $151,000 $0 $0 $179,000 Tempe - North $15,500 $0 $39,800 $37,500 $44,200 $0 $137,000 Tempe - South $15,500 $0 $39,800 $37,500 $33,100 $0 $125,900 Surprise - SPA 1 $49,700 $0 $7,400 $24,300 $0 $14,800 $96,200 Mesa $21,500 $0 $0 $31,800 $0 $23,800 $77,100 *Negotiated on a case-by-case basis as the Streets In Lieu Fee in West Glendale 23 Adoption Timeline •Sept 22, 2021:Kick-Off Meeting •Mar 22, 2022:City Council Work Session •Apr TBD:Stakeholder Outreach •Apr 29: LUA & IIP -Advertise (60 days) •Jun 28: LUA & IIP -Public Hearing (30 days) •Aug 9:LUA & IIP -Adoption •Aug 10: Development Fees -Advertise (30 days) •Sept 13: Development Fees -Public Hearing (30 days) •Oct 25: Development Fees -Adoption (75 days) •Jan 9: Development Fees -Effective DRAFT CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE:03/22/2022 SUBMITTED FOR:Shahid Abbas, Director DEPARTMENT:Transportation Subject COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST - TRANSIT ASSET ADVERTISING Presented by: Kevin Link, Transit Administrator Purpose and Recommended Action The purpose of this item is to update Council on the response(s) received from the Request for Information (RFI) which was issued last fall regarding a proposed Transit Asset Advertising program. Staff is also seeking Council direction and consensus on whether to move forward with a Transit Asset Advertising program. Background In August 2021, staff presented information that was gathered regarding implementing a Transit Asset Advertising program in Glendale in response to a Council request in February of 2018. Staff sought and received consensus to issue a Request for Information (RFI), seeking information from local advertising firms, with responses being strictly voluntary, to help determine if an advertising program would make sense, what type of advertising would be profitable, and a general idea of the amount of revenue the City could expect from the program. The RFI was sent to 11 advertising agencies throughout the region, with two firms responding to the RFI. Analysis Transportation’s Transit staff has conducted research on the various transit asset advertising media categories, which are described in more detail in the Powerpoint presentation. This type of advertising includes static adds (posters in display case), full or partial bus wrap advertising, digital and LED for video display, and audio which includes recorded messages at shelters or on buses. Staff has also conducted comparisons of the types of transit asset advertising some cities in the region currently have in place. These cities include Chandler, Mesa, Peoria and Phoenix. Previous Related Council Action Staff made the first presentation on Transit Advertising to Council at a Workshop session on August 10, 2021. Community Benefit/Public Involvement Transit asset advertising can potentially generate revenue to off-set transit operating and maintenance costs, in addition to the possibility of adding bus stop amenities for public transit users in Glendale. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation CIOSI: Transit Asset Advertising City Council Workshop Meeting Transit Advertising Recap 2 •8/10/21: Council Workshop Presentation –Council consensus on Request for Information (RFI) •10/7/21: RFI sent to 11 advertising firms –Due back 11/4/21 –Deadline extended to 12/10/21 –Received 2 responses Discussion Points 3 •Discuss response(s) from Request for Information (RFI) •Determine if City should move forward with Transit Advertising Program •If moving forward, determine best option to implement (RFP, Piggyback) Advertising Media Categories 4 •Static -Posters in a display case (most common) –Recommend “General Market” and “Location- –based” advertising Neighborhood amenities High foot traffic and/or traffic counts Major intersections connecting key neighborhoods/ districts Advertising Examples 5 Advertising Examples 6 Advertising Examples 7 Advertising Media Categories (Continued) 8 •Bus Advertising –Bus Wrap –Recommendation: test market with shelter advertising first and revisit bus advertising at a later date If City decides to move forward with Bus advertisement, recommendation is to only advertise on Gus Buses Advertising Examples 9 Full Wrap Partial Wrap New Logo Gus Bus 10 Advertising Media Categories (Continued) 11 •Digital & LED –Video type display –Market potential is there for this type of advertising at –Bus Stops Upfront Infrastructure costs -$40K-$45K per location (fiber optics/power) Due to infrastructure costs, expect lower Return-On- Investment Advertising Media Categories (Continued) 12 •Audio –Recorded message at shelters or on buses (least common) –Not a strong market for audio advertising either at shelters or on buses Passengers not there long enough to absorb audio Without consistency & regularity of reach, hard to sell advertising On buses, small audience –not best utilization of advertising dollars More Feedback Received 13 •Highest ad revenue potential lies with large wraps on larger size buses (Valley Metro buses) •Limited market for “Ticker Tape” advertising displays on interior or exterior of buses •No minimum size requirements for advertising at Bus Stops –Most advantageous to sell full panels or wraps to maximize revenues •Ads changed based on term of advertising contract More Feedback Received (Continued) 14 •Desirable for ad panel to be visible to both vehicular traffic and pedestrians –Visibility unimpeded by trash receptacles, trees or other signage –Consider traffic counts, foot traffic, location and utilization when placing kiosks and selling advertising •Prefer to defer maintenance of ad stops to City –Agency responsible for cleaning plexiglass, repairing and/or replacing damaged advertisements Advertising Options 15 •Prepare and release our own Request for Proposal (RFP) •Piggyback off an existing contract in the Region –Mesa (OutFront Media –options available through 2029) –Chandler (StreetMedia Group, LLC –options available through December 2026) –Peoria (OutFront Media –options available through July 2031) City Comparisons 16 Chandler Mesa Peoria Phoenix # of Bus Stops:260 100 38 1,100 Contract term:11 yrs 10 yrs 10 yrs 5 yrs Maintenance done by: City X X X Ad Agency X X X Type of Advertising: Digital X Static X X X X Audio Bus wraps X Cooperative Contract:X X X Annual revenue:$158,500 $25,000 $60,000 $3.5M Staff Recommendation 17 •Implement Static Advertising Program at Bus Stops –Forego advertising on buses for now; revisit at a later date –Table digital advertising at stops due to infrastructure costs and low return on investment –Piggyback on existing regional contract (Peoria, Mesa or Chandler) •Adopt City of Phoenix Advertising Standards Glendale Fixed Route Service Map 18 Glendale Rendering 19 Glendale Rendering 20 Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC) Comments 21 •Concurred with Staff’s recommendation •Advised Staff that program should be managed properly to ensure program stays within scope –Transit staff will monitor and serve as program/contract administrator Transit Asset Advertising 22 Questions? CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE:03/22/2022 SUBMITTED FOR:Lisette Camacho, Budget and Finance Director DEPARTMENT:Budget and Finance Subject PRESENTATION ON THE CITY'S GRANTS POLICY Presented by: Lisette Camacho, Director, Budget and Finance Kristen Krey, Grants Program Manager, Budget and Finance Purpose and Recommended Action The purpose of this workshop presentation is to provide City Council with information on federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate grants and receive feedback on proposed revisions to the city's grants policy. Background The city's Finance Administrative Policy #6, Grant Application and Administration provides departments with the requirements in applying for and accepting competitive federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate grants. It also identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department and the applicable Department Grants Project Manager. The policy does not apply to the categorical and formula grants such as Community Development Block Grants and Housing and Urban Development grants and it does not apply to direct corporate gifts and/or donations made to the City or individual departments. Analysis City grant funding is generally considered for one-time or time-limited projects such as capital improvements, or program enhancements that do not have a long-term effect on the ongoing operations budget. Grants may also be appropriate for start-up funding mechanisms for priority projects already identified in a department’s business plan. Grants are not used as the primary financing mechanism to create new ongoing programs or services or to add unbudgeted positions. Currently, the city's grant policy requires all grant awards to be accepted and approved by the City Council prior to the spending of funds. This places both a time constraint and an administrative burden on the funding. In order to streamline this process, staff is recommending grant awards that are less than $50,000 be accepted administratively by the City Manager or designee, unless otherwise required by the granting agency. This amendment to the city grant policy will allow departments to begin procurement immediately and spend grant funds as they are received. This will also allow the funds to have a more immediate impact on the community and the programs. All grant awards that are $50,000 or more will continue to require a resolution by the City Council prior to the spending of funds. Community Benefit/Public Involvement This amendment to the city grant policy will allow departments to begin procurement immediately and spend funding for grant awards that are less than $50,000 as they are received, thereby creating a more immediate impact on the community and the programs funded by the grant. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation FAP #6 Grants Application and Administration March 22, 2022 Agenda 2 •Grants Application and Administration Overview •Proposed Policy Revisions •Council Feedback and Questions –Next Steps Grants Administration 3 •Financial Administrative Policy No. 6, Grant Application and Administration –Establish the requirements for applying and accepting competitive federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate grants –Identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department, and the Grants Project Manager –Does not apply to categorical and formula grants •Community Development Block Grants •Housing and Urban Development grants –Does not apply to direct corporate gifts and/or donations made to the City or individual departments Grants Administration 4 •Grant Applications –Advance City Council goals and objectives –Support projects and programs that are consistent with the mission and priorities of the City –Grant applications are reviewed and approved by the Grants Program Manager prior to submission of the application to the funding agency •Ensure grants are aligned with city strategies and financially sound •Grant Awards –Requires all grant awards to be approved by a Resolution of the City Council •Administrative requirement •Not required by the City Charter or City Code Partnerships 5 •APS Community Grants ($8,000) –Community Services –Environmental Resources •Tribal Grant from Tohono O’odham ($10,000) –Partnership with Sleep in Heavenly Peace •Historic Preservation First United Methodist –Sponsored by the city and in-kind support From The Heart 6 •Citizen driven program –Citizen committee evaluates grant applications –In-kind support •Addresses community needs in Glendale •Since 1998, the city has distributed over $3.4 million to local non-profit agencies –FY2019 $96,000 to 16 Agencies –FY2020 $96,000 to 23 Agencies –FY2021 $103,500 to 20 Agencies •Awards are posted on the city’s website Grant Award (in Dollars) 7 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $50k or Greater Less than $50k $8,115,287 $507,245 $34,099,628 $664,466 $83,928,858 $390,360 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 Excludes From the Heart, Tribal, CAP, CDBG, HUD etc. Number of Grant Applications 8 - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 $50k or Greater Less than $50k 21 29 29 33 32 29 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 Excludes From the Heart, Tribal, CAP, CDBG, HUD etc. Proposed Policy Revisions 9 •Current policy requires all grant awards to be approved by a Resolution of the City Council –Creates delays in the delivery of services to the community •Proposed amendment allows grant awards that are less than $50,000 to be accepted administratively by the City Manager or designee •Grants awards that are $50,000 or more will still require a City Council Resolution prior to spending of funds •Some grantors require governing body resolution –These would be approved by City Council regardless of the amount •The Grants Office will provide City Council a quarterly report of grant awards that were accepted administratively Council Feedback and Questions 10 •Council Consensus –Proposed policy revisions •Next Steps –Resolution to adopt proposed policy revisions •April 12 voting meeting City of Glendale Finance Administrative Policy No.6 Title:GRANT APPLICATION & ADMINISTRATION Effective:5/1/2005 Revision: 8/18/2006 06/27/2014 01/20/22 Contact:Finance Department – 623-930-2480 I.PURPOSE This Grant Application and Administration Policy (Policy) provides departments with the requirements in applying for and accepting competitive federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate grants. It also identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department and the applicable Department Grants Project Manager. This Policy does not apply to the categorical and formula grants; Community Development Block Grants and Housing and Urban Development grants and it does not apply to direct corporate gifts and/or donations made to the City or individual departments. II.SYNOPSIS A.Purpose in Applying for Grants The City will only apply for grants that further City Council goals and objectives and support projects and programs that are consistent with the mission and strategic plans and priorities of the City and its departments. 1. Applications must be reviewed and approved in Simplicity Grant Master by the city Grants Program Manager prior to submission to the funding agency. 2. Grant funding should be considered for one-time or time-limited projects such as capital improvements, or program enhancements that do not have a long-term effect on the ongoing operations budget. Grants may also be appropriate for start-up funding mechanisms for priority projects already identified in a department’s business plan. 3. Grants will not be used as the primary financing mechanism to create new ongoing programs or services or to add unbudgeted positions. 4. Any grant application that includes a grant-funded position or a graduated match resulting in the City assuming full financial responsibility subsequent to termination FAP #6 Grants Application and Administration Page 2 of 2 of the grant, or directly increases the City’s ongoing operating costs, must be reviewed by and approved by the Grants Program Manager Budget and Finance Director, and City Manager or his/her designee. 5. The City may co-sponsor, serve as fiscal agent or join with multiple sponsored community-based consortia or other jurisdictions when clear public benefit to Glendale residents can be demonstrated. B.Grant Policies and Procedures Manual 1. It is the responsibility of the Department requesting a grant, to ensure all staff initiating the grant request or administration of a grant, adhere to the Grant Policies and Procedures. A copy of the Grant Policies and Procedures Manual is available on the GRID or by request through the Grants Office residing in the Budget and Finance Department. C.Award of Grant Funding 1. Grant awards that are less than $50,000 may be accepted administratively by the City Manager or designee, unless otherwise required by the granting agency. 2. The Grants Office will provide City Council a quarterly report of grant awards that were accepted administratively.. 3.Grants awards that are $50,000 or more will require a City Council Resolution prior to spending of funds. 4.Grantors may require a governing body resolution for funding; therefore, it is critical that this requirement be identified prior to the grant application by the applicant Department. This information can be generally found in the Grant Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). _________________________________________ Lisette Camacho, Budget and Finance Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE:03/22/2022 SUBMITTED FOR:Rick St.John, Deputy City Manager DEPARTMENT:City Manager's Office Subject COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST – SHORT-TERM RENTALS Presented by: Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Purpose and Recommended Action The purpose of this item is to obtain Council consensus on adding to the Glendale City Code a section regulating short-term rentals and a section prohibiting nuisance parties and unlawful gatherings. Background On January 11, 2022, CM Tolmachoff introduced this CIOSI on short-term rentals asking for staff to review a relatively new ordinance adopted by the City of Scottsdale regulating short-term rentals in accordance with State law and to inform Council on the ordinance for consideration in the City of Glendale. Analysis In the Fall of 2019, the City of Scottsdale adopted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals in accordance with Arizona State law. The ordinance mandated the owner of a short-term rental to register with the State, county and City by providing owner information, as well as an emergency contact. The ordinance also regulates the use of short-term rentals prohibiting any commercial activities or for the short-term rental to be used as a sober living home, to sell liquor or controlled substances, or operate as an adult-oriented business. In December 2021, the City of Scottsdale amended their ordinance on Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings to include the City’s ability to site the owner of a short-term rental for allowing or being negligent in controlling parties and gatherings on their properties that disturb the peace of quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. In January 2022, the Town of Paradise Valley followed suit with the City of Scottsdale and amended their town code so that short-term rental owners could be fined for activities occurring on their respective properties. The Glendale City Code (GCC) does not currently have a section regulating short-term rentals in accordance with State law. Should the Council elect to adopt an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, the ordinance should include registration requirements, providing emergency contact information, compliance with all applicable laws, and prohibitions for use. In addition, the GCC also does not contain a section specifically dealing with Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings. The GCC does regulate noise under a Noise Ordinance, but this ordinance is not specific to parties and gatherings, but rather deals with disturbances of the peace and quiet of a neighborhood by any unreasonable noise and specifically amplified sound. neighborhood by any unreasonable noise and specifically amplified sound. Should the Council elect to adopt an ordinance prohibiting nuisance parties and unlawful gatherings, the ordinance should include purpose and definitions, specific prohibitions, a set fee schedule for persons directly responsible for the nuisance party or unlawful gathering, a set fee schedule for the owner of a property who may or may not be directly responsible for the nuisance party or unlawful gathering, and a provision stating the City maintains the right to pursue other remedies for any other violations of the code or law that might exist. Previous Related Council Action The City Council has not reviewed or discussed short-term rentals in any previous Workshop or Voting meeting. Community Benefit/Public Involvement The City, residents, and renters will benefit from improved city code language and standards. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation Short Term Rentals Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Short Term Rentals 2 We are seeking Council consensus on adopting an ordinance regulating short term rentals in accordance with State law, and an ordinance prohibiting Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings. Short Term Rentals 3 •Regulated under ARS 9-500.39 •Ordinance components –Contact Information Required •Owner information •Emergency contact information •Notice of change in contact information –Compliance with all federal, state and local laws, City adopted general, zoning Fire Marshall codes –Prohibited Uses •Any commercial use •Housing sex offenders or operating as a sober living home Short Term Rentals 4 Consensus? Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings 5 •Glendale City Code does not have an ordinance specific to nuisance parties and unlawful gatherings •Enforcement officers rely on other codes and State laws for enforcement –Noise –Parking violations –Minor consumption •State law 9-500.39 does allow cities to adopt and enforce nuisance codes as long as short- term rentals are treated just like any other rental or owner-occupied residence Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings 6 •Ordinance components –Definitions •Nuisance Party -an assembly of persons for a social activity or for a special occasion in a manner which constitutes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property. This includes, but is not limited to, excessive noise or traffic, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public drunkenness, the service of alcohol to minors, fights, disturbances of the peace and litter. •Unlawful Gathering –a nuisance party where minors are consuming alcohol or anyone is using illegal drugs Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings 7 •Police Service Fee Structure (civil only) –First offense = $500 fine –Second offense within 180 days of the first offense = $1,250 fine –Third or any subsequent offenses within 180 days of the second offense = $2,500 fine. •Both the responsible person and the owner of a short-term rental can be fined •The fee is deemed a joint and several debt to the City •Appealable to a Hearing Officer Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings 8 •Unlawful for a responsible person to permit a nuisance party or unlawful gathering –First offense $750 –Second or subsequent offense in a year $1500 •Unlawful for an owner to permit a nuisance party or unlawful gathering after notice –Owner is not responsible for the first offense –Once noticed of the first offense, the owner can be fined under the same fine structure as a responsible person Nuisance Parties and Unlawful Gatherings 9 Consensus? CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE:03/22/2022 SUBMITTED FOR:Rick St.John, Deputy City Manager DEPARTMENT:City Manager's Office Subject REQUEST TO AMEND GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 REGARDING CODES FOR FEEDING PIGEONS AND HOLIDAY DECORATIONS Presented by: Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Purpose and Recommended Action This is a request for the City Council to amend city code language to address feeding pigeons in neighborhoods and amending Glendale City Code (GCC) 25-24 k, holiday decorations. Background The Item of Special Interest (feeding pigeons) was raised at the September 24, 2019 City Council Workshop for staff to address the possibility of banning the feeding of pigeons in the City of Glendale. The item was presented at the January 28, 2020 City Council Workshop to determine if Council supported moving forward to research the details of creating an ordinance to address feeding pigeons. The proposed ordinance was further discussed at City Council workshops on June 23, 2020, and September 8, 2020. A proposed ordinance (25-24 j) to ban feeding pigeons on public property was presented and approved by City Council on March 23, 2021. Holiday decorations was discussed by the Code Review Committee on December 10, 2020, and at a City Council Workshop on January 26, 2021. The City Council on March 23, 2021, approved an ordinance to regulate the display of holiday decorations. Analysis Feeding Pigeons Currently, there are three cities in the Valley that regulate the feeding of pigeons. Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe have similar ordinances that prohibit feeding pigeons. All three ordinances apply to public and private property and provide an exception to devices designed or intended to prevent pigeons from obtaining food such as hummingbird feeders and bird houses. At the June 23, 2020 City Council Workshop meeting, a consensus was reached to prohibit the feeding of pigeons on public property, make the offense a civil offense, and provide an educational component for residents. The proposed ordinance language was further discussed at a City Council Workshop on September 8, 2020, and subsequently approved at a voting meeting on March 23, 2021: GCC 25-24 (j) It is unlawful for any person to feed pigeons on public property within the City of Glendale. Pigeon means any bird of the family columbidae and species columba livia, commonly known as the rock dove, homing pigeon or carrier pigeon. A violation of this article is a misdemeanor with a civil sanction of not less than $50 nor more than $150. Code Compliance recently received a few complaints for feeding pigeons on private property creating a nuisance in the neighborhood. Inspectors served a Notice of Violation for creating a nuisance to the resident where the feeding took place. The nuisance code currently reads: 25-24 (a) General: No person shall erect, maintain, use, place, deposit, cause, allow, leave or permit to be or remain in or upon any private lot, building, structure or property or in or upon any public street, alleyway, sidewalk, rights-of-way or other public or private place, any condition, thing or act, to the prejudice, danger or annoyance of a neighborhood or others. The violations were corrected but proving the nuisance in court would have been challenging. Expanding the existing code to address feeding pigeons and other nuisances, the proposed addition to the code is recommended: 25-24 (a) General: No person shall erect, maintain, use, place, deposit, cause, allow, leave or permit to be or remain in or upon any private lot, building, structure or property or in or upon any public street, alleyway, sidewalk, rights-of-way or other public or private place, any condition, thing or act, to the prejudice, danger or annoyance of a neighborhood or others including but not limited to feeding pigeons, rodent infestation, and peacock crowing. The addition to the code will provide clarity and allow staff to proactively address these neighborhood issues. Holiday Decorations The City Council on March 23, 2021, approved a new ordinance to regulate the display of holiday décor. Code Compliance in 2021 receive two complaints for holiday displays that were placed 35 days prior to Christmas. The intent of the code is to prohibit the year-round display of holiday decorations rather than create a technical violation. An amendment to the approved code language is: GCC 25-24 (k) Holiday and Seasonal Decorations. Temporary, non-commercial decorations or displays associated with the celebration of a particular civic, patriotic, or religious holiday or season. Shall be displayed for a maximum of 30 60 days prior to and 30 days after the relevant holiday and must be maintained in good condition (e.g., not torn, soiled, or faded). Such decorations shall not be displayed in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Decorations shall mean items or objects used to embellish, ornament or enhance any physical features on private property or buildings thereon in celebration of a holiday or occasion. Previous Related Council Action The City Council on September 17, 2017, approved policy guidance for staff to review and improve Glendale City Code chapters 25 and 29.1 and identify city code and state law changes necessary. Feeding pigeons was requested as a Council Item of Special Interest by Councilmember Tolmachoff at the September 24, 2019 City Council Workshop and further discussed at the June 23, 2020 City Council Workshop. The proposed ordinance was discussed at a City Council Workshop on September 8, 2020 and approved at a voting meeting on March 23, 2021. Regulating holiday decorations was discussed by the Code Review Committee on December 10, 2020, and a proposed ordinance to address holiday lights was discussed at a City Council Workshop on January 26, 2021. The code was approved at a voting meeting on March 23, 2021. Community Benefit/Public Involvement The City, residents, and property owners will benefit from improved city code language and standards. Attachments PowerPoint Presentation Glendale City Code Chapter 25 Revisions Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager Chapter 25 Revisions 2 We are seeking Council consensus on certain amendments in Chapter 25 of the Glendale City Code making it unlawful to create a public nuisance by feeding pigeons on private property and by allowing holiday decorations 60 days prior to the holiday being celebrated. Chapter 25 Revisions 3 Banning the feeding of pigeons on private property –Discussed in Workshop on January 11, 2022 –Council gave consensus to look at amending a section of the Nuisance Code (Ch 25) making it unlawful to cause blight or health and safety issues by the feeding of pigeons on private property Chapter 25 Revisions 4 •25-24 Miscellaneous (a)General:No person shall erect, maintain, use, place, deposit, cause, allow, leave or permit to be or remain in or upon any private lot, building, structure or property or in or upon any public street, alleyway, sidewalk, rights -of-way or other public or private place, any condition, thing or act, to the prejudice, danger or annoyance of a neighborhood or others including but not limited to feeding pigeons, rodent infestation, and peacock crowing . Chapter 25 Revisions 5 Consensus? Chapter 25 Revisions 6 Holiday Decorations –GCC 25-24 (k) currently allows holiday decorations to be placed 30 days prior to and 30 after a given holiday –Staff is seeking to amend the language so that holiday decorations may be placed up to 60 days prior to a given holiday Chapter 25 Revisions 7 Consensus?