DRAFT AGENDA
4:00 P.M. MEETING
Individual Items on the 4:00 p.m. meeting agenda may be postponed to the 6:00 p.m. meeting.
|
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 regular meeting, 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. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
3. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens. |
|||||||||
4. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS | |||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda (or is listed under Possible Future Agenda Items). Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. 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 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. |
|||||||||
6. |
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
|||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS 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 the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). None |
|||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Danny Thomas, “Porky's Pub", 2285 E. Butler Ave., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person and Location Transfer.
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
||||||||||
9. | CONSENT ITEMS All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items. |
|||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Projects: Lake Mary - Walnut Creek Technical Advisory Committee (LM-WC TAC) project recommendations. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
The LM-WC TAC asks for Council approval to fund two projects: 1) Not-to-exceed (NTE) $15,000.00 for purchase of up to 12 flowtography stations to be installed within the Upper Lake Mary watershed, 2) NTE $25,000.00 for the purchase and installation of flow & sediment monitoring equipment to be installed in Newman Canyon, followed by $2,200 annually for 5 years to cover a share of the operating costs.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Professional Services for Materials Testing. (Approve contract to test materials during construction). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Western Bark Beetle Initiative (WBBI) grant from AZ State Forestry. (State grant to treat for Bark Beetles). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the WBBI Grant Agreement with AZ State Forestry
|
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Amendment Three to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)/Joint Project Agreement (JPA) 11-097I between the City of Flagstaff (City) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the FY2013 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Beulah Bike Lanes. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve Amendment Three to the IGA/JPA 11-097I between the City and ADOT in the amount of $175,000 of which the Grant Amount is $165,025 (94.3%) with a City match of $9,975 (5.7%) for a total construction cost in the amount of $175,000.
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County concerning the administration of funds of the Free Library District | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 : A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona approving the City of Flagstaff Housing Authority's Annual Plan and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12 |
||||||||||
RECESS
6:00 P.M. MEETING RECONVENE |
||||||||||
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 regular meeting, 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).
|
||||||||||
11. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
12. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | |||||||||
13. | CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA |
|||||||||
14. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Public Hearing on proposed Public Safety development fees (impact fees). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Hold the public hearing.
2) Direct staff to prepare ordinance to adopt proposed fees for May hearings. |
||||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||||
A. | Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending Flagstaff City Code, Title 4, Building Regulations, by adding a new Chapter 4-10, Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition and Amendments (Request to postpone action to a date uncertain) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Staff requests City Council postpone Ordinance No. 2014-08 to a date uncertain to allow time to prepare the requested information.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07 and Resolution No. 2014-10: Resolution No. 2014-10 Declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07, Adopting Amendments to that certain document entitled “Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments” (An ordinance deleting North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, and replacing it in its entirety with Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-10
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the final time by title only 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-07. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement: Between the City of Flagstaff and Northern Arizona University (NAU) for finanical contribution to the Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator Project. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
|
||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Lease of City-Owned Property: Ground Lease Agreement for the Development of Affordable Housing: Providing site control of City owned land located at 300 South Verde for Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona to support construction of a home for inclusion in the Community Land Trust Program. (Permission for Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona to build a permanently affordable home on City land) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
Approve the Ground Lease Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona for the construction of one single-family home to be sold to a qualified low-income household and included in the Community Land Trust Program.
|
||||||
E. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consultant Agreement; Utility Rate and Capacity Fee Study (Approval of the Agreement will allow Willdan Financial Services, Inc. to prepare a Utility Rate and Capacity Fee Study for the City of Flagstaff) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
1) Approve the Agreement with Willdan Financial Services, Inc. for the amount of $114,380
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents 3) Authorize change order authority for the City Manager for the amount of $11,438 (10%) to cover the expense of additional items or other unanticipated work |
||||||
F. | Consideration and Approval of Grant Application: Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) Federal Fiscal Year 2015 for Police Department Applications for DUI Task Force, and Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
Approve the application(s) to the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) for grant funds for the Police Department in the amount of $45,240 for DUI Task Force activities with an additional $11,459 for speed detection devices, $44,160 for Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction task force.
|
||||||
G. |
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-13: A resolution on the Principles of Sound Water Management - Water Policies Chapter of the Utilities Integrated Master Plan. (Approval of Water Policy by Resolution) |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-13 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-13 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-13 |
||||||
H. | Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-09: An ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
At the meeting of April 1, 2014
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) At the meeting of April 15, 2014 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-09 |
||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS |
|||||
A. | Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative Update | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
No Recommended Action - Discussion Only
|
||||||
17. | POSSIBLE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Verbal comments from the public on any item under this section must be given during Public Participation near the beginning of the meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City Clerk. After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. None |
|||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS | |||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT |
|||||
|
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Danny Thomas, “Porky's Pub", 2285 E. Butler Ave., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person and Location Transfer.
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor) licenses are obtained through the person and/or location transfer of an existing license from another business. The transfer is from Diana Mercer for Empire House Motel located at 100 S. Lake Powell Blvd., Page, Arizona to Danny Thomas. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance - regulatory action. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
An application for a person and location transfer Series 06 liquor license was received from Danny Thomas for Porky's Pub at 2285 E. Butler Ave. The transfer is from the Diana Mercer for Empire House Motel located at 100 S. Lake Powell Blvd., Page, Arizona to Danny Thomas. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager, resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a person and location transfer, consideration may be given to the applicant's personal qualifications as well as the location of the premises. A Series 06 (bar - all spirituous liquor) allows a bar retailer to sell and serve spirituous liquors, primarily by individual portions, to be consumed on the premises and in the original container for consumption on or off the premises. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is April 15, 2014. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on February 26, 2014. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Attachments: | Porky's Pub - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 06 Description | |||||
Porky's Pub - Section 13 | |||||
Porky's Pub - PD Memo | |||||
Porky's Pub - Code Memo | |||||
Porky's Pub - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Projects: Lake Mary - Walnut Creek Technical Advisory Committee (LM-WC TAC) project recommendations. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
The LM-WC TAC asks for Council approval to fund two projects: 1) Not-to-exceed (NTE) $15,000.00 for purchase of up to 12 flowtography stations to be installed within the Upper Lake Mary watershed, 2) NTE $25,000.00 for the purchase and installation of flow & sediment monitoring equipment to be installed in Newman Canyon, followed by $2,200 annually for 5 years to cover a share of the operating costs.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Council approval is required before funds can be dispersed from LM-WC TAC's account, as per the attached Memorandum of Understanding dated 01/13/13. Subsidiary Decision Points: none |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This Council action will authorize expenditure up to but NTE $51,000 from a restricted fund with the National Park Foundation (current balance is $127,000). | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base; 6. Complete Water Policy; and 11. Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Council: executed the Stipulation on 12/10/01; approved the MOU (Agreement Number G747003001) on 08/06/03; approved the Charter to the MOU on 06/25/05, and; renewed the MOU and the Charter on 01/13/13. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve projects recommended by LM-WC TAC, and allow purchase of specified equipment. 2. Ask LM-WC TAC to modify one or both of the projects for Water Commission's recommendation and to Council for approval. 3. Ask LM-WC TAC to come forward with different projects to the Water Commission for recommendation and to Council for approval. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In 2001 a Stipulation (Civil No. 6417) was signed by the City of Flagstaff and the United States on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS) Flagstaff Area National Monuments and the Forest Service (USFS) Coconino National Forest recognizing & confirming the water rights of each Party within the Walnut Creek Watershed. It was agreed that either Party would not object to, dispute, or challenge these rights in the Little Colorado River Adjudication. In this Stipulation the parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to meet the objectives identified in the Stipulation. As part of the Stipulation, the City made a one-time contribution of $100,000 (now $127,000 with interest) to a trust account that may be used to fund studies to accomplish objectives to identify best management practices and to evaluate methods that may increase the likelihood of flood flows and improve the inner-canyon environment in Walnut Canyon National Monuments, as defined in the Stipulation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was signed by the Parties on September 2, 2003 with a 10-year term. That MOU was revised by the TAC and signed by Mayor Nabours on January 22, 2013. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The two projects that the LM-WC TAC propose to fund will provide fundamental information to a vast number of stakeholders with interests in the Upper Lake Mary watershed. The two projects are among the first efforts to collect baseline information related to the watershed's response to climate and forest treatments. Utilities and Forest Managers seek flow volume and sediment information to answer essential water quantity and quality questions, ranging across a spectrum of situations, from catastrophic climate or fire events, to forest treatment strategies. This initial funding effort by the LM-WC TAC to purchase equipment is triggering a number of agency contributions, including leverage in time, research and funding. These organizations include Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP), NPS, USFS, Northern Arizona University (NAU), Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI), Salt River Project (SRP) and City of Flagstaff Utilities Division.
Upper Lake Mary serves as an important water source for the City of Flagstaff, and has therefore drawn much attention by foresters and hydrologists regarding the watershed's risk and vulnerability to catastrophic fires and climate change. The LM-WC TAC is proposing to fund the installation and equipment for the combination rainfall/sediment/streamflow gauge in Newman Canyon, the largest tributary of the lake, in order to better monitor and understand the volume, timing and quality of surface water recharge into the lake from the surrounding forested areas. The proposed gauge will be installed by the USGS, with annual operating costs funded under cooperation with the City Utilities Division, LM-WC TAC and FWPP. The gauge will collect rainfall and stream flow data in real-time (as it occurs) and store it in a database for future analysis. These data will also be available on the USGS website within minutes of occurring, which will allow water managers to know when and at what level the wash is flowing and therefore, when water quality and sediment sampling from this intermittent/ephemeral wash may be possible. The data may also be useful in evaluating change in water quality and water quantity that result from forest thinning projects that will be occurring within the watershed. Additionally, the LM-WC TAC proposes to fund flowtography equipment that will collect baseline (pre-treatment) flow data at 12 locations within the Upper Lake Mary watershed. Flowtography was developed by SRP as a simple and low-cost method for collecting time-lapse photos using a wildlife camera and storage device, of the level of water flowing against a graduated stake in the wash. Water levels can be converted to a flow rate (such as cubic feet per second) using an equation developed from surveying the cross-sectional area of the wash at that particular location. Six of the locations are within paired watersheds of the 4FRI treatment areas; 4 locations are within the proposed FWPP treatment areas of Mormon Mountain; 1 location is within the Hoxworth Spring watershed; 1 location is at the USGS flow and sediment monitoring site in Newman Canyon. Pre-treatment information is essential to establish baseline conditions prior to FWPP and 4FRI treatments. This equipment is planned to be installed and monitored by a combination of NAU, SRP, FWPP, USFS and the City Utilities Division. Both projects recommended by the LM-WC TAC support essential data collection efforts required to document the effectiveness of the planned FWPP and 4FRI forest treatments for the Upper Lake Mary watershed, which, based on the results of similar projects as demonstrated by researchers with NAU, should increase flood flows and/or frequency into Upper Lake Mary. Flow data collected by these two projects will be very useful when deciding which treatments to maintain and fund by the watershed protection fund; those that demonstrate increased flood flow and/or frequency within the Upper Lake Mary watershed. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The costs for the equipment and installation of the Newman Canyon gauge will be split 60:40 (LM-WC TAC not-to-exceed $25,000/USGS $14,350.) The annual operating costs for monitoring the equipment will be split 50:50 (LM-WC TAC, FWPP, Utilities Division/USGS.) Utilities has identified $5,000 from account number 201-08-301-1014-0-4314 (Utilities Water Production account for Stationary Machinery & Equipment) to fund the first year of its share of the annual operating cost, and will budget on-going funding starting FY2016. The FWPP Monitoring Plan, scheduled to be completed soon, will ask Council to consider approval of $5,000 annually, for upwards of 10 years, as its share of the USGS annual operating costs. The LM-WC TAC has agreed to fund 5 years of annual operating costs at $2,200 per year. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
On January 9, 2014 the Water Commission unanimously approved the projects to be brought forward for Council's consideration and approval. Further, the intent of the Stipulation is to increase flood flows in Walnut Creek by improving the surface water supply. More runoff into Upper Lake Mary would not only benefit our municipal surface water supply, but increases the chance for water to flow over the dam and through the Walnut Canyon National Monument.
Additionally, these projects will support community goals of FWPP, which concern water quality and quantity in Upper Lake Mary, and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in the watershed. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate |
|||||
Attachments: | Lake Mary - Walnut Canyon MOU | ||||
Flowtography Proposal | |||||
USGS Proposal | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Professional Services for Materials Testing. (Approve contract to test materials during construction). | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
The contract will authorize an annual materials testing services agreement, which provides quality assurance for all permitted City infrastructure improvements. Within the three-year term, the contract shall be subject to annual renewals contingent upon a successful annual performance review. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue is generated through Engineering Permit Fees (100% recovery level estimated to generate $215,000 per year). The $172,940 contract amount is proposed to be funded in the first year of the three-year contract with unspent FY14 Testing Program funds, Engineering Section salary savings of $30,137 and the proposed FY15 base budget for the Materials Testing Program in the amount of $142,803 (Acct. 001-05-102-0315-4). | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Regional Plan (2030) - Planning; Locating Facilities (PF.2): Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
On July 16th, 2013, Ordinance 2013-17 was adopted by the Mayor and City Council amending Title 3-10-001-0001, Planning Fees, Section 3-10-001-0002, Engineering Fees, and Section 3-10-001-0005, Recreation Fees; providing for a savings clause; and providing that all ordinances or any part of the Flagstaff City Code in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall be repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Specifically, a new Engineering Fee was established for 100% cost recovery associated with Materials Testing as a percentage (2.15%) of public improvements construction cost. At a Work Session held on September 17th, 2013, Staff presented results of a Request for Information (RFI) procurement process which demonstrated that private-sector materials testing service providers could be competitive with budgeted cost of similar City services. Council supported a procurement process to seek qualified professional service providers through a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RSOQ) selection process. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. Approval will allow ATL, Inc. materials testing field and laboratory personnel to be setup and ready for the 2014 construction season. 2) Reject the approval of the award and provide additional direction to staff. This option would impact the ability of the City to perform quality assurance testing for infrastructure improvements in 2014. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
As part of the FY14 Budget process, the City Manager established an initiative to explore ways to reduce staff burden through use of private sector service providers. By the end of May 2013, the Materials Testing Program was faced with one (1) vacancy and one (1) pending retirement in the two-FTE work group. In order to continue providing excellent customer service to our permitted contractors, we immediately hired Speedie & Associates (Speedie) from the On-Call pool of professional service providers. Also, at this time we initiated the RFI/RSOQ procurement process. Speedie has been paid $61,332.50 for services rendered from May 21, 2013 through January 15, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Four (4) firms submitted their Statement of Qualifications for performing materials testing. A five-person evaluation committee independently reviewed each submittal and scored the firms on the following criteria: the firm and their assigned personnel's qualifications, expertise, knowledge, experience and service strategies as related to materials testing. The initial evaluation results are based upon a total of 500 potential points. Two (2) firms tied in their initial evaluation point totals and were chosen as the two shortlisted firms invited to interview with the committee. The interview component provided for an additional 50 points, giving an aggregate total of 550 points. The scoring results are shown below and on the attached scoring tabulation document.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineering fees have been established to generate approximately $215,000 per year based on estimated volume of permits issued. The Materials Testing permit fee is 2.15% of the public improvements construction cost. The recommended annual contract with ATL, Inc. in the amount of $172,940 (Level 1) leaves approximately $42,000 to cover indirect costs such as Program administration (Level 2), Engineering/ Community Development administration (Level 3) and other City Section/Division administration (Level 4). FY14 expenditures to date for the Materials Testing program are approximately $67,000 for Speedie & Associates (on-call services) and $33,000 for the City-run program, totaling $100,000, leaving a balance of approximately $43,000. We anticipate that Speedie will earn approximately $20,000 by the end of FY14. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Infrastructure improvements that become the property of the City are built to standards established by the Office of the City Engineer. The quality assurance verification that infrastructure improvements are compliant with the City's established standards is achieved through the use of materials testing protocols using trained personnel and approved laboratory testing methodologies. The elimination of the City's in-house materials testing personnel and laboratory initiated the need to hire a private-sector firm that will be managed by the Office of the City Engineer and will report directly to assigned City staff. This provides the necessary quality assurance required to ensure compliance. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform The award of this contract assures the public that infrastructure improvements, which will become City assets, were built to meet and/or exceed the standards established by the Office of the City Engineer. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Letter, Fee, Scope | ||||
Agreement | |||||
Scoring Tabulation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Western Bark Beetle Initiative (WBBI) grant from AZ State Forestry. (State grant to treat for Bark Beetles). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the WBBI Grant Agreement with AZ State Forestry
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
In Nov 2012, 74% of Flagstaff voters approved Forest Bond #405, now known as the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP). The State Land on Observatory Mesa was identified as one of the target treatment areas. Fortuitously, bark beetle preventative forest treatments are the same type of forest treatments required to reduce wildfire threat, improve forest health, and ensure forest resiliency and sustainability. In spring 2013, the City applied to AZ State Forestry for this grant. The goal was to conduct preventative forest treatments on 250 acres of forested State property on Observatory Mesa that were susceptible to attack by bark beetles. This request was not funded. In late fall 2013, AZ State Forestry informed the City that funding was now available. As the sale and transfer of the State Land parcels to the City was now pending with an expected closure in the near future, the State agreed to commit the funds but hold processing the Agreement until the process was completed. That land sale and transfer is now finalized, and the Agreement now ready for consideration. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The acreage was slated to be treated as part of the FWPP. The WBBI Grant is a 50-50 match grant (50% grant funds to be matched by 50% city monies and/or in-kind services). Thus, acceptance and utilization of the grant funds allows less bond dollars to be spent on these acres and thereby stretches available bond dollars toward necessary treatments on other acreages. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Complete Rio de Flag – FWPP City/Dry Lake Hills related activities 10. Develop an ongoing budget process – FWPP expenditures and transparency 11. Effective governance – overall completion of FWPP. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not on this specific grant opportunity, but Council has previously approved and accepted numerous forest treatment grants from AZ State Forestry, was involved in the purchase of the Observatory Mesa Open Space parcels, and has been involved in the Forest Bond and FWPP process. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Four options exist: 1) Approve the grant Agreement, permitting forest treatment work to proceed; 2) Revise the Agreement and resubmit to AZ State Forestry as a precondition to forest treatments occurring,; 3) Scrap the grant Agreement and fund the forest treatment work entirely from bond funds; or 4) Reject the Agreement and the need to conduct any forest treatments on the property. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The FWPP is an innovative and unique method of treating forested lands at high risk from serious wildfire events. As far as is known, this is the first bond-funded program to address this issue in the country. As such, it has garnered a high level of interest at both the State and national level. Since the bond’s passage in Nov 2012, some field operations have occurred, but much of the effort has been behind-the-scenes in the realms of planning, public outreach, development of agreements, and other support activities, including seeking other funds, all designed to permit efficient and effective forest treatments throughout the project area. The WBBI grant, although directed at preventing future bark beetle infestations, requires the same type of forest treatments as that needed to reduce wildfire threat. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Starting in 1999, Flagstaff Fire Dept began working with home and property owners in the Westridge and Northridge areas to reduce the wildfire threat on their property, a process that continues to this day. Beginning in 2003, and extending until 2005, a major bark beetle infestation occurred in-and-around the Flagstaff area. Tens-of-thousands of ponderosa and pinon pine were killed. The heaviest hit area in town was the Observatory Mesa area, particularly the slopes above Old Town and below Lowell Observatory. The forest conditions that permitted this rapid and destructive build-up of these insects persist in other areas of the Mesa today. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The grant permits needed forest treatments to occur on 250 acres of city-owned property, at half the cost of what it would be otherwise to the FWPP bond fund. Approximately 1,900 remaining acres of the property also requires treatment, which is planned using FWPP bond funds: However, we intend to continue to seek additional outside funds that will help off-set some of the cost for some if not all these acres as well. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Multiple community partners have been engaged in FWPP, including the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP), Friends of the Rio, and NAU’s Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI). The campaign to pass the bond also included the citizen-led “Yes on 405” group, the Grand Canyon Trust, and The Nature Conservancy. Treating the now City-owned Open Space areas adjacent to the Westridge and Northridge neighborhoods will reduce the wildfire threat not only in the Open Space area, but in those neighborhoods as well. In addition, such work will reduce the possibility of future insect epidemics in those areas as well. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform – Considerable effort has occurred in the adjacent neighborhoods to inform the owners of the wildfire threat and firewise actions they can undertake: this has lead to the completion of much forest treatment work on the private lands. Consult – Community members helped to shape the scope of the Forest Bond question. Activities planned in this area as a result of this grant, and FWPP bonds, are being developed in collaboration with other City staff, to include the Open Space Commission. In addition, the planned work is in accordance with the Greater Flagstaff Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan, adopted by City Council in 2005, and the City’s Wildland Urban Interface Code, adopted by City Council in 2008. Involve – In 2013, 15 separate public meetings, presentation, and/or field trips were conducted concerning the FWPP. Between Feb-June 2014, another 15 such events are planned. Additional outreach into the immediately adjacent neighborhoods of Westridge and Northridge, and with community stakeholders, is planned before work begins. Firewood from cutting operations will be made available to the public. Collaborate – Since Mar 2013, ten separate workshops have been held with various community members and groups to develop the soon-to-be completed FWPP Monitoring Plan, designed to provide accountability and documentation to the voters that what we said would occur as a result of the forest treatments actually is delivered. Flagstaff Fire Dept has also worked with the adjacent owners regarding access issues onto the then State-owned parcels from the neighborhood, as well as during wildfires on these parcels. Empower - 74% of those who participated in the Nov 2012 election voted in favor of the project. |
|||||
Attachments: | WBBI Grant Agreement | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Amendment Three to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)/Joint Project Agreement (JPA) 11-097I between the City of Flagstaff (City) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the FY2013 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Beulah Bike Lanes. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve Amendment Three to the IGA/JPA 11-097I between the City and ADOT in the amount of $175,000 of which the Grant Amount is $165,025 (94.3%) with a City match of $9,975 (5.7%) for a total construction cost in the amount of $175,000.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The latest engineer’s estimate for the construction is $175,000; approving IGA/JPA Amendment Three will obligate FY2014 HSIP funding for the Beulah Bike Lanes for an additional grant amount of $25,000. The previous Amendment One obligated $150,000 (FY2014) to construction. Subsidiary Decisions Points: This project is for design and construction of bike lanes along Beulah Boulevard between Woodland Village Boulevard and McConnell Drive. The additional width to accommodate bike lanes will be gained by removing or narrowing existing medians and narrowing lanes from 12 to 11 feet. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This IGA/JPA for FY2014 HSIP will fund the Beulah Bike Lanes project for an additional amount of $25,000 in FY2014. The total project cost of the Beulah Bike Lanes project is estimated to be $273,000 (Design $98,000/Construction $175,0000) and is paid for from HSIP funds between FY 2011-2014. The Federal Share is funded at $257,439 (94.3%) and the City Share at $15,561.00 (5.7%). The project is identified in the Community Development Division, Transportation CIP (Account #040-9256-607-4099), City project number 03-11010. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Repair, Replace, Maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
A. Approve the JPA
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The purpose of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. This is to be accomplished through the development and implementation of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. SHSP is intended to identify the State’s key safety needs and guide HSIP investment decisions. Funding is from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Arizona Department of Transportation which is responsible for administering the HSIP in Arizona. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The 2014 HSIP funds required an approved JPA to be obligated by ADOT. Any funding not obligated by the City or County in the FMPO Region within this fiscal year is returned to ADOT. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The funding to-date is:
|
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Will provide a safer route for bicycles along Beulah Boulevard which is part of the goals in the Regional Plan. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | Vicinity Map | ||||
JPA/IGA Amendment #3 | |||||
FMPO TIP | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County concerning the administration of funds of the Free Library District | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The current IGA between the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County for the Administration of Library District Funds has expired and this updated IGA provides for the continuation of service. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Library base budgets for the District were updated to the current annual allocations as designated by the Library Council. There is no financial impact associated with this change. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Council has approved various Agreements with Coconino County concerning Library services since the early 1980s. The Council approved its' first agreement concerning fund administration with Coconino County in 1995. A history of the approved Agreements include:
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve Intergovernmental Agreement, Agreement is renewed and the City of Flagstaff continues as fiscal agent. 2) Do not approve and new administration of funds agreement would need to be determined. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff has approved agreements with Coconino County regarding Library Services since the early 1980's. Previous intergovernmental agreements among the entities receiving funding from the Library District established the Coconino County Library Council and provided for the allocation of sufficient funding for the operation of public libraries throughout Coconino County. The City Library Director provides direct administrative oversight to both Flagstaff Library's as well as the branch libraries including the County Bookmobile, the County Jail, Forest Lakes, Tuba City, and Grand Canyon. This intergovernmental agreement also directs the funding to the affiliate libraries in the system including Fredonia, Page, Sedona, and Williams. Providing for the centralized financial administration of the Library's allows for funds to be coordinated and used centrally which gain efficiencies throughout the system. This centralization also allows the Library's to work together to work through challenging financial or systematic issues. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This ongoing collaboration between the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County concerning the Library District operations and funding has been a successful partnership. Approving this Intergovernmental Agreement will allow this partnership to continue. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The updated IGA allows for the current allocation of funds to be memorialized in this agreement. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The public library systems throughout Coconino County provide a cornerstone for community and visitor engagement. During the most recent recession, the libraries logged record numbers of visitors and provided resources as needed for those displaced from their current employment. Our local Flagstaff library's are continually sought out by national and international visitors. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve Intergovernmental Agreement, Agreement is renewed and the City of Flagstaff continues as fiscal agent. 2. Do not approve and new administration of funds agreement would need to be determined. |
|||||
Attachments: | IGA City County Admin of LDistrict Funds | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 : A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona approving the City of Flagstaff Housing Authority's Annual Plan and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Subsidiary Points: Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 will provide approval of the City of Flagstaff Housing Authority's ("CFHA") Annual Plan and authorize submission of the Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Each year HUD provides Capital Funds to be used for operations, management improvements, administration, physical improvements to the public housing units and grounds, and purchase of maintenance equipment. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes. Council approval is required each year prior to submission of the Annual Plan to HUD. Council approved the 2013-2014 Annual Plan on April 2, 2013. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the CFHA Annual Plan 2) Amend and approve the CFHA Annual Plan |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) requires the submission of a 5-Year Plan to HUD. Subsequent to the submission of the 5-Year Plan, HUD requires the submission of an Annual Plan containing any significant changes to the Goals and Objectives; progress reports of outstanding Capital fund Program Grants; Capital Fund Grant for the fiscal year of the Annual Plan; and amendments to the Five-Year Capital Fund Action Plan. The 5-Year Plan was submitted in 2010 covering the fiscal years 2010 through 2014. The Annual Plan before Council is the fifth year of the 5-Year Plan for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014. Each year HUD provides Capital funds to be used for operations; management improvements; administration; physical improvements to public housing units and grounds; and the purchase of maintenance equipment. CFHA has two years to commit and four years to spend the funds. Because of this, there could be two or three Capital Fund Programs running at the same time. It is also required that a 5-Year Capital Fund Action Plan accompany the submission of the 5-Year Plan that is used to determine the use of Capital Funds for each of the subsequent Annual Plan Years. The Siler Resident Management Corporation, an Arizona non-profit whose membership is all of the public housing residents, provides input on the use of the Capital Funds and recommends additional needs. The Annual Plan needs to be approved by the City Council and submitted to HUD by no later than April 17, 2014. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Section 10.0 of the 5-Year Plan, Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs, sets forth eight goals and objectives which include working with the City's Land Trust to provide additional housing (Goal Four); working with the Guidance Center to plan additional housing for the homeless seriously mentally ill (Goal Seven); and continuing to partner with the Guidance Center to apply for additional Seriously Mentally Ill Section 8 special purpose vouchers (Goal Eight). The FY2014 Annual Plan contains: New Goal Nine: Merge City of Flagstaff Housing Authority and City Housing Section. Objectives: 1. Create a project plan by June 15, 2014 2. Execute project plan by June 30, 2015 3. Financial/Budget benefits 4. Organizational efficiencies 5. Succession planning clarity CFHA has one open Capital Fund Program from 2013. $348,130 was awarded by HUD on September 9, 2013. The funds must be obligated by September 9, 2015 and expended by September 9, 2017. $165,439 has been expended with the balance of $182,691 expected to be expended during FY2014. Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Funds have not yet been determined by HUD but is is estimated to be approximately $360,000. 6. New management structure and salary savings |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
There are no General Fund monies involved in the Plan. The use of Capital Funds was explained in Key Considerations, and in Community Benefits and Considerations. In addition, a portion of the Capital Funds are being used for energy conservation and green retrofit items that will reduce energy costs. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The QHWRA was adopted by Congress to improve the living environment of Public Housing Residents. The Capital Fund Program is used to improve the Public Housing Units for comfort, safety, and energy efficiency. The proposed use of FY2014 Capital Funds is as follows: Physical Improvements: Upgrade deteriorating water lines at Brannen Homes $108,000 Roof replacement of 19 buildings at Brannen Homes $114,000 Management Improvements: Operation - 20% of grant $ 72,000 Management Improvements $ 30,000 Administration - 10% of grant $ 36,000 |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform The Public Housing Residents are kept informed of unit improvements through the Siler Resident Management Corporation (SRMC); monthly housing authority newsletters; and resident meetings. The QHWRA requires resident participation through a Resident Advisory Board (RAB). Since the SRMC represents all of the Public Housing Residents, they are considered the RAB and provide necessary input. |
|||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-12 | ||||
Notice of Public Hearing | |||||
2014 Annual Plan | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
14.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing on proposed Public Safety development fees (impact fees). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Hold the public hearing.
2) Direct staff to prepare ordinance to adopt proposed fees for May hearings. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City is in process of completing the steps required by the State of Arizona to support continuation of the Public Safety development fee program. A public hearing on the proposed development fees supported by the February 7, 2014 TischlerBise report is required. Staff believes development fees provide a consistent and predictable expense for the constuction industry and predictable revenue for the City's public safety capital budget and debt retirement. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Development Fees collected will be used to help fund capital improvements and equipment necessary to meet the demand generated by new residential and non-residential growth. The alternative to development fees is to identify the impact of each project during the entitlement process and include public safety fees in a project development agreement, fund increased demand through General Fund revenues or decrease the level of service. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base Effective governance |
|||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Flagstaff City Council first adopted Public Safety Development Fees in October 2008 and amended the program in 2011 to be consistent with State law. The current City Council held a public hearing on the Land Use Assumptions (LU) and Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) on December 19, 2013, adopted the LU and IIP on February 18, 2014. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for the fees as proposed. 2. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for revised fees. 3. Hold the public hearing and discontinue the Public Safety Development Fee program. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05, adopted during the 2011 legislative session, significantly amended development fee enabling legislation. Commonly known as SB1525, this legislation called for: 1. Amending existing development program changes by January 1, 2012. The City met this condition by adopting the amendment of the existing development program on December 6, 2011; and 2. Abandoning the existing development fee programs by August 1, 2014. To accomplish the abandonment and subsequent adoption by August 1, the City must follow a prescribed schedule allowing adequate time for public input and Council discussion. On February 18, 2014 the City Council adopted the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvement Plan. The next step is to hold a public hearing on the fees and consider adopting the fees by Ordinance in May. In order to meet the 75-day waiting period required after fee adoption and before August 1, the second reading of the Ordinance will need to be considered at a Special Regular Meeting on May 13. At the February 18 meeting, City Council had questions about whether impact fees could be waived or reduced as an incentive for affordable housing units. City Council adopted an Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing in October 2009. The policy considers a number of incentives including fee waivers and deferments; expedited review; and regulatory incentives such as density bonuses, open space ratios, resource protection plans, and parking. Reimbursement of impact fees are included in the fee eligibility list found on page 11 of the Incentive Policy. The Housing Director has explained that impact fees can be reimbursed to the applicant directly after they have paid the impact fee, or the impact fee has been paid on behalf of the applicant. In both cases the fee is paid from an incentive fund in the Housing budget. So while the impact fee can be waived, the fund is kept whole by the payment from the incentive fund. The Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing can be viewed from the City's website at http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42650 or by clicking on the Resources/Contacts tab on the Housing page. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Impact fees provide a base standard which allows for predictability and developers can plan for as they prepare development projects in our community. Should impact fees not be assessed, the same type of financial consideration will need to be attained as part of a project's impact analysis. This is typically achieved through a development agreement when the cost to mitigate project impacts is determined. While impact fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued, development agreements may specify payment prior to seeking building permits at the time a project's public improvements are required. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The Development Fee Report calculates Public Safety fees supported by projected growth over a ten-year period. However, the development fees must be re-examined every five years to assure the land use assumptions and proposed capital improvement program are representative of the experienced demand or require an update to meet the current community need. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Development fees assess new growth a proportionate share of the cost to provide the services needed to meet the additional calls for service. Alternatives to public safety impact fees are to identify the cost to provide services and negotiate the payment at the time of entitlement (zoning map amendment or subdivision), to fund the increased service demand through other General Fund revenues or to decrease the level of service. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform - Staff has prepared an informational memo on the current process, proposed fees, proposed 10- year capital program and 10-year projected revenues (attached to this summary). Staff has distributed this memo to the group of stakeholders which includes building industry organizations and neighborhood associations previously contacted about the land use and infrastructure plan. Consult - To date staff has presented the current fees to Northern Arizona Builders Association and the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee. The information piece identifies the April 1, 2014 public hearing and encourages participation. Discussion at these meetings has not been supportive of the proposed increases. Comments have focused on why do the fees need to be increased?; the additional property and sales tax generated by new growth should be enough to pay for increased calls for service; has the City considered trying to reduce the demand (e.g., response to medical calls) rather than meet the increased demand?; how much is the City spending on consultants and staff time for the small amount of projected revenues? |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for the fees as proposed. 2. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for revised lower fees. 3. Hold the public hearing and discontinue the Public Safety Development Fee program. |
|||||
Attachments: | TischlerBise Feb. Report | ||||
Public Outreach memo | |||||
Projected costs & revenues | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
15.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending Flagstaff City Code, Title 4, Building Regulations, by adding a new Chapter 4-10, Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition and Amendments (Request to postpone action to a date uncertain) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Staff requests City Council postpone Ordinance No. 2014-08 to a date uncertain to allow time to prepare the requested information.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
City Council requested additional information and postponed the item to April 1, 2014. Staff requests additional time to prepare the information and will bring the Ordinance and a revised Staff Summary back when it has all been prepared. Based on the discussion staff will address the following items: 1. Update the agenda item description to fully describe the nature of the amendment. 2. Provide the text of sections which are being deleted and provide a comparison of the current language and the proposed language so that Council can see the technical changes (for example 20" vs. 24"). 3. The staff summary will include an explanation of how the Housing Code is administered and how it is applied to non-conforming properties. 4. The staff summary will include an explanation of the mitigation and hearing process when a property owner is cited for a violation of the Housing Code. |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
15.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07 and Resolution No. 2014-10: Resolution No. 2014-10 Declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07, Adopting Amendments to that certain document entitled “Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments” (An ordinance deleting North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, and replacing it in its entirety with Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-10
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the final time by title only 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-07. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The proposed amendments to City Code Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments establish updated standards and review procedures for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in the downtown and other certain commercial zones. Subsidiary Decisions Points: A key policy decision will concern the establishment of a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate license rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that also reasonably compensates the City for the use, by private individuals, of City sidewalks. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The proposed amendments establish a new uniform fee for processing the application for a sidewalk café, vending cart, or other encroachment, as well as a uniform methodology for establishing a license rate for the use of public sidewalks by a business owner for a sidewalk café or vending cart. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
At the October 8, 2013 Work Session, the Council reviewed and discussed suggested amendments to Division 8-03-002 developed by staff, received public comment, and provided staff with specific direction on an appropriate path forward. At the March 18, 2014 meeting, Council directed staff to provide options for the determination of a license rate (formerly called a lease rate), as well as other minor amendments. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
Sometime in the early 1970’s, the City Council adopted the North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy as Division 8-03-002 of the Flagstaff City Code. This ordinance, which was updated in 1996 and 1997, established standards and procedures for the review and approval of commercial encroachments (including sidewalk cafes and vending carts) as well as for permitted encroachments by certain structures (including, for example, overhead encroachments, excavations, and basement access) and encroachments by other activities and objects such as construction, bicycle racks, newspaper vending machines, etc. Division 8-03-002 was specifically written to allow sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in downtown Flagstaff only, and hence no such encroachments may be permitted in other areas of the City, including the Southside. Many existing Southside businesses have been frustrated because of their inability to establish sidewalk cafes in public right-of-way. Following Council discussion of this issue in October last year, staff from the City Attorney’s office and the Community Development Division has developed amendments to this Division. The draft ordinance incorporates ideas for simplifying and clarifying an approach for the review and issuance of permits for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in most commercial zones within the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Staff has completed amendments to Division 8-03-002 of the Flagstaff City Code. Currently this Division is called “North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy”, and it will be renamed as “Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments”. The amendments to this Division are based on some of the provisions in Division 8-03-002 which have been kept, as well as ideas from a variety of other cities, including Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, Minneapolis, MN, and Redwood City, CA. In the narrative below, staff will describe the principal sections and provisions of the proposed draft ordinance. Reorganization of the Division. This Division has been reorganized so that, for example, the definitions and appeals sections have been consolidated and certain sections have been rearranged so that the document is more logically organized. The definitions are also arranged alphabetically. A new definition for "license rate" to replace the term "lease rate" has been added, as has a definition for "public way or public right-of-way".
Staff studied the methodology used by other US cities, including Seattle, WA and Corvallis, OR for establishing a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate license rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that reasonably compensates the City for the use by private individuals of its property. As discussed at the March 18th Council meeting,
Consistent with Council's direction, staff has developed three options for determining a license rate for the use of public sidewalks by proprietors of sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts. Each of these options are included in Exhibit A to Resolution 2014-10 - refer to Page 5 - and are copied here for the Council's convenience, as well as the corrected version of paragraph 1 of this Section: B. APPLICATION FEE AND LICENSE RATE
1.Each application for a sidewalk café, sidewalk vending cart, or other permitted encroachment shall be accompanied by an application fee. Application fees are established by the City’s Management Services Director. The application fee is nonrefundable and additional to the license rate payable for the use of public right-of-way. The annual total cost for the use of public right-of-way for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts shall be collected prior to issuance of the permit, regardless of the amount of time used, or other permitted encroachment, and shall be determined as set forth in sub-paragraph 2. below.
2. OPTION A: [This is staff's recommended and preferred option. It assumes a uniform per square foot cost for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks with curb and gutter (the value was derived from recent construction projects in Southside and Sunnyside) as the basis for determining the license rate, seasonally adjusted for a 9-month season.] The annual total cost (ATC) shall be based on a per square foot (SF) calculation of the permit operating area. The ATC is calculated by determining the total cost for construction and maintenance of sidewalks, which is approximately $5.00 per square foot (i.e. the license rate (LR)). The license rate may then be multiplied by nine (9) to create an annual cost which reflects an anticipated 9 months of potential use, and then is adjusted for an 8-year rate of return ((RR) i.e. 12.5% of value). See calculation below:
Area of Encroachment (SF) X LR X SA X RR = Annual Total Cost
120 X $5.00 X 9 X 0.125 = $675 Annual Total Cost or $56.25 per month
2. OPTION B: [This option is similar to that originally proposed by staff in that an analysis of the full cash value of properties associated with sidewalk cafes and vending carts will form the basis for the calculation of the license rate. However, rather than locking into 12 properties which may be problematic in the long term, staff suggests that for each pending year for which a license rate needs to be determined, the current year's properties would be used as the basis for the license rate calculation, seasonally adjusted for a 9-month season.] The Annual Total Cost (ATC) shall be based on a per square foot (SF) calculation of the permit operating area. The license rate (LR) value per square foot (SF) shall be calculated annually by the Assistant to the City Manager for Real Estate by no later than September 1st of each year. The license rate, which shall be applied to permit operating areas throughout the City of Flagstaff where sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts are permitted, shall be derived by taking the average full cash value as established by the Coconino County Assessor’s Office for the properties with permitted sidewalk café and sidewalk vending cart encroachments in the preceding year (including, if applicable, Heritage Square), and dividing this value by the area of the parcel. The resultant average land value shall then be multiplied by the permit operating area in square feet (SF) and a rate of return (RR) multiplier of 12.5% applied (i.e. an 8-year rate of return). This will then be modified to reflect anticipated seasonal use by adjusting the cost down by 25%, a seasonal adjustment (SA). See calculation below:
Area of encroachment (SF) X LR X RR X SA = Annual Total Cost
120 X $60.00 X 0.125 X 0.75 = $675 Annual Total Cost or $56.25 per month
2. OPTION C: [This option assumes that the license rate would be based on a locally accepted value of $1:00 per square foot of sidewalk space seasonally adjusted for a 9-month season.] The Annual Total Cost (ATC) shall be based on a per square foot (SF) calculation of the permit operating area. A local industry standard value of approximately $1.00 per SF (the license rate (LR)) may be a applied to the permit operating area and adjusted to reflect anticipated seasonal use by multiplying the rate by nine (9) months instead of 12 (SA). See calculation below:
Area of Encroachment (SF) X $1.00 (LR) X SA = Annual Total Cost
120 X $1.00 X 9 = $1,080 Annual Total Cost or $90.00 per month
The license rate proposed above, or as ultimately adopted by the Council, will be applied to business owners who rent sidewalk space for outdoor cafes or vending carts, and will also be applied to business owners who rent portions of Heritage Square for outdoor dining areas. This license rate will not apply in addition to any current lease amounts (e.g., for Cuvee 928 or Monsoon's), and it would only apply once any current lease agreements terminate.
|
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
As explained above, a key decision point for the Council will be the establishment of a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate license rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that also reasonably compensates the City for the use by private individuals of its property; i.e., sidewalks. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The current standards in Division 8-03-002, North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, have allowed for the establishment of sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in the downtown area. Bars and restaurants who have taken advantage of these regulations to establish seating areas on the public sidewalk have reported that their sales have increased making their businesses more profitable. Owners of sidewalk vending carts have also reported similar results. While increased business activity is beneficial to individual business owners, it also results in increased sales tax revenues to the City. Perhaps more importantly, the character and ambience of downtown is significantly enhanced by sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts, a fact that has been noted by many downtown businesses and the Downtown Business Association. The proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 are intended to continue to allow sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts, so that the advantages described above may continue to be realized. However, other benefits result from these amendments, including the ability of business outside of the downtown area to also establish sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts; the regulations have been clarified to eliminate confusing or contradictory regulations; enhanced protections for pedestrian use of sidewalks have been included; requirements for barriers around sidewalk cafes have been improved to assure architectural compatibility with buildings and to comply with ADA regulations; and, a mechanism to ensure the City is fairly compensated for private use of public rights-of-way is established. Furthermore, the existing regulations for other permitted encroachments that allow, for example, for the placement of a dumpster in public right-of-way when there is no space for it on a construction site, have been clarified. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM, CONSULT, & INVOLVE - Prior to the October 8, 2013 Council work session, staff provided a letter to business owners in the downtown and Southside who have utilized a sidewalk café and vending cart, or who have expressed interest in applying for a permit for one. This letter was also provided to the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce. On February 18, 2014 an updated letter was hand delivered to 16 business owners in the downtown and Southside neighborhood, as well as to the DBA and Chamber of Commerce so that they would be informed of the proposed amendments and upcoming hearings/meetings with the Council. City staff attended the DBA’s weekly meeting on February 24, 2014 to discuss the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002. While the concept of permitting sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts is supported by the DBA because, for example, they add to the ambiance and character of the downtown area, many members were concerned that the cost of the application fee and the permit fee was too high and that this would discourage businesses from applying for the permit. Staff explained why it was important and necessary to have a uniform fee for the use of public right-of-way by private businesses, and that ultimately the Council would decide on the amount of the fee (note the permit fee for a sidewalk café would apply to both Heritage Square and public sidewalks; however, no vending carts are permitted in Heritage Square). City staff also presented the proposed amendments to a number of City Commissions and Committees, as summarized below: Pedestrian Advisory Committee – December 12, 2013 and January 9, 2014. The Committee reviewed the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 and after some questions to staff and discussion the requirements for barriers around sidewalk cafes were supported, including the need for them to meet ADA standards. Further questions on potential obstructions, permitting requirements, and noise issues were answered by staff. Transportation Commission – February 5, 2014. The Transportation Commission listened to staff’s presentation on the sidewalk encroachment amendments, and moved to support the ordinance and recommended approval to the Council. The Commission reviewed the minutes of the Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s last meeting, and they concurred with each of their points. The Commission also discussed the requirements for vending carts and were concerned that they were onerous, specifically the 100% approval requirement. Staff mentioned that a similar discussion had already taken place with the Council last year, and that the Council had directed staff not to change the requirements and standards for vending carts. Disability Awareness Commission – February 25, 2014. After some discussion, during which staff answered questions, the Commission unanimously moved to support the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002, and recommended their adoption by Council. The public hearing/first reading of the ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 has been scheduled for March 18, 2014 with the ordinance’s second reading and possible adoption now scheduled for April 1, 2014. The effective date will, therefore, be May 1, 2014. Owners of interested bars, restaurants, and sidewalk vending carts may apply for a Sidewalk Café and Sidewalk Vending Cart Permit on April 2nd, assuming Council adoption of the ordinance. However, permits will only be issued on April 30th in advance of the May 1st effective date. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-07 | ||||
Res. 2014-10.Amended | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
15.C.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement: Between the City of Flagstaff and Northern Arizona University (NAU) for finanical contribution to the Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator Project. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
NAU was awarded $1.0 million from the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA), and will provide an additional $100,000 to partner with the City of Flagstaff and Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology (NACET) . Acceptance of the IGA will provide the remaining funds needed to design and construct the Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The total project cost is estimated to be $7,762,500. Funding is broken down as follows:
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Science and Technology Park was conceived in 2003, and during the 2004 election bonds in the amount of $61.2 million were approved by the voters to advance the project. The bonds are paid with revenue from the project and not property tax revenue. McMillan Mesa was chosen as an ideal site due to the existing, nearby USGS Campus. Through investigation, a critical part of the science park would be a business incubator for entrepreneurs and business start-ups. An overall science park master plan was developed around 2005. The master plan included a remodeled USGS Campus, a 10,000 square foot business incubator, and a science park on nine acres of adjacent land. The business incubator was constructed in 2008 through a U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant and is currently operated by Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology (NACET), a separate private non-profit. The Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator and Emergency Operations Center is intended to be the first of three buildings located adjacent to the USGS Campus and the business incubator, and will include a 25,000 square foot building featuring wet and dry labs/office space (80%) and light manufacturing space (20%), a conference room/alternate secondary EOC, and server facilities. The primary purpose of the Business Accelerator is to provide space for Tier 2 companies and graduates of NACET, as well as grow business startups and advance entrepreneurship and economic gardening programs within the region, and to retain and expand existing businesses through the creation of 300 jobs and $20 million in private investment. The building will feature a secondary or alternate EOC (as part of the conference room) should disaster related circumstances arise and warrant the need by either City and/or County personnel. It is not the City’s intent to develop the remaining 50,000 square feet of this campus. Rather, upon completion of the Business Accelerator, an evaluation will be done with Council to determine the disposition of the remaining development. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The Innovation Mesa Project is a shared vision with federal, state, local, and private entities. This collaborative partnership involves the City of Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona, Northern Arizona Council of Governments, U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, and the Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology. This collaborative partnership has already shown a proven ability to work together to advance the economic needs of the region. More specifically, this project will allow NAU to house its expanded venture acceleration and ongoing business incubation work on Innovation Mesa. This will be an important step forward for Northern Arizona, the City and NAU in accelerating job creation and capital investment through:
|
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This project will enable the region to create an environment that provides facilities for incubator graduates and Tier 2 companies to expand and grow their businesses. It also provides other agencies an alternate secondary emergency operations center for first responders to efficiently deliver vital services to communities and tribal nations during natural disasters. The facility helps build economic resiliency through long term economic stability in the community. It will benefit the following groups:
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform and Collaborate |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | IGA with NAU for Innovation Mesa | ||||
Exhibit A-Proposal to ACA from NAU | |||||
Exhibit B-ACA between NAU Grant Agreement | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
15.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Lease of City-Owned Property: Ground Lease Agreement for the Development of Affordable Housing: Providing site control of City owned land located at 300 South Verde for Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona to support construction of a home for inclusion in the Community Land Trust Program. (Permission for Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona to build a permanently affordable home on City land) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the Ground Lease Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona for the construction of one single-family home to be sold to a qualified low-income household and included in the Community Land Trust Program.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Providing site control of City-owned land for Habitat for Humanity of Northern Arizona (HFHNA) will provide an owne- occupied permanently affordable home for the community, support a non-profit’s capacity, and increase the Community Land Trust Program (CLTP) inventory with limited City financial resources required. Subsidiary Decisions Points: No subsidiary decision points. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The agreement allows a single family home to be constructed on City land. HFHNA will provide $30/month to the City as a lease fee. After the home is sold, the cost will be assigned to the new owner. (An additional financial implication is the reduction in cost to the City required to maintain the current landscaping and for snow removal.) |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
While there has not been a previous Council decision on this specific property, in the fall of 2011 a very similar agreement was approved and executed for a near-by property. The home associated with the previous Ground Lease has been constructed and is occupied by a low-income household. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
A) Approve the ground lease agreement B) Approve the ground lease agreement with amendments C) Not approve the ground lease agreement and provide guidance regarding areas for renegotiation D) Not approve the agreement |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Council provided direction to identify appropriate parcels that could be utilized to assist non-profit organizations in providing affordable owner occupied housing opportunities. HFHNA has worked with staff to explore the possiblity of developing several remnant parecls over the past couple years; has requested site control and proceeded with design work. The proposed parcel is a remnant from the Butler widening project over fifteen years ago. In 1998, the Flagstaff Housing Authority built a duplex that serves as part of the Scattered Site Public Housing Program. Staff, together with HFHNA, has determined there is room for an additonal unit on the same parcel. Private funds and Community Development Block Grant (previously awarded) will be used to build the home. The improvements will be sold to a qualified household and the land will stay in the CLTP. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The parcel is an infill parcel in a residential neighborhood with appropriate zoning. It will provide space for one single-family unit and has been through pre-application and Design Review as well. The parcel will be controlled by HFHNA through the construction process and then assigned to the qualified household who will purchase the improvements. The identified qualified household earns less than 60% of the Area Median Income ($38,340 for a family of four in 2014), a difficult population to serve with other models. Control will be provided through the 99-year renewable ground lease which allows the City to require standards be met and that existing infrastructure be maintained where necessary. The parcel improvements, including the building, fencing and landscaping, will be maintained by the homeowner. Due to the unique nature of the partnership and the lack of alternative uses for the parcel, sole source procurement was determined to be acceptable. One additional action to be performed administratively is the application for a Lot Combination through Coconino County. Restructuring the current parcel boundaries will provide two viable parcels divided by Butler Avenue. This addresses an issue created by the Butler realignment and corrects a non-viable remnant that exists today South of Butler Avenue. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The agreement uses existing and appropriate City land to achieve a Council goal with limited City of Flagstaff financial contribution necessary. The ground lease will result in $30/month lease fee provided to the City and control of the parcel by an outside entity will save City BBB resources currently used to maintain the landscaping and sidewalks. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Permanent affordability provides the ongoing community benefit of affordable homeownership to a difficult-to-serve population through a unique melding of models. This agreement supports a non-profit partner, HFHNA, as they work to provide affordable housing and simultaneously increases the inventory of permanently affordable homes with limited cost to the City. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Consult - Permanent affordability and the CLTP have had significant public involvement and opportunities for public comment during the various stages of development. The Community Housing Policy Task Force identified the use of City-owned land as a potential strategy for assisting partner organizations in a mutually beneficial manner. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The recommended option is the product of discussion with the provider and their formal request for the land use. There are few, if any, alternative parcels that are viable for this building season. | |||||
Attachments: | Site Plan and Elevation | ||||
Legal Description for Lease Parcel | |||||
Exhibit to Legal Description | |||||
IDS Approval Letter and Conditions | |||||
Development Ground Lease | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.E.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consultant Agreement; Utility Rate and Capacity Fee Study (Approval of the Agreement will allow Willdan Financial Services, Inc. to prepare a Utility Rate and Capacity Fee Study for the City of Flagstaff) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Approve the Agreement with Willdan Financial Services, Inc. for the amount of $114,380
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents 3) Authorize change order authority for the City Manager for the amount of $11,438 (10%) to cover the expense of additional items or other unanticipated work |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
On November 6, 2013 the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional consulting services to provide an economic model and a complete cost analysis, resulting in its recommendations for rates and charges for water, wastewater, reclaimed water, capacity fees, septage fees and stormwater fees and assessments. We received six (6) responses to the RFP. An interdivisional group of five (5) City employees evaluated the proposals and selected Willdan Financial Services, Inc. as the most qualified to perform the requirements of the RFP. In accordance with the draft policy A.3, Rate Design Elements, of the Utilities Water Policies under consideration by City Council, Utilities will perform a formal rate study every three (3) years. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The rate study is currently in the FY 2014 CIP budget at $150,000 | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Repair, replace, maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) 5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 11. Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Award the contract to Willdan Financial Services, Inc.. 2) Do not award the contract to conduct the rate study and financial model development, and continue with the current system. The current model does need a comprehensive revision based on a rate study determination. 3) Remand the contract and scope to staff for further consideration. This will delay the initiation of the process and require a new procurement process . |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Since at least the early 1980’s, the Utilities Division has historically based the rates, fees, and assessments charged to customers by using an economic model to predict the cost of amortized operation and upkeep of the City Utilities infrastructure. Costs of Service rates are based on a systematic approach to the allocation of user charge revenue requirements to customer classes. Equitable rates are rates that are based on cost of service norms, and where the customer who is charged for the service is charged in proportion to the cost burden caused by that customer class. An important aspect of assigning rates, fees, and rate classes is the establishment of revenue components in a legally defensible format. Additionally, this study will use sound financial principles outlined in Section A – Finance of the draft Utilities Water Policies under development by City Council. This study will accomplish that goal for the Utilities Division and the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The goal of the rate study is to ensure that the Utility has sufficient revenues to cover O&M and Capital costs as well as to meet the City’s debt coverage requirements and working capital guidelines. The economic model and analysis will evaluate the current rates and provide recommendations for fee structures that will meet cost and revenue requirements for a base fiscal year and ten subsequent years. Six (6) firms submitted proposals for performing the rate study. A five (5) person evaluation committee independently reviewed each proposal and scored the firms on the following criteria: experience and qualifications, presented approach and creativity, ability to meet schedule commitments, project delivery system, and fee. The initial scoring tabulation resulted in a short-list of three (3) firms to be invited to perform an interview with the evaluation committee. There were a total of 500 points possible in the initial evaluation. The interview component provided for an additional 100 possible points to be calculated as an aggregate total of 600 possible points. The scoring results are on the attached Scoring Tabulation document. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The rate study is currently in the FY 2014 CIP budget at $150,000 in account number 201-08-370-3179-0-4421 |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This rate study will assist in achieving a fair and equitable rate structure, user fees and capacity charges that reflect the actual cost of the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Utilities infrastructure. Costs will be distributed according to the value to the user class, or as the Council ultimately decides. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Involve This rate study will go through a comprehensive review by City Staff and by the Water Commission. This project will include extensive public outreach including data and analytical details. Public meetings for comment will be conducted during the Water Commission meetings as well as during Council meetings. |
|||||
Attachments: | Willdan Financial Services, Inc. Agreement | ||||
Scoring Tabulation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.F.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Grant Application: Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) Federal Fiscal Year 2015 for Police Department Applications for DUI Task Force, and Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the application(s) to the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) for grant funds for the Police Department in the amount of $45,240 for DUI Task Force activities with an additional $11,459 for speed detection devices, $44,160 for Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction task force.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no significant financial impact to the Flagstaff Police Department in terms of expenditures. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Council has accepted prior-year funded GOHS grants. The Flagstaff Police Department have received these grants for a number of years. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve the Grant Application(s) Disapprove the Grant Applications(s) |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department considers any loss of life or limb to a drug or alcohol-related, motor vehicle accident unacceptable. We have conducted both in-service and advanced officer training in D.U.I. detection. We have a longstanding tradition of aggressive D.U.I. interdiction and enforcement. Every officer in our organization is held accountable to D.U.I. arrest standards. Each officer working a night shift is expected to achieve a D.U.I. standard performance rating, which is identified as three or more D.U.I. arrests per month. This is done in the interest of protecting life and property through collision reduction. Our interdiction efforts have further been supported with D.U.I. overtime operations such as task force patrols, and directed patrols on weekends and holidays. These efforts are staffed by officers on overtime to enhance effectiveness. Without the financial resources provided for by DUI Task Force grant application, it is difficult, if not impossible, to staff these operations with on-duty officers as they have primary responsibility to respond to all manner of calls for service during their shift. The Flagstaff Police Department has requested grant funds for the purchase of 10 speed detection devices. These speed detection instruments would provide officers the necessary tools to detect speeding vehicles and reduce speed related collisions. These tools go along with DUI detection and apprehension which makes our city streets safer. The Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction grant application fits in with our mission to protect and preserve life and property. The Flagstaff Police Department has a zero tolerance policy toward alcohol-related crimes including: driving under the influence, minor consumption, misrepresentation of age to purchase alcohol, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Related to these ends, the FPD expects each of its patrol officers to pro actively engage in the arrest of liquor violations. Flagstaff Police Department officers are typically attached to patrol squads that work during the evening and night time hours. During their shift, these officers are responsible for answering calls for service while remaining vigilant for alcohol violations. However, we feel that we have the potential to be even more effective and have a greater impact in the area of underage drinking enforcement during known times and locations when these types of violations are more likely to occur. Our proposal concerns the granting of overtime reimbursement funds for directed patrol efforts for the enforcement of underage drinking laws, as well as an educational component. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The law-abiding citizens of our community expect and deserve our streets and neighborhoods to be places where they feel safe. The approval of these grant applications will allow us to seek additional resources to help us reduce collisions through removing impaired drivers, underage alcohol prevention and education. The numerous letters and comments the Police Department receives from citizens reinforces this goal. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Police Department grant applications will assist the Flagstaff Police Department to prevent and control crime, and administer justice. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | Flagstaff Police-GOHS 2015 DUI Task Force Grant Application | ||||
Flagstaff Police-GOHS 2015 Youth Alcohol Prevention & Interdiction Grant Application | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.G.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-13: A resolution on the Principles of Sound Water Management - Water Policies Chapter of the Utilities Integrated Master Plan. (Approval of Water Policy by Resolution) |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-13 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-13 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-13 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Principles of Sound Water Management - Water Policies Chapter of the Utilities Integrated Master Plan will provide the fundamental principles and guidelines for how the Utilities Division will achieve the goals and objectives outlined by City Council and upper City Management. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Complete Water Policy Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
City Council has reviewed and provided staff direction and comments on each of the water policies over numerous meetings since 2012. City Council used the Water Commission's policy document they adopted on November 15, 2012 as the basis for these policies. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Adopt the Principles of Sound Water Management - Water Policies as written or modify their language or remand the policies back to staff to rewrite some or all of the policy language for future Council consideration. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Staff has worked with the Water Commission to define the concepts and agreed upon the language for each policy since 2008. At their November 15, 2012 Commission meeting, they approved the initial policy document and recommended staff to bring the policies forward to City Council for your consideration and adoption. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Having an adopted set of water policies that are deliberative and well thought-out to guide the Utilities Division in the management, use and strategic planning of water, wastewater, reclaimed water and stormwater within the City of Flagstaff will be a great community benefit. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Collaborate. The community has had numerous opportunities to provide input during the Water Commission and City Council meetings since 2008. |
|||||
Attachments: | Water Policy redline | ||||
Water Policy draft Final | |||||
Resolution 2014-13 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.H.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-09: An ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the meeting of April 1, 2014
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) At the meeting of April 15, 2014 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-09 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department with assistance from the Flagstaff City Attorney's Office is requesting the approval of Ordinance 2014-09, which would prohibit aggressive solicitation in Flagstaff. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no financial impact to the City of Flagstaff by adopting this ordinance. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance by addressing public safety and constituent concerns. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council has not made a prior decision on this issue. The prospect of developing an ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation was presented during Council work session on February 11, 2014. Council provided support in bringing a draft ordinance forward. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt Ordinance 2014-09, making it unlawful to aggressively solicit in Flagstaff. 2) Amend Ordinance 2014-09 3) Do not adopt Ordinance 2014-09 |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In August 2013, a local attorney and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Flagstaff City Attorney and the Police Chief alleging the state statute prohibiting loitering to beg was unconstitutional. After legal review, it was determined in fact the statute found under ARS 13-2905 (A)(3) was believed to be a violation of free speech. Following recommendations by the City Attorney and Police Chief, the Flagstaff City Council approved a settlement whereby the Flagstaff Police Department would refrain immediately from taking enforcement action for loitering to beg. On October 11, 2013, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission advised all law enforcement agencies in the state that the United States District Court had declared ARS 13-2905(A)(3) to be unconstitutional and void under the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. The statute was declared unenforceable statewide. Each year, the Flagstaff Police Department receives numerous calls from concerned citizens who have been approached by individuals begging for assistance. In one recent 13 month period, the police department recorded 642 calls for service where the event code was classified as loitering. The event code for loitering and "vagrancy" is the same, so not all 642 calls received were specifically for loitering to beg, however during that same 13 month period, the Flagstaff Police Department made 141 arrests for panhandling under 13-2905A3 prior to the legal challenge of this statute. Statistics indicate a large number of citizens contact the police annually with concerns regarding this behavior. A number of these arrests involved activity described by the victim as "aggressive" at the time the panhandling occurred. A case review indicates it is apparent many subjects who panhandle tend to target females or the elderly resulting in many of these victims describing the contact as causing fear. In two separate case, children under the age of ten were solicited. The Flagstaff Police Department believes that citizen concerns regarding loitering to beg on private property can be addressed through a partnership with business owners. Officers can be granted authority to "trespass" subjects on private property at the business owner or managers direction. If a business owner believes loitering to beg is bad for business, authority may be granted allowing officers to trespass individuals involved in this conduct. Notice shall be given upon first contact, warning the individual this conduct is not allowed and the officer will trespass the individual from that property. Recent changes in state statue on trespassing now allows the officers to "trespass"at the direction of the business owner. Notice of trespass will be documented in our records system, accessible to officers in the field. Future or subsequent contacts with the same individual at that location could result in an arrest for trespass. Incidents occurring on school grounds can be enforced under the existing provision remaining in the State loitering statute. Private schools and churches are also private property, and as such, solicitation can be effectively addressed with the trespassing statute. With trespassing tools in place on private property, the challenge will be in addressing certain behaviors involving aggressive solicitation on public property. During legal review, it has been determined that several municipalities in the state of Arizona have enacted local ordinances to address aggressive solicitation. These ordinances have successfully addressed citizens concerns by prohibiting behavior or conduct, as opposed to the content of speech. The proposed ordinance on aggressive solicitation is attached. It contains many of the same elements of several of the ordinances reviewed from other municipalities. Several options are open for Council discussion, most notably distances listed prohibiting certain behavior in proximity to commercial institutions. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
A draft bill on Aggressive Solicitation is being proposed in the State House of Representatives. A copy of that bill is attached. Much of the same prohibitions appear in this draft legislation, but it is of course unknown at this time whether this bill will gain the support this legislative session. The issue of panhandling in Flagstaff is most definitely seasonal, with significant increases in calls for service and response to panhandling complaints experienced during spring and summer months. We expect calls for service regarding loitering incidents will begin to dramatically increase in late April. There are also concerns with the legality of prohibiting solicitation on medians. Currently there is an existing state law under A.R.S. Section 13-2906 "Obstructing a Highway or Other Public Thoroughfare", that applies if a person recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that attempts to set prohibitions on day laborers who were soliciting work and obstructing traffic while doing so unconstitutional. Recently the U.S. District Court in Maine struck down a Portland, Maine City Ordinance prohibiting soliciting on medians. The Court first found that a median is a public forum for the purposes of the First Amendment free speech analysis. The Court then went on to state that because the City Council and Chief of Police in Portland interpreted the ordinance to allow persons to go on the median to place campaign signs, that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it was not reasonably related to the State's interest of safety concern. Therefore, if a local ordinance is considered prohibiting solicitation on medians, that ordinance would have to prohibit all activity on medians including the placement of signs in order to possibly be found constitutional. However given the 9th Circuit ruling previously mentioned, the possibility exists the courts may find any prohibition of solicitation on medians unconstitutional due to the existence of the more applicable A.R.S. section 13-2906, "Obstructing a Public Thoroughfare". |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Adoption of this ordinance will provide a tool for law enforcement when concerns are received by citizens regarding aggressive solicitation, or from business owners who have concerns about loitering in proximity of commercial institutions. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform: There have been several articles in the AZ Daily Sun in the past several months detailing the court decision regarding the repeal of ARS 2905(A)(3) and the impacts on enforcement of loitering to beg here locally. Specifically an article appeared in the Daily Sun on October 5, 2013, as well as an editorial by the Daily Sun on September 19, 2013. On January 11, 2013, the Daily Sun carried a headline story describing in detail the proposed state law banning aggressive solicitation. Consult: The Daily Sun also carried a small story prior to the work session on 2-11-2013 where City staff provided City Council with a power point presentation seeking direction on a proposed ordinance banning aggressive solicitation. Citizens had the opportunity at this work session o speak on this issue during public forum. One citizen showed at the work session and filled out a comment card in support of the proposed ordinance. No citizens spoke on this issue at that work session. |
|||||
Attachments: | House Bill on aggressive loitering | ||||
Power Point | |||||
Ord. 2014-09 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
16.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative Update | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
No Recommended Action - Discussion Only
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
The update on the Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative will include a report out on the City Manager's Citizen Review Committee. The City Manager will review the final recommendation approved by the Committee and comments received from the Transportation Commission. The presentation will conclude with a discussion on next steps. The Citizen Review Committee's final recommendation and Transportation Commission's comments will be included in the final agenda packet. | |||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|