WORK SESSION AGENDA
ATTENTION IN-PERSON AUDIENCES AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE The meetings will continue to be live streamed on the city's website (https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/1461/Streaming-City-Council-Meetings) PUBLIC COMMENT PROTOCOL The process for submitting a public comment has changed and public comments will no longer be read by staff during the Council Meetings. All public comments will be taken either telephonically or accepted as a written comment. Public comments may be submitted to publiccomment@flagstaffaz.gov If you wish to address the City Council with a public comment by phone you must submit the following information: First and Last Name Phone Number Agenda Item number you wish to speak on If any of this information is missing, you will not be called. We will attempt to call you only one time. We are unable to provide a time when you may be called. All comments submitted otherwise will be considered written comments and will be documented into the record as such. If you wish to email Mayor and Council directly you may do so at council@flagstaffaz.gov. AGENDA |
1. | Call to Order
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this work session, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
||||||||
2. | Pledge of Allegiance and Mission Statement MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all.
|
||||||||
3. | ROLL CALL
|
||||||||
4. | Public Participation Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone to have an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
||||||||
5. | Review of Draft Agenda for the November 3, 2020 City Council Meeting
Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
|
||||||||
6. | Public Works - Snow Operations Presentation and Discussion | ||||||||
7. | Discussion of options for the expiring Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) contract | ||||||||
8. | Climate Emergency Declaration Update | ||||||||
9. | JW Powell Specific Plan Study - Project Update | ||||||||
10. | Rio de Flag Flood Control Project Update | ||||||||
11. | Discussion about changing the zoning code to allow required commercial areas of mixed-use developments that are vacant to be converted to dwelling units in exchange for permanent, affordable housing | ||||||||
12. | Review of current process for all Reclaimed Water agreements and their renewal | ||||||||
13. | Public Participation | ||||||||
14. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager; future agenda item requests |
||||||||
15. | Adjournment | ||||||||
|
6.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Public Works - Snow Operations Presentation and Discussion | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Informational Item - Discussion of the upcoming winter season preparations and parking restrictions. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff historically receives approximately 100" of snow in a typical winter season. In the late fall, preparations of equipment and training of personnel begins for winter snow operations. The community has high expectations of transportation network and facilities clearing. The snow operations discussion will provide insights into the operations of Public Works and is educational for all residents and visitors of Flagstaff. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Attached Power Point Presentation | |||||
Attachments: | Snow Readiness - 2020 |
7.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion of options for the expiring Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) contract | |||||||||||||||||||||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Provide staff with direction on which of the presented options to pursue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently, the City contracts with Norton Environmental, Inc. to operate the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which sorts and markets the recyclables collected by the City’s Solid Waste Section. The existing contract is set to expire in September 2023 and the City needs to consider how to approach the end of this contract. Decision-making related to recycling and this MRF is critical for the goals included in the Rethink Waste Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Ultimately, what materials are accepted for recycling, the City’s recycling rate, and quality of sorted material is dependent upon the City arrangement for the processing of recyclables. Staff consulted WIH Resource Group (WRG) to research all options available to the City. Each of these options, along with staff’s corresponding ranking and justification are noted in the table below. Given current factors, such as the market for recyclable material, the volume of material generated in Flagstaff, and regional factors, staff recommends converting the MRF into a transfer operation that delivers material to a MRF in the Phoenix-area (Option 2). This option is the most cost effective, and will allow the City to expand the types of material that can be collected from residents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
INFORMATION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Existing Contract The City entered into contract with Norton Environment, Inc. in January 1997 and the MRF has been operational since October 1998. The facility is responsible for sorting and selling to market all of the recyclable material collected by the City’s Solid Waste Section. The materials accepted as recycling, include number 1 and 2 plastics, mixed paper, cardboard, aluminum and steel cans. This contract will expire in September 2023.
Connection to City Goals This contract and any future arrangement for the processing of recyclables will have a significant impact on the City’s capacity to achieve the goals outlined in the Rethink Waste Plan, specifically the goal to divert 90% of waste by 2050. What the City can accept for recycling and how well that material is sorted will be major determinants in achieving that goal. How the City processes recycling at the close of the existing contract, will have a significant effect on these factors.
The City’s recyclables processing arrangement will also have significant implications for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Achieving the City’s waste diversion goals will reduce the amount of material sent to the landfill, as well as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions it produces.
The existing MRF would be converted into a transfer operation, where recyclables would be aggregated, stored, and transferred to the Phoenix metro area. Trips would take place approximately seven days per week. Multiple benefits are associated with this model, including the opportunity to increase the types of material accepted for recycling. Because Phoenix-area MRF’s benefit from greater economies of scale, they employ better technology than the Norton MRF, which allows them to properly sort materials, such as glass, polypropylene, and thermoform plastic. This option enables greater flexibility, as it would not require the capital investment or long-term contracts of other options. This flexibility and reduced costs could enable the City to explore other innovative diversion opportunities, such as a Center for Hard to Recycle Materials (CHARM) facility that captures other materials not captured by curbside recycling services. One challenge associated with this option is the limited control of acceptable materials, as well as the loss of a MRF as an educational opportunity where residents can tour the facility to learn about how recycling works. 3) Operate the MRF internally after facility updates and upgrades: Pursuing this option would require the City to upgrade nearly all existing equipment and the building, which could range between $1-10 million, depending on the quality of the technology employed. This option would mean that the City is responsible for management and staffing. While this option would provide for greater control of technology used, as well as the accepted materials, many of the necessary facility upgrades are significant. In order to limit costs, the City could choose to utilize lower-cost technology, but many of these technologies, such as Revolution Systems, would not be able to support the volume of recyclables that Flagstaff already generates. The costs per ton of material for multiple sorting technologies is shown below in comparison with the transfer of material to three different Phoenix-area MRFs.
4) Procure MRF operation by a private MRF operator: This would be a continuation of the current model for recyclables processing, but with a new operator. The City would issue a solicitation for a MRF operator. The solicitation would include necessary facility upgrades, which could be completed under a low-interest loan or bond funding (estimates range from $2-10 million). Whether the City or the operator pays for these upgrades would depend upon contract negotiations. If the operator were to pay for upgrades, the resulting contract is likely to be 5-10 years longer than if the City were to pay. WRG surveyed private sector operators to gauge interest. They identified six interested operators. While many details remain uncertain, the ideal contract length for these operators ranged from 10-20 years, depending on whether the City pays for facility upgrades. 5) Suspend recycling collections and processing: This option would mean that recyclables would be collected as trash and delivered to the landfill. Doing so would result in cost savings, but prevent the City from achieving the goals identified in the Rethink Waste Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and limit the life of the landfill |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | MRF Analysis Conducted by WIH Resource Group | ||
MRF Options Presentation |
8.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Climate Emergency Declaration Update | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
This is an informational update on staff's work since the Climate Emergency Declaration Resolution was passed on June 23, 2020. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
On June 23, 2020 City Council declared a climate emergency through Resolution 2020-09. The resolution accelerates sustained and meaningful action to address the climate emergency. It identifies eight specific actions:
Staff will provide City Council with an update on the work completed to date and next steps.
|
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Staff have been working with technical consultants and the Flagstaff community to advance the goals of the 2018 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. | |||||
Attachments: | Climate Emergency Update |
9.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
JW Powell Specific Plan Study - Project Update | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Facilitate Council discussion with an update on the project. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The JW Powell Specific Plan Study has recently completed a land use model for the future JW Powell corridor. In the cultivation of this model, City Staff and Peak Engineering reached out to a myriad of community organizations to encompass the future facilities and planning of this area. This presentation seeks to share the information and exhibits from this land use model as part of the current contract with Peak Engineering for the 30% engineering design. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Information: Connection to Key Community Priorities, Objectives, Council Goal, Regional Plan and/or Team Flagstaff Strategic Plan: Sustainable, Innovative Infrastructure Utilize existing long-range plan(s) that identify the community's future infrastructure needs and all associated costs Environmental Stewardship Actively manage and protect all environmental and natural resources Council Goal 2017 – 2019 - Transportation and Other Public Infrastructure Deliver quality community assets and continue to advocate and implement a highly performing multi-modal transportation system. Council Goal 2017 – 2019 - Environmental and Natural Resources Actively manage and protect all environmental and natural resources Region Plan Goal – Environmentally Sensitive Lands Goals and Policies Goal E&C.7. Give special consideration to environmentally sensitive lands in the development design and review process. Team Flagstaff Strategic Plan – Priority 3 Deliver outstanding services through a healthy environment, resources, and infrastructure. Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: The JW Powell Specific Plan Study Project has been before the City Council twice in the past four years. The first occurrence was a Council Work Session on October 25, 2016, with a discussion on Infrastructure and Public Facilities Planning and Engineering in the John Wesley Powell Boulevard area. The second occurrence, on February 6, 2018, was the award of a contract to Peak Engineering for the JW Powell Specific Plan Study which is currently underway. Furthermore, the JW Powell Specific Plan Study was also discussed during the Capital Planning Presentation on April 7, 2020. |
|||||
Attachments: | Presentation | ||
Context_Map |
10.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Rio de Flag Flood Control Project Update | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Facilitate Council discussion with an update on the project. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
** A PowerPoint presentation will be submitted at a later date. ** |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Connection to Key Community Priorities, Objectives, Council Goal, Regional Plan and/or Team Flagstaff Strategic Plan: Sustainable, Innovative Infrastructure Utilize existing long-range plan(s) that identify the community's future infrastructure needs and all associated costs Environmental Stewardship Actively manage and protect all environmental and natural resources Council Goal 2017 – 2019 - Transportation and Other Public Infrastructure Deliver quality community assets and continue to advocate and implement a highly performing multi-modal transportation system. Council Goal 2017 – 2019 - Environmental and Natural Resources Actively manage and protect all environmental and natural resources Regional Plan – Policy WR 5 Manage watersheds and stormwater to address flooding concerns, water quality, environmental protections, and rainwater harvesting. Team Flagstaff Strategic Plan – Priority 3 Deliver outstanding services through a healthy environment, resources, and infrastructure. Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: The Rio de Flag project has been before various City Councils for updates within the last 16 years. Council has acted on executing the Project Cooperation Agreement between the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2004) approving concurrent fiscal year budgets and consulting design service contracts. City Council considered the Stormwater Fee increase as presented by staff on November 20, 2018. City Council award of a professional services contract with Beta Public Relations, LLC on March 19, 2019, for a Public Outreach Campaign. City Council considered and approved Change Order No. 13 to the design contract for Shephard-Wesnitzer, Inc. for added work necessary to take the project design to completion. Staff has provided project updates with public outreach efforts to various City Commissions including Friends of the Rio community group. Council provided direction on a photo simulation of the project scope for phases I and II. |
|||||
Attachments: | Vicinity Map | ||
Presentation |
11.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Discussion about changing the zoning code to allow required commercial areas of mixed-use developments that are vacant to be converted to dwelling units in exchange for permanent, affordable housing | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Discussion and possible direction | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
In November 2011, the City Council adopted the Zoning Code regulations that incentivize the mixed-use land use by allowing unlimited residential density with commercial areas as part of mixed-use development. The commercial areas of a few of these developments where the property owners have exercised the incentive remain unoccupied. To allow the required commercial areas to be utilized for residential purposes, such as to convert the area into residential dwelling units in exchange for permanent, affordable housing (hereafter referred to as the “Concept”), would require an amendment to the Zoning Code. In order to understand the potential land use impacts of implementing the Concept and to provide the City Council with sufficient information, a thorough analysis is recommended to evaluate the implications of the Concept. Depending on the method that is intended to implement the Concept and the information obtained through the analysis, it may be determined that a Major Plan Amendment to the Regional Plan or an amendment to the Specific Plans is necessary to modify the existing goals and policies or incorporate new ones. If an amendment to the Regional Plan or a Specific Plan is needed, it will need to be completed prior to the associated amendment to the Zoning Code |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
In November 2011, the City Council adopted the current Zoning Code regulations pertaining to the mixed-use land use for properties with commercial-zone designations. Moreover, mixed-use land use was incorporated into some of the transect zones. To incentivize this use, the Zoning Code regulations allow unlimited residential density with commercial areas as part of mixed-use development. This incentive is intended to assist in implementing the Regional Plan’s goals and policies to achieve a balanced and diverse mix of land uses (commercial, employment, institutional and residential) that are within close proximity to each other.1 Furthermore, the regulations are intended to incentivize the reinvestment and infill development of under-utilized and vacant parcels and the reuse of vacant commercial buildings.2 Several developments have utilized the mixed-use incentives to achieve considerably greater densities than those typically allowed for a multiple-family development in the non-transect and transect zones. These Mixed-use High Occupancy Housing Developments (MHOHD) include the following:
The Aspen Place has had its commercial area successfully occupied, and the Uncommon is under construction. The three remaining developments (Fremont Station, The Hub and The Standard) have never had their associated commercial space occupied. If a property owner of one of the three referenced developments desires to convert the vacant commercial area into residential dwellings, irrespective of affordability, the Zoning Code does not allow it. Only one property owner (The Standard) has contacted staff to query whether they can convert their commercial area into residential dwellings. To allow the Concept, an amendment to the Zoning Code is required. It should be noted that an amendment to implement the Concept would need to be uniformly applied and cannot be restricted to the existing developments. Therefore, it will need to be available to new developments. Without the required commercial area, the above-referenced developments would be considered High Occupancy Housing Developments (HOHD). The Regional Plan supports increased densities within activity centers and adjacent to corridors streets, including a variety of housing types.4 The proposed Concept can serve as a way to alleviate and utilize the vacant commercial areas of mixed-use developments and further implement the Regional Plan’s and the Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing’s policies and objectives. However, other Regional Plan policies need to be considered as well.5 Specifically, the Regional Plan’s goals and policies that encourage residential uses to be located above and behind commercial uses in mixed-use developments and adjacent to corridor streets.6 Each of the above-referenced developments are adjacent to commercial corridor streets. Please be advised that multiple-family developments with densities of 29 dwelling units per acre and less are currently allowed on commercial-zoned properties adjacent to corridor streets with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and adherence to the Planned Residential Development standards, but HOHD developments are not. This allowance is a remanent of the 2011 zoning code that was adopted prior to the adoption of the Regional Plan, and there is not a requirement to locate residential uses above and behind commercial uses in these developments. If the City Council seeks to amend the Zoning Code to implement the Concept, there are several questions and considerations that need to be evaluated. A few of the major considerations include the following:
Depending on the method used and an analysis of the above questions, the Concept’s implementation may negatively affect the Regional Plan’s fundamental basis of the corridor and activity center goals and policies. It is possible that upon review of the associated impacts, a Major Plan Amendment to the Regional Plan or an amendment to the Specific Plans may be necessary to modify the existing goals and policies or incorporate new ones. If an amendment to the Regional Plan or a Specific Plan is needed, it will need to be completed prior to the associated amendment to the Zoning Code. The above-referenced analysis expense is in addition to the cost to amend the Zoning Code and the Regional Plan. The amount to comply with the minimum code requirements to amend the Zoning Code is anticipated to be between $1,500 and $3,500. If a Regional Plan amendment is required, the anticipated cost is between $4,000 and $6,000. The Zoning Code and Regional Plan cost estimates assume that no other items are being amended with the process. The above-referenced land use, market, and real estate analysis is typically beneficial as part of the Regional Plan adoption process, which is anticipated to begin in 2022. Furthermore, the analysis would be valuable to assist with additional amendments to the Zoning Code that are necessary to implement the Regional Plan goals and policies related to incorporating low-impact employment uses in zones that contain activity centers and Downtown.7 Additionally, the information would be beneficial to the Economic Vitality staff so that they may better understand, market, and adjust for the utilization of the commercial zones in the current and future land use and economic conditions. Notes:
|
|||||
Attachments: | Presentation |
12.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Review of current process for all Reclaimed Water agreements and their renewal | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Review of current process for all Reclaimed Water agreements and their renewal and discussion to change that process so that all agreements and their renewals come before the City Council for approval. Seek direction from Council for possible revision to City Code regarding approval of all Reclaimed Water Agreements. |
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
In February 2001, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) updated its Reclaimed Water Rules. Among the many changes was the creation of a requirement for a City to maintain a contractual agreement with each reclaimed water end user (aka Reclaimed Water Agreement). In July 2002, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2002-07 that amended Title 7 of the City of Flagstaff Water and Wastewater Code to require reclaimed water agreements between the City and end-users. Additionally, the Ordinance established this as an administrative process with the Utilities Director (now Water Services Director) authorized to execute Reclaimed Water Service Agreements under the review of the City Attorney's Office and updated City Code language to be in compliance with a recent change in State law. Councilmember Whelan presented a Future Agenda Item Request, which received the requisite support of the Council to advance the item on the Working Calendar. At this point, Staff is seeking further direction from the Council. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
The City has a Type 3 Recycled Water general permit to distribute reclaimed water to end-users. One of the requirements of the permit is to maintain an end-user agreement with each end user of reclaimed water. Monitoring parameters for the Recycled Water Permit is conducted in accordance with the Aquifer Protection Permits for the Rio de Flag Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) and Wildcat Hill WRP. The City of Flagstaff has three (3) new types of reclaimed water-related agreements between the City and end-users, Reclaimed Water Agreements, Reimbursement Agreements, and Conversion Agreements. End-User Agreements are required by State Rule to distribute reclaimed water to end-users under the City’s Recycled Water General Permit. Under State Rules, the agreements are required to stipulate any end-user responsibilities for the requirements specified under to meet the conditions of the permit. These responsibilities include signage requirements; and liner and nitrogen management if reclaimed water does not meet Class A+ or B+ quality. In July 2002, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2002-07 that among other things created three (3) new types of reclaimed water-related agreements between the City and end-users; Reclaimed Water Agreements, Reimbursement Agreements, and Conversion Agreements. City Code states the following: "Reclaimed Water Agreements: A written agreement between the reclaimed water end-user and the City for connection to an existing public reclaimed water pipeline, approved and executed in the name of the Water Services Director. Reimbursement Agreement for Reclaimed Water: A written agreement between the reclaimed water end-user and the City for reimbursement of the user's costs incurred in providing for the extension of, and connection to, a public reclaimed water pipeline, approved by the City Council and executed in the name of the City by the Mayor. Conversion Agreement for Reclaimed Water: A written agreement between the City and the reclaimed water end-user for reimbursement of the City's costs incurred in converting the user's potable water system to a reclaimed water system, by the extension of, and connection to, a public reclaimed water pipeline, approved by the City Council and executed in the name of the City by the Mayor." There are no time frames listed in City Code or in State Rule for the length of the agreements. Agreements can be any length of time as agreed upon by the City and the End-User. The City has generally used the 5-year general permit term as a guide and typically issues agreements for a 5-year term, but that is not always the case. Please note that the agreements and the permit term do not typically match. |
|||||
Attachments: | Reclaim Agreements |