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). |
|||||||||
A. | Consideration of Appointments: Transportation Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make three total appointments.
Make two Citizen appointments to terms expiring July 2017. Make one Citizen appointment to term expiring July 2016. |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make one At-Large appointment to a term expiring December 2016.
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration of Appointments: Tourism Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make one Hospitality appointment to a term expiring January 2017.
|
||||||||||
D. | Consideration of Appointments: Beautification & Public Art Commission (BPAC). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make one Hospitality appointment to a term expiring June 2015.
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration of Appointments: Disability Awareness Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make one appointment to a term expiring March 2017.
|
||||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Danny Thomas, "New Jersey Pizza Company", 110 S. San Francisco, St. C., Series 12 (restaurant), New License. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold the 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 Acceptance of Bid: 2014-79 for Neptune Water Meters (Purchase of water meters from HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc.) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Acceptance of Proposal: Accept the proposal from Aerzen USA Corporation for three (3) High Efficiency Blowers. (Purchase of three blowers for the Wildcat Wastewater Treatment Plant). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
C. |
Consideration and Approval of Purchase Under National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance Contract: All-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments (Purchase of 3 all-wheel-drive motor graders from Empire Machinery of Flagstaff)
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the purchase under National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance Contract with Empire Machinery of Flagstaff, Arizona (Empire Southwest, LLC) for the purchase of three (3) all-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments in the amount of $677,000, plus the trade in of two (2) 1989 motor graders, one (1) 1990 all-wheel-drive motor grader, two (2) 1988 loaders and one (1) 1991 loader.
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and approval of Grant Agreement: Authorizing approval of an Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds in the amount of $291,660.00 for the Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force (METRO unit). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the acceptance of the grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds in the amount of $291,660.00 for FY2015.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration of Intergovernmental Agreement: With Coconino County for use of the Hazardous Products Center (HPC) (Approve IGA with Coconino County which will allow the City to continue to accept hazardous wastes from Coconino County households and small businesses at the HPC). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Coconino County.
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Joint Funding Request: Gauging Station at Newman Canyon Wash. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the Agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to contribute $74,300.
|
||||||||||
D. | Consideration of Appointments: On Call Judges for the Flagstaff Municipal Court. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
Approve the appointments as recommended by Hon. Thomas L. Chotena, Presiding Magistrate of the Flagstaff Municipal Court.
|
||||||
E. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-19: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-04, Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service, Section 7-04-001-0009, Fees, by reinstating the $2.50 per ton Environmental Maintenance Facility Fee, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Reinstate the $2.50 per ton landfill tipping fee). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No.2014-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-19 (effective September 1, 2014) |
||||||
F. | Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-23 and Ordinance No. 2014-15: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Declaring that Certain Document Known as "The 2014 BBB Tax Re-Codification Amendments as a Public Record, and Providing for an Effective Date; and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-06, Privilege and Excise Taxes, Chapter 3-06, Lodging, Restaurant and Lounge Tax, are Hereby Amended by Adopting "The 2014 BBB Tax Re-Codification Amendments" as Set Forth in that Public Record on File with the City Clerk; Providing for Penalties, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, Authority for Clerical Corrections, and Establishing Effective Dates. (Recodification of BBB Tax) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-15 |
||||||
G. | Consideration of bid and Approval of the Lease Agreement: City-Owned Property: Located at 6628 S. Piper Lane (Lease of property located near the Airport - formerly the FAA facility) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||
Accept the bid and approve the Lease Agreement with Northern Arizona Healthcare dba Guardian Air for lease payments of $833.50 per month ($10,002 annually). The facility will receive intended improvements by lessee at an estimated value of $200,000. Authorize the City Manager or his designees to execute all necessary documents. | ||||||
H. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-17: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-3, City Water System Regulations, Section 7-03-001-0003, Deposit Required, to change water service deposits; providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Changing the amount of water service deposits) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-17 and establish an effective date for the deposit adjustments of September 1, 2014 |
||||||||||
I. |
Reconsideration of Prior Action: Resolution No. 2014-25: A resolution authorizing the execution of a Development Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - Trax, L.L.C. related to the development of approximately 33.6 acres of real property generally located at the intersection of Route 66 and Fourth Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Should the Council wish to reconsider this item, a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 2014-25 would be required to be made (by a member voting with the majority).
|
||||||||||
i. |
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-25: A resolution authorizing the execution of a Development Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - Trax, L.L.C. related to the development of approximately 33.6 acres of real property generally located at the intersection of Route 66 and Fourth Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-25 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-25 by title only (if approved above). 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-25. |
||||||||||
J. | Consideration and Approval of Second Amendment of Purchase and Sale Agreement: Between the City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - TRAX, LLC ("Evergreen"), for the sale of approximately 33.6 acres of property consisting of three parcels located at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Fourth Street and Route 66, and the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Huntington drive adjacent to the Fourth Street Overpass (the "Property"). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
K. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-24, and Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-16: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Declaring that Certain Document Known as "The 2014 Use Tax Adoption and Related City Tax Code Amendments" as a Public Record, and Providing for an Effective Date; and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-05, Privilege and Excise Taxes, is Hereby Amended by Adopting "The 2014 Use Tax Adoption and Related City Tax Code Amendments" by reference as Set Forth in that Public Record on File with the City Clerk; Providing for Penalties, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, Authority for Clerical Corrections, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Adoption of local 1% use tax) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-24
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-16 |
||||||||||
L. | Consideration and Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement: Election Services for the August 26, 2014, Primary Election | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Coconino County Elections at a cost of $2.00 per registered voter.
|
||||||||||
M. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-20: An Ordinance prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-20 |
||||||||||
N. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-18: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 10, User Fees, Section 3-10-001-0005, Recreation Fees, by increasing certain Parks and Recreation Fees; providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Increasing recreation fees) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-18 (and establish an effective for the recreation fees of September 1, 2014) |
||||||||||
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 None |
|||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-29: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff naming two of the trails in Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve the "Tom Moody Trail" and the "Don Weaver Trail". (Approve two Picture Canyon trail dedications). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-29 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-29 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-29 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration of Proposals: Purchase of Property for the Core Services Maintenance Facility (Consider proposals submitted in response to RFP 2013-44). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Reject all proposals as submitted for Request for Proposal (RFP) 2013-44 for the purchase of property for the Core Services Maintenance Facility and approve the McAllister Ranch property for construction of the Facility.
|
||||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS None |
|||||||||
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 |
|||||||||
|
7.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Transportation Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make three total appointments.
Make two Citizen appointments to terms expiring July 2017. Make one Citizen appointment to term expiring July 2016. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By making the above appointments, the Transportation Commission will be at full membership and will be able to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are three applications on file, they are as follows:
Andrew Benally (new applicant)
Robert Mullen (current commissioner) Derik Spice (current commissioner) |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint three Commissioners: by appointing members at this time, the Transportation Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Transportation Commission consists of seven voting members and two non-voting members. The voting members consist of the Superintendent of the Flagstaff Unified School District (FUSD), a member from the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Transit Authority (NAIPTA) and five citizen members appointed by Council. The two non-voting members are a City of Flagstaff Police Officer and the Traffic Engineer. There are currently three citizen seats available. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
It is important to fill the vacancies so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis at full membership. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. Board members and City staff have informed the community of this vacancy through word of mouth. The vacancies are also posted on the City's website. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Barotz and Mayor Nabours | |||||
Attachments: | Transportation Roster | ||||
Transportation Authority | |||||
Transportation Applicant Roster | |||||
Transportation Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make one At-Large appointment to a term expiring December 2016.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By making the above appointment, the Heritage Preservation Commission will be at full membership and will be able to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are three applications on file.
Stephanie Bauer (new applicant)
Sean Patrick Berry (new applicant)
Josh Edwards (new applicant) |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint one Commissioner: By appointing a member at this time, the Heritage Preservation Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Heritage Preservation Commission consists of seven citizens serving three-year terms. Two positions represent historic owners, two positions represent the architecture industry, and three positions are at-large seats. There is currently one at-large seat available. The Heritage Preservation Commission locates sites of historic interest in the City, advises the City Council on all matters relating to historic preservation, and reviews development projects in the downtown design review district. The term of Jonathan Day expired December 2013, he has not applied for reappointment and no other historic property owners have submitted applications. Mr. Day will continue to serve until an application is received and member appointed. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
It is important to fill the vacancies so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: The vacancies are posted on the City's website and individual recruitment and mention of the opening by Commission members and City staff has occurred, informing others of this vacancy through word of mouth. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Oravits and Councilmember Overton. | |||||
Attachments: | Heritage Preservation Roster | ||||
Heritage Preservation Authority | |||||
Heritage Preservation Applicant Roster | |||||
Heritage Preservation Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Tourism Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make one Hospitality appointment to a term expiring January 2017.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By making the above appointment, the Tourism Commission will be at full membership and will be able to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are three applications on file, they are as follows:
Ruben Abeyta (new applicant)
Janis Russell (new applicant) Christopher Shields (new applicant)
Ruben Abeyta and Janis Russell are eligible for the Hospitality seat.
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint one Commissioner: By appointing a member at this time, the Tourism Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Tourism Commission consists of nine citizens serving three-year terms; five of these citizens shall be from the hospitality industry. There is currently one hospitality seat available. The mission of the Tourism Commission is to develop, promote, and maintain Flagstaff as a year-round visitor destination with professional visitor services that will benefit the community economically, environmentally, and socially. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
It is important to fill the vacancies so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: The vacancies are posted on the City's website and individual recruitment and mention of the opening by Commission members and City staff has occurred, informing others of this vacancy through word of mouth. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Woodson and Vice Mayor Evans. | |||||
Attachments: | Tourism Roster | ||||
Tourism Authority | |||||
Tourism Applicant Roster | |||||
Tourism Applicant Matrix | |||||
Tourism Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Beautification & Public Art Commission (BPAC). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make one Hospitality appointment to a term expiring June 2015.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By making the above appointment, the Beautification & Public Art Commission will be at full membership and will be able to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are three applications on file as follows:
Dawn Kish (new applicant)
Anne Mead Soper (new applicant) Jeremy Meyer (new applicant)
Jeremy Meyer is eligible for the Hospitality seat.
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Diversity of arts, culture and educational opportunities. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint one Commissioner: By appointing a member at this time, the Beautification & Public Arts Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Beautification & Public Art Commission consists of nine citizens serving three-year terms. One of the positions represents the hospitality industry, two positions represent members of the arts community, one position represents the design professional industry, and five are at-large seats. There is currently one hospitality seat available. The Beautification and Public Art Commission recommends expenditures from the BBB beautification fund and public art portion of the BBB arts and science fund. It studies and recommends community beautification projects ranging from landscaping and irrigation, signs and billboards, buildings, facilities, streetscapes, gateways, the purchase and installation of public art projects within beautification projects, property acquisition for beautification and/or public art projects, and neighborhood-initiated projects, to mention a few. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
It is important to fill the vacancies so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: The vacancies are also posted on the City's website and individual recruitment and mention of the openings by Board members and City staff has occurred, informing others of these vacancies through word of mouth. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Brewster and Councilmember Oravits. | |||||
Attachments: | BPAC Roster | ||||
BPAC Authority | |||||
BPAC Applicant Roster | |||||
BPAC Applicant Matrix | |||||
BPAC Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Disability Awareness Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make one appointment to a term expiring March 2017.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By making the above appointment, the Disability Awareness Commission will be at full membership. There are three applications on file and they are as follows:
James Dazhoni (new applicant) Christina Leland (new applicant) Shari Peralta (new applicant) |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint one Commissioner: by appointing a member at this time, the Disability Awareness Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to continue meeting to provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Disability Awareness Commission consists of nine citizens serving three year terms. There is currently one vacant seats available. This commission's goals are to expand educational opportunities; improve access to housing, buildings, and transportation; have greater participation in recreational, social, and cultural activities; encourage greater opportunity for employment; and expand and strengthen rehabilitative programs and facilities. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
It is important to fill the vacancies so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: Board members and City staff have informed the community of these vacancies through word of mouth in addition to the posting on the City's website. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Vice Mayor Evans and Councilmember Brewster. | |||||
Attachments: | DAC Roster | ||||
DAC Authority | |||||
DAC Applicant Roster | |||||
DAC Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Danny Thomas, "New Jersey Pizza Company", 110 S. San Francisco, St. C., Series 12 (restaurant), New License. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold the 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: | |||||
Danny Thomas is the agent for a new Series 12 (restaurant) liquor license for New Jersey Pizza Company. | |||||
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 new Series 12 liquor license was received from Danny Neal for New Jersey Pizza Company. 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 is currently being reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who is working through a few issues with the applicant and will issue a final recommendation at the time of the final agenda. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a new license, consideration may be given to both the location and the applicant's personal qualifications. A Series 12 license allows the holder of a restaurant license to sell and serve spirituous liquor solely for consumption on the premises of an establishment which derives at least forty percent (40%) of its gross revenue from the sale of food. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is July 30, 2014. The applicant is not required to provide the distance between the applicant’s business and the nearest church or school for government; and the State does not require a geological map or list of licenses in the vicinity for any license series. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on June 20, 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: | New Jersey - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
New Jersey - PD Memo | |||||
New Jersey - Code Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
9.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Acceptance of Bid: 2014-79 for Neptune Water Meters (Purchase of water meters from HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc.) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City has not been under a contract with a water meter vendor for the past year. The prior water meter manufacturer the City purchased from, Elster, stopped providing mechanical meters effective June 2013. At that time, staff opted to purchase water meters for the next fiscal year through Badger Meter, Inc., a leading water meter manufacturer, with the intent of securing a contract with a meter vendor in the coming year. The acceptance of this bid is the culmination of those efforts to secure a guaranteed price and supply from a water meter manufacturer. All other bids were rejected as non-responsive for failure to meet pricing or meter specifications. Subsidiary Decision Points: None. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City is currently purchasing water meters, as needed, without a formal contract in place. This contract will allow the City to purchase water meters under a formal contract, with a guaranteed pricing structure. This item is budgeted every year as part of the ongoing meter replacement/maintenance program. The total budget is $350,000 which provides for both the meters and the water communication modules. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Repair, replace and maintain infrastructure (Water Meter Equipment). The water meters are a key component for accurate water meter reads. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Accept the bid from the lowest responsive and responsible bidder HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc. 2) Do not accept the recommended bid from HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc. and continue to purchase water meters without a contract on an as needed basis. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City has approximately 20,000 water meters that are billed on a monthly basis. The City utilizes many different water meter sizes (3/4" up to 10") and technologies (nutating disc, compound, turbine, etc.) to deliver water to City residents and businesses. The recommended bid will cover approximately 99.5% of all water meters the City currently purchases. The small number not covered by the bid are ordered on an as needed basis for specific applications. Examples of special applications include: fire service meters and meters that require specific test plugs for maintenance. The recommended bid with HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc. will allow the City to continue to use Itron meter reading technology. Neptune water meters tie seamlessly into the Itron water communication modules and software. This will allow the City to continue the transition to automated meter reading (AMR), or drive-by reading, and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), or fixed network reading. In addition, HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc. has a warehouse location within the City of Flagstaff. This will allow a quicker turnaround from the vendor as vendor inventory will be kept close to the City's warehouse. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This contract will allow the City to purchase water meters under a formal contract through HD Supply Waterworks Group, Inc.. The Neptune Water Meters are fully compatible with the City of Flagstaff's Itron water meter reading system. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This contract will allow the City to purchase water meters and have a formal contract/pricing structure in place. A formal contract will guarantee delivery of essential components for the water system and ensure that there are minimal impacts to customers, such as misreads and incorrect billings, from failed equipment that the City is unable to replace in a timely manner. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | Bid No. 2014-79 Documents | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Acceptance of Proposal: Accept the proposal from Aerzen USA Corporation for three (3) High Efficiency Blowers. (Purchase of three blowers for the Wildcat Wastewater Treatment Plant). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The purpose of installing these "turbo blowers" at Wildcat Hill Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is three (3) fold: First, these blowers are much more energy efficient and will reduce the City's energy use thereby saving money; Second, the new blowers will allow for better control of the treatment process which will greatly assist in the reduction of nitrogen concentrations, and; Third, because of the de-nitrification benefits, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) approved the installation of these blowers within the City's Corrective Action Plan to reduce Total Nitrogen. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal(s) and/or Regional Pla: | |||||
Repair replace and maintain infrastructure (Wastewater Aeration Equipment). The aeration blowers are a critical component to the wastewater de-nitrification process and will assist in helping the Wildcat Hill WWTP meet the required regulatory permit levels for nitrogen concentrations. Replacement of the existing inefficient equipment will lower the annual energy costs to the Utilities Division. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None previously. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Tata & Howard conducted energy audits at the Wildcat Hill WWTP and Rio de Flag Water Reclamation Facility in February of 2012. These audits included an evaluation of the relative wire to air efficiency of the blower systems at both plants. Tests were conducted to evaluate the relative efficiency of the blower systems under normal operating conditions and recording electrical data. As a result of the energy audit, it was determined that the existing blower systems at the Wildcat Hill WWTP have a wire to air efficiency ranging from 35 percent to 40 percent. These wire to air efficiencies are well below industry standards for this type of equipment. The audit showed an estimated energy savings of up to 1,860,000 kilowatt hours per year associated with increasing the overall efficiency of the existing blower systems to current industry standards.The report recommended the installation of three new appropriately sized "turbo blowers" and upgrading the process control systems. Staff solicited a Request for Proposals (RFP) in October/November 2013, only two proposals were received (Aerzen and Neuros). An evaluation committee, consisting of four City staff members and one outside member, evaluated both proposals and found Aerzen to be the highest ranking and most qualified. Aerzen also had the lowest proposal price (Aerzen $692,562; Neuros $928,000). |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The Utilities Division conducted a thorough energy audit of both wastewater treatment plants in February 2012. This audit identified several energy conservation measures that will lower annual energy usage and ongoing electrical costs. The energy conservation opportunities were divided into two (2) projects (i.e., Wildcat Hill and Rio) and then prioritized according to the highest payback and rate of return, so Wildcat Hill is being completed first. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | Aerzen Proposal | ||||
Aeration Blower RFP | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Purchase Under National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance Contract: All-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments (Purchase of 3 all-wheel-drive motor graders from Empire Machinery of Flagstaff)
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the purchase under National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance Contract with Empire Machinery of Flagstaff, Arizona (Empire Southwest, LLC) for the purchase of three (3) all-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments in the amount of $677,000, plus the trade in of two (2) 1989 motor graders, one (1) 1990 all-wheel-drive motor grader, two (2) 1988 loaders and one (1) 1991 loader.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Public Works staff and the Fleet Committee reviews needs and replacement of older equipment with newer more efficient equipment. These purchases will allow the Streets Section to maintain its current level of service in a cost effective manner. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Maintain and deliver quality, reliable infrastructure. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None previously except by adoption of the annual budget where these projected expenditures were contained. | |||||
Options and Alternatives | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Within the Streets fleet, the equipment has become aged and replacements have been deferred for a few years due to the declining Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). This year it was identified that the HURF fund balance had the capacity to fund some equipment replacement. One of Streets' top needs was all-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments. Staff programmed money into the budget using projections from verbal quotes from two distributors. Within the next few years it is projected that equipment replacement needs will grow, and now we have the opportunity to address three needs. As the equipment can be purchased in groups, this is an opportunity to move the needs apart for future replacements. Streets currently has three (3) motor graders that meet the criteria for replacement. With this National contract, it would address these needs. The two oldest motor graders are 25 years old (1989); one has 6,000 hours on it and life-to-date costs are $71,000. The other has 8,300 hours on it and life-to-date costs are $80,000. The main concern with these motor graders are that they have become under powered and the hydraulics have become very slow, which affects the efficient operation of the machines. A certified refurbish of these machines would be approximately $200,000 each, which would include an engine rebuild, injectors, fuel system parts and a turbo for the engines to increase the power. It would also include hydraulic cylinders and other major hydraulic parts, and a transmission rebuild. Streets has another motor grader that is 24 years old (1990) and the life-to-date costs are $130,000 due to it being a prototype for one of the first all-wheel-drive machines built. This piece of equipment has had many significant repairs (transmission, drive train and hydraulics) during its lifetime and the operation is similar to the other ones, as it is not as efficient in the daily operation. As these pieces of machinery are older it may be difficult to find parts. The Fleet Committee has reviewed the request to replace the motor graders and they voted unanimously in favor of replacing them. Staff identified under-utilized loaders that would qualify for trade in to assist with this purchase. The loaders are in need of a significant amount of repairs ( major hydraulic repairs and drive train) that has become too expensive to keep in the Fleet. Streets can sustain their operations without these pieces of equipment as we have identified alternative ways to get the work completed. Staff researched using contractors for this work, utilizing savings in maintenance found by removing the loaders from the fleet, purchasing 3 new motor graders and using savings not hiring temporary labor, which has been difficult to find. The cost of contracting this work would be approximately $25,000 which we could sustain for approximately two years and then we could reevaluate the operation. The Fleet committee was very receptive to this idea, as it helps accomplish the goal of reducing the City's fleet. The vendor agreed to accept trade in of all six (6) pieces of equipment with a total trade in value of $442,500, and provide three (3) new all-wheel-drive motor graders with snow wing attachments for a cost to the City of $677,000. For future replacements, all-wheel-drive motor graders will still be preferred, as they are more efficient in dirt grading and snow plowing operations. The front steering wheels when engaged in all-wheel-drive mode, help pull the material, utilizing the horsepower more evenly, therefore reducing the wear and tear on the machine. Due to the terrain and hills in Flagstaff, all-wheel drive motor graders would provide a safer operation and would help maintain the core services that the Street Section provides. Staff also researched the availability of used equipment for purchase; however, all-wheel-drive motor graders are better for Streets' operation and they are not available on the market to purchase used or to rent. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
When preparing to purchase the replacement motor graders, staff looked at the National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance contract and found pricing to be the most competitive for these motor grader equipment purchases. This is a national formal solicitation for bids to purchase motor graders. The process identified that Caterpillar Corporation as the most responsive bidder; our local Caterpillar vendor is Empire Machinery. The warranty on the equipment is fully extended "bumper to bumper" to any defects in workmanship and materials for seven (7) years or 6,000 hours. The warranty does not cover items that are considered to be operating and maintenance items (tires, oil changes, brakes, etc.) The City of Flagstaff has had a long working relationship with Empire Machinery, a local business, for the last twenty (20) plus years and has their equipment currently in the fleet. In this time, Fleet Maintenance staff and equipment operators have gained confidence in Empire's abilities to provide warranty work, preventive maintenance and product support needed with this purchase. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
With these purchases, it will allow the Street Section to have six (6) out of the nine (9) motor graders in the fleet that would be all-wheel-drive allowing the Street Section to meet the expected level of service as they are more efficient in their operation and will have reduced maintenance costs. This would also help reduce the need of replacements in Streets fleet from $4.5M to $950,000 through FY15. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This would help provide the quality and level of service the community expects. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and approval of Grant Agreement: Authorizing approval of an Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds in the amount of $291,660.00 for the Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force (METRO unit). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the acceptance of the grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds in the amount of $291,660.00 for FY2015.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Approval of this grant will provide the continued operation of the METRO unit to protect life, property, and the rights of the individuals by participating agencies through a sustained, coordinated, multi-agency effort to reduce drug and gang related crimes. This will be accomplished by vigorous investigations, apprehensions, prosecution, and community participation. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The grant award is in the amount of $218,745.00 (75%) with required matching funds of $72,915.00 (25%). The METRO board has authorized matching funds from the Rico account. The Rico account has provided matching funds in the past years and the board has agreed to provide the above matching funds for this years grant. This amount will include all city costs, estimated in kind and administrative costs if above normal departmental allocation. The grant award will be the 28th funding cycle (FY 2015) for the METRO unit. This grant is budgeted in Fiscal Year 2015. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, the Flagstaff City Council has approved the acceptance of this grant money for the past twenty seven years. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve the acceptance of the grant or decline the acceptance of the grant. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
As previously stated, this is the 28th cycle of this grant in which the Flagstaff City Council has approved the previous 27 cycles. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This grant and the investigative officers this funds is supported by nearly every law enforcement entity in Coconino County including the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office, The Flagstaff Police Department, Northern Arizona University Police, ATF, FBI, DEA and the Department of Public Safety. This grant provides specialized police investigations to all the communities located within Coconino County. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Officers in the METRO Unit continuously provide support to numerous community groups including Citizens Against Substance Abuse, local schools, Citizens Academy programs, etc. in the form of training and educational presentations, drug awareness, and proactive investigations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
To work directly with the public through the process to ensure that public issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
If approved the grant would allow for the acceptance of $291,660.00 in federal funds that will provide proactive enforcement that would otherwise not be available to our citizens. | |||||
Attachments: | ACJC Grant Agreement DC-15-002 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Intergovernmental Agreement: With Coconino County for use of the Hazardous Products Center (HPC) (Approve IGA with Coconino County which will allow the City to continue to accept hazardous wastes from Coconino County households and small businesses at the HPC). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Coconino County.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The existing IGA with Coconino County will expire in August, 2014. Approval of this Intergovernmental Agreement will allow Coconino County residents and small businesses to continue utilizing the HPC to properly and safely dispose of hazardous waste. The City is also taking the opportunity to increase the rate of reimbursement from the County. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
As explained in this Intergovernmental Agreement, Coconino County will be invoiced quarterly based on the percentage of HPC usage by Coconino County households. This percentage will be used as a multiplier to determine hazardous waste disposal costs and operational costs to be paid by Coconino County. Coconino County will also pay 15% of total labor costs to operate the HPC. No additional costs to the City of Flagstaff are forecast as this process is already being used. Last Fiscal Year the County was invoiced a total of approximately $40,000.00. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal(s) and/or Regional Pla: | |||||
Effective governance | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
This has been an ongoing agreement since 2002. This agreement was last approved by Council in 2011. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve agreement as written. 2. Suggest changes to staff. 3. Reject agreement. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff's Hazardous Products Center (HPC) opened in October 2002, providing City of Flagstaff residents safe and proper disposal of hazardous waste. In an effort to extend this disposal option to include all of Coconino County, this Intergovernmental Agreement was created. As part of this agreement, small businesses within the County have been allowed to utilize the HPC since 2007 through the Small Business Waste Program. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The only change to this agreement is the 5% increase in labor costs to Coconino County, described below. This increase was referenced in the previous agreement. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The percentage of labor costs to be paid by Coconino County has been increased from 10% to 15% and will continue to increase in subsequent agreements until the percentage accurately reflects County usage. The current usage by County residents accounts for approximately 40% of total household use. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Accepting hazardous wastes from households and small businesses within Coconino County will continue to provide a service for hazardous waste disposal option available to all County households and qualifying small businesses. The community benefits from increased disposal options in Northern Arizona by protecting our landfill and reducing the potential disposal of hazardous wastes to the environment through illegal dumping. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve agreement as written. 2. Suggest changes to staff. 3. Reject agreement. |
|||||
Attachments: | HPC IGA 2014 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Joint Funding Request: Gauging Station at Newman Canyon Wash. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the Agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to contribute $74,300.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in conjunction with the City of Flagstaff will install a gaging station to record flow through the largest tributary into the Lake, Newman Canyon Wash. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This Joint Funding Request will provide a commitment on the City's behalf in the amount of $74,300. The funding sources for the City's portion over the next five fiscal years will be $54,300 from the Water Fund and $20,000 from the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project Fund (FWPP). The Water Fund will be reimbursed $31,250 from the National Park Service Foundation via agreement with the Lake Mary-Walnut Creek Technical Advisory Committee (LM-WC TAC) as approved by Council on April 1, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base; 11. Effective governance. This agreement will demonstrate continued collaboration of the City with other entities that benefit from a healthy watershed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes. Council gave approval to the LM-WC TAC to fund this project on April 1, 2014, from a restricted fund with the National Park Service Foundation (current balance is $127,000). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Authorize the signing of the agreement with the USGS and support the collective effort to monitor water quality and water quantity into Upper Lake Mary from the surrounding forested areas. 2) Do not authorize the signing of the agreement with the USGS and ask City Staff to install and operate a flow gage at the same location |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. On April 1, 2014 City Council approved this project as recommended by the LM-WC TAC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. By approving this Joint Funding Agreement the City recognizes the importance of the USGS monitoring rainfall/sediment/streamflow gage in Newman Canyon Wash, 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 gage will be installed by the USGS, with annual operating costs funded under cooperation with the City Utilities Division, LM-WC TAC and FWPP. The gage 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, data from the gage will 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 this project may be used as part of a greater effort to research forest 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The intent of the Stipulation between the City, NPS & USFS 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, this project 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: | USGS Agreement | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
10.D.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: On Call Judges for the Flagstaff Municipal Court. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the appointments as recommended by Hon. Thomas L. Chotena, Presiding Magistrate of the Flagstaff Municipal Court.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
All funding for On-Call judges is included in the approved court budget. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Improving public safety by providing coordinated coverage for the Municipal Court with other courts within the county and provides for continuous coverage for all case types and filings. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Appointments of On Call Judges for the Flagstaff Municipal Court come before Flagstaff City Council every two years. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
10.E.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-19: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-04, Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service, Section 7-04-001-0009, Fees, by reinstating the $2.50 per ton Environmental Maintenance Facility Fee, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Reinstate the $2.50 per ton landfill tipping fee). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No.2014-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-19 (effective September 1, 2014) |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
City staff have narrowed options on the Core Services Maintenance Facility to two viable properties. Extensive analysis was completed on these properties and staff is bringing forward additional discussion to Council on June 24, 2014. Once the final property decision is made, City staff will be able to quickly move forward with a formal solicitation process to construct the facility. The reinstatement of this fee will allow the City to pay for design and/or construction costs prior to the debt being issued. Once construction is complete, this fee will be used to fund approximately $4.4 million in debt service. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This fee is proposed to be reinstated at the prior level of $2.50 per ton at the landfill. At this rate, the fee is estimated to generate $300,000 annually. $300,000 on an annual basis will support an estimated amount of debt of $4.1 million to $4.7 million dependent on market rate conditions and the term for which the debt would be issued. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Address Core Services Maintenance Facility |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes. There was a Council decision to implement the $2.50 landfill fee in October, 2007 with a one year sunset and three Council decisions to extend the fee; once in November, 2008 for an additional year; once in November, 2009 until May, 2010; once in May, 2010 for an additional year. Additionally, first read of the ordinance was held July 1, 2014. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In October, 2007, staff initiated a discussion with the City Council regarding the need for a new Public Works Maintenance Facility (now Core Services Maintenance Facility). The consensus of Council was that there is a compelling need to research and develop a plan to pursue a new facility. At that time, Council approved a $2.50 per ton fee at the landfill, with a one year sunset, to begin collecting funds for a capital reserve for Environmental Services’ (now Solid Waste) proportionate share of debt service for a new facility. Staff was to provide to Council key components for a facility including facility location, property size, public involvement, and funding options. In November, 2008, staff provided Council with a list of alternative site locations, facility space needs, and a conceptual layout plan. Staff requested a renewal of the fee until the project could be completed. Council approved the extension of the $2.50 fee for another year instructing staff to produce 1) a property/location selection; 2) conceptual site plan development; and 3) preliminary cost estimate. In November, 2009, progress had been made on the Core Services Maintenance Facility. As of that date, Staff had 1) completed a property/location selection for the facility, identified the space needs for each Section of the Division, selected a consultant, which Council approved at its August 18, 2009 meeting, who now had the information and was working on the 2) conceptual site plan development which would provide us with the 3) preliminary cost estimate. Council approved the extension of the $2.50 fee until May, 2010 in order to see and decide on a completed conceptual site plan and preliminary cost estimate for the Facility. In May, 2010, Council extended the collection of the fee for an additional year until it was decided if the Core Services Maintenance Facility would be selected for the November bond election and, if so, the outcome of that election. The $42 million Facility was selected for the bond election but failed and the fee sunset in May, 2011. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City then re-designed the facility that now has an estimated cost of $21.4 million to $27.8 million dependent on whether the City builds on City land or purchases land at a different site. In 2012, the City successfully passed a $14 million dollar secondary property tax/ bond measure to assist with the construction. The key consideration is the timing of the construction and the accumulation of funds needed to complete the facility as designed. It is estimated that this capital reserve will have a balance of $865,000 at June 30, 2014. Should the fee be reinstated on September 1, 2014, the fee will generate an additional $250,000 in FY2015, for a total of $1.1 million available to be used for the design and/or construction. When this dedicated landfill fee is collected for a full year, $300,000 is expected to be generated annually. This $300,000 will support an estimated additional $4.4 million dollars in debt. This fee is a critical component to the overall sources needed to fund the construction. The current posted landfill fee per ton is $41.67. In addition, each ton is assessed $0.25 for a State Recycling Surcharge by ADEQ. By reinstating the $2.50 Capital Reserve amount, the landfill fee per ton will increase to a combined rate of $44.42. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The total resources available for the project to date include: $14 million General Obligation Bonds $1.1 million in capital reserve (should the landfill fee be reinstated effective September 1, 2014) $4.4 million in Revenue Debt secured by the estimated $300,000 annual landfill fee proposed by this action $2.3 million - $4.4 million in land sale/trade proceeds dependent if the City constructs or sells the McAllister Property. Total resources are $21.8 million - $23.9 million. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City will benefit in a number of ways by moving from the current location and constructing a modernized facility. By vacating the current site, an infill opportunity in the downtown area of Flagstaff will be available. No planned alternate use has been determined at this time. By constructing a new facility, the City will be able to better protect and maintain the 420 pieces of equipment currently used on a daily or seasonal basis. Additional capacity will also be provided to Streets, Parks and Facilities for equipment and materials storage as well as consolidating the service personnel for Streets, Parks, Facilities, Fleet Services, Solid Waste Collections and Public Works Administration. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Consult - the City has provided numerous work sessions and agendized council sessions to discuss the progress in the development of the Core Services Maintenance Facility. Involve - the community will be further engaged as the future of the current Public Works Yard site is determined. Empower - The community approved the 2012 bond election authorizing the $14 million dollars in funding to be used for this project. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-19 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.F.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-23 and Ordinance No. 2014-15: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Declaring that Certain Document Known as "The 2014 BBB Tax Re-Codification Amendments as a Public Record, and Providing for an Effective Date; and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-06, Privilege and Excise Taxes, Chapter 3-06, Lodging, Restaurant and Lounge Tax, are Hereby Amended by Adopting "The 2014 BBB Tax Re-Codification Amendments" as Set Forth in that Public Record on File with the City Clerk; Providing for Penalties, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, Authority for Clerical Corrections, and Establishing Effective Dates. (Recodification of BBB Tax) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-15 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Model City Tax Code is the City of Flagstaff’s guiding tax document. By adopting the proposed ordinance, the City is doing its part to help in the Governor's Transaction Privilege Tax Simplification Task Force's efforts to simplify municipal tax collections. The recommended action re-codifies portions of Chapter 3-06 of the City Code and will not establish new taxes or increase taxes on any taxpayer. The recommended action will also aid in the transition to tax collections performed by the State of Arizona's Department of Revenue, set to begin on January 1, 2015. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None. The proposed ordinance does not make any changes to City policies and or practices. The proposed ordinance merely consolidates the tax rate in the City Tax Code to be more uniform with the Model City Tax Code. This consolidation makes it easier for the taxpayer to understand the City Tax Code and increases compliance. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Public Hearing and first of the ordinance was held on July 1, 2014, along with reading the resolution by title only. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt the proposed resolution and proposed ordinance and re-codify Chapter 3-06 of the Flagstaff City Code. 2) Do not adopt the proposed resolution and proposed ordinance and do not re-codify Chapter 3-06 of the Flagstaff City Code. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Model City Tax Code In 1987 the City of Flagstaff and other Arizona cities and towns adopted the Model City Tax Code. The Model City Tax Code enables businesses to be taxed uniformly. Cities have the option of establishing the rate (%) of tax applied to gross income, and there are model and local options under the Model City Tax Code which cities may adopt. The City’s base tax rate is currently 1.721% and there is an additional voter approved 2% BBB tax levied on the restaurant/bar and the hotel/motel classifications. City of Flagstaff Bed, Board, and Beverage (BBB) Tax In 1987, the City of Flagstaff adopted a lodging, restaurant, and lounge tax, often referred to as the Bed, Board, and Beverage, or BBB, tax. The tax was adopted as an additional 2% tax levied on the restaurant/bar and the hotel/motel classifications. The details of the 2% tax are outlined in Chapter 3-06 of the City Code. In general, the Chapter allocates the 2% tax into separate funds (Section 3-06-001-0003 Distribution) and creates commissions and establishes uses of the revenues (Section 3-06-001-0004 Financial Control). Chapter 3-06 is attached to this summary for more detail. Proposed Bed, Board, and Beverage Tax Code Changes The attached ordinance consolidates and re-codifies the additional 2% tax approved by voters and levied on the restaurant/bar and the hotel/motel classifications and incorporates the additional 2% tax into the Model City Tax Code. Currently, the City levies the additional 2% tax outside of the Model City Tax Code in a separate ordinance. The 2% tax is levied as an additional line item on taxpayer transaction privilege tax returns for those businesses that report under the restaurant/bar or hotel/motel categories. In essence, taxpayers reporting under the previously mentioned categories pay a total of 3.721% (1.721% + 2%) on two lines of the tax return. The proposed ordinance will allow the City to collect the 3.721% on one line and aid in the Governor's Transaction Privilege Tax Simplification Task Force's efforts to make the Model City Tax Code simpler to follow. The consolidation and re-codification of the additional 2% tax will not result in new or increased tax on any taxpayer, nor will it change how revenues are distributed for Tourism, Beautification, Economic development, Parks and Recreation, and Arts and Sciences. It will simplify the City's Tax Code by locating the total restaurant/bar and hotel/motel tax rates in one place. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff and other Cities in the State of Arizona abide by the rules and regulations found in the Model City Tax Code. The proposed re-codification is another part of the Governor's Transaction Privilege Tax Simplification Task Force's efforts to make the Model City Tax Code more uniform. If the City chose not to adopt the ordinance, the City's Tax Code would continue to include a separate section with an additional 2% tax rate for restaurants/bars and hotel/motel categories. The separate code section has worked for the City in the past as City staff was able to enforce the code. However, with the takeover of transaction privilege tax collections by the State of Arizona on January 1, 2015, there is no guarantee the separate code section would be as fastidiously enforced. The re-codification will make enforcement by the State of Arizona much simpler, ensuring the continued collection of revenues vital to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The proposed re-codification of Chapter 3-06 of the City Code will make it much easier for the Arizona Department of Revenue to collect transaction privilege taxes and to enforce the City of Flagstaff Tax Code. In turn, the City will continue to receive important BBB revenues that the voters have approved. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. | |||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-23 | ||||
Ord. No. 2014-15 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | ||||||||||
|
10.G.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of bid and Approval of the Lease Agreement: City-Owned Property: Located at 6628 S. Piper Lane (Lease of property located near the Airport - formerly the FAA facility) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Accept the bid and approve the Lease Agreement with Northern Arizona Healthcare dba Guardian Air for lease payments of $833.50 per month ($10,002 annually). The facility will receive intended improvements by lessee at an estimated value of $200,000. Authorize the City Manager or his designees to execute all necessary documents. | |||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Acceptance of the bid and approval of the Lease Agreement will re-purpose a vacant City-owned facility in need of significant repairs and currently a liability to the City. The Lessee will make the necessary repairs and additional tenant improvements along with paying an initial rent of $833.50 per month for a term of ten (10) years. Subsidiary Decisions Points: None | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The structure is currently a liability and generating zero income for the City. With this Lease Agreement the facility will be turned into an asset. Once the capital improvements are complete, the facility's value will have significantly appreciated. The Lessee will have a reduced lease payment to partially offset the cost of the required tenant improvements. The lease payments will generate $100,020 over the 10 year period to assist in funding the airport. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Repair Replace maintain infrastructure 11. Effective governance | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Accept bid and approve the Lease Agreement as presented. 2) Reject bid and provide staff guidance regarding desired terms and conditions for the Lease Agreement. 3) Reject bid and lease Agreement which will leave the facility in its current condition. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The facility was previously leased by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA relocated to a nearby location that met their needs, in part, due to the needed repairs to the facility. A facilities report identified a number of issues that would need to be addressed prior to leasing the building to a new party. The current Airport budget was not able fund the repair costs so staff structured an Invitation for Bid (IFB). The IFB terms and conditions included the lease of the facility but also allowed for tenant improvement costs in exchange for lease consideration. The proximity to the Airport Runway and Public Facilities zoning of this facility limits the number of potential uses/users. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The building is currently vacant and an unfunded liability. The IFB had one (1) bidder with the proposed lease being the highest responsible and responsive bid. The proposer will provide $200,000 in capital improvements which will address the identified issues and add value to the building. Initial rent will be $833.50. The Airport is an enterprise fund. The use is compatible with zoning and runway proximity. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the Lease Agreement as presented 2) Not approve the Lease Agreement as presented and provide staff guidance regarding desired terms and conditions 3) Not approve the Lease Agreement and leave the facility in its current condition. |
|||||
Attachments: | IFB Bid Tabulation | ||||
Lease Agreement | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.H.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-17: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-3, City Water System Regulations, Section 7-03-001-0003, Deposit Required, to change water service deposits; providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Changing the amount of water service deposits) | |||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-17 and establish an effective date for the deposit adjustments of September 1, 2014 |
|||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||
The City has charged a $25 deposit for residential accounts and a two month estimate for non-residential accounts for approximately 20 years. The proposed deposit adjustments will help realign the deposit amount to help mitigate the losses from customers that do not pay the final bill on utility accounts. This will also aid in reducing the total amount of write-offs per year. | |||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||
The financial impact of the increase in utility deposits is the reduction in the amount of write-offs processed each fiscal year. Many times, the initial deposit is applied to the final bill on the customer's account, reducing the total amount owed on the final bill. However, there is often a balance remaining on the account after the deposit is applied. Customers often neglect to pay the final balance on the account and the account is eventually placed on the write-off list after collection efforts are exhausted. The increased deposit will help reduce or eliminate the balances left on the final bill, increasing the amount of money the City is able to collect on final bills. Based on FY14 write off data, the proposed deposits could have reduced the total amount written off by approximately $40,000. | |||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||
Effective governance. | |||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||
Public Hearing and first read of this ordinance was held on July 1, 2014. | |||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||
1) Adopt the ordinance as presented with an effective date of September 1, 2014. 2) Do not adopt the ordinance as presented and do not establish an effective date of September 1, 2014. |
|||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||
As previously noted, the water service deposits for the City of Flagstaff have remained the same for approximately 20 years. The amount of the deposit has lagged behind increases in utility rates and fees. The proposed increases will bring the City's deposits closer to the average of other municipalities throughout the state. With available data, staff was able to calculate an average residential deposit of $143.37, as of April 4, 2014. There is no exact average available for non-residential deposits due to the varying calculations used. However, a recommended ratio of non-residential deposit to residential deposit of 2.00 was derived using readily available information. There are several steps a municipality must complete as required by state law to consider and adopt changes to its utility rates, fees and charges. All utility rates, fees and charges must be just and reasonable; and therefore a written report and/or data supporting the changes to utility deposits is required. This staff report along with the attached data are intended to satisfy this legal requirement. The following calendar provides a brief outline of the required steps and the dates identified by staff for the City to fully comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 9-511).
|
|||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||
The current deposit the City charges is significantly lower than other municipal utilities throughout the state. With available data, staff was able to calculate an average residential deposit of $143.37, as of April 4, 2014. There is no exact average available for non-residential deposits due to the varying calculations used. However, a recommended ratio of non-residential deposit to residential deposit of 2.00 was derived using readily available information. With the proposed increases to the deposits, the City will also allow new customers to have the deposits billed in a maximum of three monthly installments, upon request. | |||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||
The increase in utility deposits will reduce the final amount of accounts that are written-off each year. | |||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||
Inform. |
|||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Ord. No. 2014-17 | ||||
Utility Deposit Report | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | ||||||||||
|
10.I.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Reconsideration of Prior Action: Resolution No. 2014-25: A resolution authorizing the execution of a Development Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - Trax, L.L.C. related to the development of approximately 33.6 acres of real property generally located at the intersection of Route 66 and Fourth Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Should the Council wish to reconsider this item, a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 2014-25 would be required to be made (by a member voting with the majority).
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Attached is a request from Councilmember Brewster to reconsider Resolution No. 2014-25, the Development Agreement with Evergreen - TRAX. In accordance with Rule 10.9 of the adopted City Council Rules of Procedure, "after the decision on any question, any member who voted with the majority may move for a reconsideration of any action at the same meeting or at the next regular meeting that occurs at least one week after the date the action was taken." Since Councilmember Brewster voted with the majority, she is permitted to request a reconsideration. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance | |||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No previous discussion was held on reconsideration; however, the Resolution requesting to be reconsidered was voted on (as amended) at the July 1, 2014, Council meeting. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve reconsideration 2) Deny reconsideration |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
After discussion by the City Council at their July 1, 2014, Resolution No. 2014-25, approving a Development Agreement for the Evergreen-TRAX project, was adopted after amending the DA, with a 6-1 vote. The following day, Councilmember Brewster delivered a letter to the City Clerk's Office (attached) stating that she had misunderstood the vote and requested that the Resolution be reconsidered. Should there be a majority vote to reconsider, the next agenda item would be the actual resolution and related Development Agreement. Should the Development Agreement revert to what had originally been proposed at that meeting, and approved, the next agenda item (Amended Purchase Agreement), which was previously removed from the agenda, would then be considered. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Attachments: | Request | ||||
Rules of Procedure | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.I.i.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-25: A resolution authorizing the execution of a Development Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - Trax, L.L.C. related to the development of approximately 33.6 acres of real property generally located at the intersection of Route 66 and Fourth Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-25 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-25 by title only (if approved above). 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-25. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
State law allows cities to enter into development agreements by resolution. The proposed Development Agreement ensures that the development of the Property complies with City standards for development and engineering improvements, and the City believes that development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement will result in planning, safety and other benefits to the City and its residents. This request is the first of two related items; the second item is the second reading and adoption of the rezoning ordinance. On June 17, 2014, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing concerning the Zoning Map amendment request for The Trax development. On June 17, 2014, the City Council unanimously approved the Zoning Map amendment for the first time. Subsidiary Decisions Points: A resolution approving a Development Agreement which includes a Waiver of Claims for Diminution of Value is included on the Council agenda for the July 1, 2014 meeting to be read and, at the Council's direction, approved prior to the second reading and approval of Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance No. 2014-14. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No previous Council discussion has occurred as it relates to this Development Agreement. The Developer has processed a Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan amendment and a Zoning Map amendment for the subject property concurrently with the processing of this application. The Council also approved a purchase agreement for the sale of this property and have also amended that agreement. Prior to the consideration of this application, the Council has taken action on the previously identified amendments. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve, deny, or modify the agreement as necessary to ensure that the development meets the objectives of the Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan, the Zoning Code, and the City's development goals. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Developer has requested a Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan amendment and a Zoning Map amendment to accommodate the development of approximately 250,000 square feet of leasable building space to be named "The Trax" shopping center. The City and the Developer have agreed to development standards, guiding principles, obligations, phasing, process and other general provisions detailed in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement addresses Developer responsibilities for constructing a FUTS trail, providing outdoor public space, preserving the historic trestle bridge, complying with Drive-through Facility requirements as detailed in the Zoning Code, and ensuring that construction of public improvements coincide with the phased development of the project. Additionally, the Developer will be required to contribute |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
State law allows the City to enter into development agreements by resolution. The proposed Development Agreement, along with the Rezoning Ordinance, would govern the terms and conditions of the zoning and development of The Trax proposal. The amended agreement (attached) is currently in Evergreen's office for review and we should have a final agreement for Council consideration at the July 1, 2014, meeting. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Trax development area is anticipated to be a significant contribution to the regional economy which is needed in the east side of the Flagstaff community and directly to the Sunnyside neighborhood. Additionally, this development disperses the shopping and services geographically to assure efficiencies in the delivery of private/public services and investment within the community. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. Development agreements do not require public or neighborhood notification. However, this agreement is tied to the proposed Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendments which require public notifications, and have had public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
None. | |||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-25 | ||||
Draft DA | |||||
D.A. Exhibits | |||||
PZC Staff Report (excluding attachments) | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.J.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Second Amendment of Purchase and Sale Agreement: Between the City of Flagstaff and Evergreen - TRAX, LLC ("Evergreen"), for the sale of approximately 33.6 acres of property consisting of three parcels located at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Fourth Street and Route 66, and the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Huntington drive adjacent to the Fourth Street Overpass (the "Property"). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff Charter requires the City Council to review and approve agreements that "provide for acquisition, sale or exchange of public real property." The Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement amends the Purchase Price as follows: 1. Amended purchase price (Section 2.1) - Buyer agrees to purchase the Property for Three Million Forty One Thousand Dollars ($3,041,000.00). |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Evergreen has agreed to the amended purchase price of Three Million Forty One Thousand Dollars ($3,041,000). | |||||
Connection to Council Goal(s) and/or Regional Pla: | |||||
1. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 2. Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the Agreement as amended and recommended by City Staff which will allow the City to finalize the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Evergreen Devco, Inc. and close escrow on this property. 2. Modify the conditions and/or include additional conditions. 3. Deny the Amended Agreement which will not allow for the redevelopment of the property at Fourth Street and Route 66. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In approximately 2007, the City awarded the Property for development. However, due to economic conditions the developer was not able to meet its obligations and returned the property to the City. In October 2010, staff solicited Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the purchase and development of the Property. Revenue generated from this sale was to assist with the repayment of debt incurred by the City in the construction of the Fourth Street Overpass. Only one proposal was received for only two of the three parcels. In addition, the proposal was significantly below the minimum price requested and the development plan did not meet the expectations that were set forth in the RFP. The Council rejected this proposal as it was determined to not be in the best interest of the City. Council directed staff to reissue the RFP. A new RFP was issued that no longer had a minimum price requirement and provided for a greater emphasis on the type and timing of development that would occur. The RFP closed on August 3, 2011. One response was received with an initial offer from Evergreen Devco, Inc. for all three parcels. This amendment will result from the City's decision to fund the Fourth Street Bridge widening. An amendment document will be provided at the meeting. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City desires to promote economic development in a number of modalities. Approving the Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Property will encourage retail development along the Fourth Street Corridor in a more structured manner. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Evergreen has agreed to the amended purchase price of $3,041,000. Previously, Evergreen deposited with the City $212,899.50 as Earnest Money. Of that, $50,000 was transferred to the Seller at the conclusion of the initial Due Diligence Period and a second $50,000 transferred to the City at the conclusion of the Review Period. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits include providing greater commercial and retail opportunities, providing for a larger retail tax base, and providing new job opportunities, particularly along the Fourth Street Corridor. Due to the economic downturn, in addition to the delay in the development of the property, City staff projected that the Fourth Street portion of the transportation tax would not adequately meet the need to fund the Fourth Street Overpass debt service by the time this tax expires in 2020. Staff employed a two prong strategy to mitigate that risk. First, staff reissued the debt realizing an approximate $1.4 million dollar savings in interest expense. Second, the staff continue to work toward the timely sale and development of the property so that the financial obligation will be met. The City will realize a greater and more certain benefit by receiving incremental growth in both sales and property tax revenues. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Collaborate - Evergreen previously held a forum in February for public participation, and other public hearings and various Council actions have already occurred, as will others in the near future based on the above mentioned three actions following approval of this First Amendment. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. 2. Modify the conditions and/or include additional conditions. 3. Deny the Second Amendment. |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||
|
10.K.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-24, and Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-16: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Declaring that Certain Document Known as "The 2014 Use Tax Adoption and Related City Tax Code Amendments" as a Public Record, and Providing for an Effective Date; and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-05, Privilege and Excise Taxes, is Hereby Amended by Adopting "The 2014 Use Tax Adoption and Related City Tax Code Amendments" by reference as Set Forth in that Public Record on File with the City Clerk; Providing for Penalties, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, Authority for Clerical Corrections, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Adoption of local 1% use tax) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-24
2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-16 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
As part of the FY15 budget preparations, a list of possible revenue sources was presented to City Council. After further discussion at FY15 budget retreats, City Council requested staff to proceed with steps necessary for adoption of a use tax at the base rate of 1%. The public hearing, resolution adoption, and ordinance adoption are the formal procedures required to adopt the use tax. Subsidiary Decisions Points: None. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City does not currently levy a use tax. If the proposed resolution and ordinance are approved, the City will levy a use tax at a rate of 1%. The estimated revenue for the first year is $100,000. Future years are estimated at $250,000 per year. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes. Use tax has been discussed multiple times during budget preparations for FY15. Public Hearing and first read of the ordinance was held on July 1, 2014, along with reading the resolution by title only. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt the proposed resolution and proposed ordinance and set an effective date of October 1, 2014. 2) Do not adopt the proposed resolution and proposed ordinance and do not set an effective date of October 1, 2014. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Model City Tax Code; Use Taxes Arizona cities and towns have had the ability to impose local taxes since before statehood. Local taxes include local transaction privilege taxes, use taxes, license taxes, and property taxes. In 1987 the City of Flagstaff and other Arizona cities and towns approved the Model City Tax Code ("MCTC"), a uniform tax code that includes several options for imposition of a local transaction privilege tax, use tax, and some exemptions. Each city has the right to set its own tax rates. A copy of all MCTC options is located on the Arizona Department of Revenue website, www.azdor.gov. The City of Flagstaff's adopted version of the MCTC is located at Chapter 3-05 of the City Code and can be accessed on the City website, www.flagstaffaz.gov. The City imposes a local transaction privilege tax ("TPT"), which is a tax on gross income or gross proceeds from engaging in business within the City. This is a tax on certain businesses, although businesses may elect to "pass through" the tax to the customer. The City’s base TPT rate is currently 1.721% and there is an additional voter approved 2% levied on the restaurant/bar and the hotel/motel classifications ("BBB Tax"). The City Charter requires voters to approve any rate change in the TPT. The City is considering adoption of a use tax. A use tax is a tax on storage or use of tangible personal property in the City. The use tax is similar to the local transaction privilege tax but is an "affiliated excise tax." A use tax is imposed on the user, not the business that sold the item. However in some instances the business may collect and remit the use tax. A use tax is typically imposed in the situation where a person has purchased an item outside the state of Arizona where there is no sales tax (such as Oregon), but uses the item within the City. The City will not collect a use tax from anyone who has already paid an equivalent local transaction privilege tax. Many times, the use tax is considered an equitability tax because it creates a level playing field for all businesses. Local businesses that are required to levy a transaction privilege tax will not have an unfair disadvantage over those non-City businesses that can sell products tax free. The City Charter does not require or allow voters to approve a use tax. Use tax is a common tax levied throughout the United States and within the State of Arizona. The State of Arizona collects use tax. 52% of all Arizona cities collect a use tax. Of Arizona cities with a population over 20,000, 73% collect a use tax. Of Arizona cities larger than Flagstaff, 83% collect a use tax. Examples of Use Tax Remittance Three examples of use tax remittance are noted below. Example 1: New Car Sales from Outside the State of Arizona A vehicle is purchased from an out-of-state car dealer and brought back to Arizona. The purchaser did not pay any local sales tax in the other state. The owner of the vehicle lives in Flagstaff and registers the car in Flagstaff. The owner is subject to Arizona and Flagstaff Use Tax. Example 2: New Chain Restaurant Opens in Flagstaff A new chain restaurant is opened in Flagstaff. Fixtures and equipment are purchased from out-of-state and delivered to Flagstaff. The purchaser did not pay any local sales tax in the other state. The new store’s fixtures and equipment are subject to Arizona and Flagstaff Use Tax. Example 3: New Equipment for Dental Office in Flagstaff A dentist in Flagstaff purchases dental equipment from an out-of-state vendor. The purchaser did not pay any local sales tax in the other state. The dentist is subject to Arizona and Flagstaff Use Tax. Important Points There are exemptions within the use tax category that will apply with a use tax adoption. Key exemptions are noted below.
Model Option 15 (Proposed City Code Division 3-05-006) In order to implement a use tax, City Council must remove Model Option 15. The removal of this option will allow the City to impose a use tax. Local Option AA (Proposed City Code Section 3-05-006-0660(X)) Staff recommends adopting Local Option AA and exempt cost of restaurant employee meals from use tax. The amount of revenue from this portion of the use tax is projected to be relatively small and it may be an undue burden on businesses to report. Local Option HH (Proposed City Code Section 3-05-006-0660(Y)) Staff recommends adopting Local Option HH and exempt cost of charitable donations from use tax. The amount of revenue from this portion of the use tax is projected to be relatively small and it may hamper future donations by individuals or businesses if there is a tax associated with the donation. Local Option JJ (Information Only) (Proposed City Code Section 3-05-006-0660(Z)(Reserved) There is no decision for Council on Local Option JJ. However, staff wanted Council to be aware that the City does not exempt itself from the remittance of use tax. The City currently pays use tax to the state and if the resolution and ordinance are passed, the City will start paying use tax to itself. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
If the Council adopts the proposed resolution and ordinance, staff will perform outreach to notify Flagstaff area businesses. Examples of outreach staff will perform, include, but are not limited to: informational inserts in transaction privilege tax returns, mailers, newspaper releases, web notices, and tax information sessions. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. The public has been made aware of the possible adoption of a proposed use tax via the following: A use tax was discussed at the FY15 budget meetings held in April, which were public meetings, and information concerning budget discussions was reported in the local paper, the Arizona Daily Sun. Notice of a proposed use tax has been posted on the homepages of the City website continuously since April 28, 2014. In addition, notice of a public hearing on the proposed use tax was published in the newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting. The public hearing enables the public to voice their support or concerns. In addition, City staff has personally contacted some taxpayers to discuss possible impact of the tax. |
|||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-24 | ||||
Ord. 2014-16 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | ||||||||||
|
10.L.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement: Election Services for the August 26, 2014, Primary Election | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Coconino County Elections at a cost of $2.00 per registered voter.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
ARS §16-172A requires that an IGA with the County for election services be entered into prior to the election. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The IGA outlines a cost of $2.00 per registered voter for elections consolidated with State or Federal elections. Funds have been budgeted in the FY2015 budget. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No, although discussions have taken place with the County to incorporate additional language to address concerns in the past. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives | |||||
1) Approve the IGA 2) Propose alternate language; however, with this being a statewide election that may not be accepted |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
With this being a statewide election the County forwarded to us the standard IGA used with all municipalities/districts. We have returned some recommended changes to incorporate the new wording previously included in our recent Regional Plan election contract that addressed past concerns. We are waiting to hear back from the County and anticipate having a complete document in the Final Agenda packet. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Historically, the City contracts with the Coconino County Elections Office to conduct its elections. The City and County routinely enter into election agreements identifying the responsibilities of the parties, the services that will be provided, and payment provisions. As indicated, the costs associated with this agreement amount to $2.00 per registered voter. With an estimated 28,000 registered voters in the City of Flagstaff, this cost would be approximately $56,000 for these services. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The intergovernmental agreement formalizes the City's and County's various responsibilities and allows the August 26, 2014, primary election to move forward. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
EMPOWER - The election process empowers voters to exercise their voice in the local government process. | |||||
Attachments: | Draft IGA | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | ||||||||||
|
10.M.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-20: An Ordinance prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-20 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department, in collaboration with the Flagstaff City Attorney’s Office, is requesting the approval of Ordinance 2014-20, which would prohibit the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. Coconino County adopted a distracted-driving ordinance that is applicable within incorporated areas of the County. On May 20, 2014, a resolution of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, declared the use of portable communication devices in the City of Flagstaff to be a matter of local concern and such matter will be governed by a City Ordinance. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no financial impact to the City of Flagstaff by adopting this ordinance. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council adopted a resolution enabling the City to opt out of the County's distracted driving ordinance on May 20, 2014. (See Page 2 under Community Involvement for further information). After the option was selected at the July 1, 2014, meeting first read of the Ordinance occurred. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
• Adopt Ordinance 2014-20 prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. • Amend Ordinance 2014-20 • Do not adopt Ordinance 2014-20 |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
On April 22, 2014, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved County Ordinance 2014-03 which states that; A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a portable communications device to engage in a call unless that device is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used exclusively in that manner while driving. Texting and typing are banned while operating a motor vehicle. This Ordinance is effective 30 days after adoption by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. However, for the purpose of informing and educating persons who operate motor vehicles and motor driven cycles any law enforcement office may only issue verbal warnings to persons who would be violating this Coconino County Ordinance for a six (6) month period after the Ordinance is adopted. Enforcement and penalties under this ordinance are as follows; a law enforcement officer may stop a motor vehicle or motor driven cycle if the officer has reasonable cause to believe a violation of this Ordinance is occurring (primary offense). A violation of this article is a civil traffic violation and a person found to be in violation of this Ordinance and not involved in a motor vehicle collision is subject to a civil penalty of $100 dollars. A person found to be in violation of this Ordinance and involved in a motor vehicle collision is subject to a civil penalty of $250 dollars. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Adopting Ordinance 2014-20 may deter individuals from using wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. It is believed that an ordinance prohibiting the use of a wireless communication device will enhance all motorist safety and change driving behavior. The use of a wireless communication device is considered to be a distraction. Distractions endanger the driver, passenger, and bystanders. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines three main types of distraction, visual, manual and cognitive. Text messaging, and other similar uses of wireless electronic devices, require visual, manual and cognitive attention from the driver and, are considered to be the worst common distraction to drivers. The draft ordinance that Council considered had two options. The first option was to ban only texting and similar communication while driving. It would allow those activities while stopped, such as at a railroad crossing. It would also allow dialing a phone number, checking a calendar, hitting a key on a phone to play music, and activities involving wireless devices other than written communication. The second option is more similar to the County’s ordinance with an exception for amateur radio operators. At the July 1, 2014, the Council chose to move forward with Option 1 and held first read of the Ordinance. The ordinance attached is the final document. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department believes that increased education is the key element of this ordinance. It will deter individuals from using wireless communication devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
There has been prior discussion of a proposed ordinance. During the Council work session on April 29, 2014, the Mayor and Council were presented with a PowerPoint presentation, discussing the County ordinance that had been passed by the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2014. Much of the discussion was about whether the City should decide to opt in or opt out of the County Ordinance. At the conclusion of the presentation there was a consensus to have the City Attorney provide legal information about the options and the Council would make an opt in or opt out decision at the next Council meeting. On May 13, 2014, during the Council work session, a PowerPoint presentation was presented and further discussion occurred with respect to opting in or opting out of the County Ordinance. At the conclusion of the presentation, staff was directed by Council to move forward with drafting an ordinance and a resolution declaring the use of portable communication devices in the City of Flagstaff to be a matter of local concern and such matter will be governed by a City ordinance. The resolution was adopted May 20, 2014. The proposed ordinance and staff summary will be posted in accordance with law, and interested persons are invited to comment at the City Council meetings at which the ordinance will be under consideration. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Do not adopt Ordinance No. 2014-20 Amend Ordinance No. 2014-20 |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-20 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.N.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-18: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 10, User Fees, Section 3-10-001-0005, Recreation Fees, by increasing certain Parks and Recreation Fees; providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Increasing recreation fees) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-18 (and establish an effective for the recreation fees of September 1, 2014) |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
At the Council Budget Hearings held April 23, 2014 through April 25, 2014 the City Council directed the increase of recreation fees by 7% to balance the FY2015 budget. City fees are set forth in Title 3, Chapter 10 User Fees of the City Municipal code | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This fee amendment will increase General Fund revenues by an estimated $70,000 annually. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Final FY2015 budget adoption June 17, 2014 Council budget study sessions April 23 - 25, 2014 Council budget study sessions April 24 - 24, 2013 First read of the Ordinance July 1, 2014 |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 as written Approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 with amendments Do not approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
As part of the FY2014 budget process, the City Council approved fee increases of 21% to generate additional revenue of approximately $210,000. To ease the impact on our citizens that use Recreation Services, the City Council directed staff to implement the fee increase at 7% per year over a three-year period, realizing additional incremental revenue of approximately $70,000 per year. FY2015 is the second year of the three year implementation plan. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This fee increase was an integral component of the Council budget add's as agreed upon at the April 23 - 25, 2014, Council budget study sessions. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The General Fund is dependent on increased fees in order to maintain a structural balance. Should the fees not be adopted, the General Fund will have to re-evaluate those line items funded with this increase. While the recreation fees were not the sole source of the funds, they are a component of funding the Police market pay adjustment, Police and Fire assignment pay increases, and Police and Fire uniform allowance increases. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The primary community benefit is through a continued structurally balanced budget. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform: Posted on City website from April 28, 2014 to date. An informational letter was sent out in late May discussing the proposed fee increase and notice of the public meeting on July 1. This was sent to all registered Recreation users. Posters and flyers have been placed at all Recreation facilities in early May alerting the public about the proposed fee increase and notification of the July 1 meeting. The Parks and Recreaton Commission approved the proposed fee increase at their April meeting. Collaborate. As the Recreation fee increases were being considered last year, representatives from many community sectors that utilize these services provided feedback to the Council. The community was overall supportive of the increases, but asked that the fees be phased in over a three-year period. Council agreed with that recommendation and provided that direction to staff. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 as written Approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 with amendments Do not approve Ordinance No. 2014-18 |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-18 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-29: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff naming two of the trails in Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve the "Tom Moody Trail" and the "Don Weaver Trail". (Approve two Picture Canyon trail dedications). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-29 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-29 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-29 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Subsidiary Decisions Points: Resolution No. 2001-73, amended by Resolution 2010-72, states that the criteria for naming a City facility (including trails) may be accomplished through a petition process with the appropriate commission. If the proposed name is that of an individual, the person must have been deceased for two years, unless it is an individual who has contributed outstanding civic service to the City and who has been deceased for a period of at least one year. Facility names may be changed under extraordinary circumstances and approved by the City Council. Donald Weaver, Jr. passed away on May 26, 2014 after over thirty years of work to preserve Picture Canyon and its cultural resources. Thomas Moody died in 2009 after several years of work to restore and protect Picture Canyon and its natural resources. As efforts are underway to construct trails and install trail signage at Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve, City staff and the community would like to commemorate the efforts of these men by dedicating the trails in their honor. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This decision has no financial impact on the City. The Flagstaff Sustainability Program has existing budgeted funds for trail signage at Picture Canyon. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Fund existing and consider expanded recreational services | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the proposal allowing for the trails in Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve to be dedicated to Tom Moody and Don Weaver. 2) Approve of the proposal to dedicate the Recreational Loop Trail to Tom Moody and wait until the one year anniversary of Don Weaver's passing to approve the dedication of the Educational Loop Trail to Don Weaver. 3) Not approve the request. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
From 2002 until his death in 2009, Thomas Moody was a tireless advocate for the restoration and preservation of Picture Canyon. A native Arizonan, Moody spent 20 years as a commercial guide in the Grand Canyon and around the world running rivers. He was in on the ground floor of environmental studies in the Grand Canyon in the early 1980s and was instrumental in the conception and passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Drawing on his degree in civil engineering at NAU, Moody became an associate professor at NAU teaching stream restoration and conducting research on southwestern streams. In 1999, Moody and his wife, Stephanie Yard, formed Natural Channel Design, Inc., an engineering consulting firm devoted to stream restoration and natural resource planning. Moody was an active member of the City of Flagstaff's Stream Team and one of the first members of the Friends of the Rio de Flag. His great passion and technical skills helped lead the arduous Picture Canyon preservation planning efforts through never ending roadblocks. His ability to work with a diverse group of individuals, organizations, and agencies helped to successfully navigate the grant applications, design, permitting, and countless authorizations that ultimately led to the restoration of the Rio de Flag and preservation of Picture Canyon. In memory of his efforts towards restoring and preserving the ecological resources of Picture Canyon, this resolution proposes that the Outer Recreation Loop Trail be named the Tom Moody Trail. Beginning in the 1970s, Donald Weaver Jr. began efforts to document and preserve Picture Canyon’s unique cultural resources. He received his BS in Aeronautical Engineering from Tri State University and his PhD in Anthropology from Arizona State University. Weaver directed the Museum of Northern Arizona’s archaeological program, served as Curator of Anthropology, and then founded Plateau Mountain Desert Research, an archaeological consulting firm. A recognized authority on Southwestern prehistoric rock art, Weaver authored numerous books and articles. He served as president of the American Rock Art Research Association and visited and partially documented more than 600 rock art sites in Arizona. Weaver served as professional advisor and coordinator of the Arizona Archaeological Society Rock Art Recording Field School and was awarded ARARA’s Frank and AJ Bock Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009. An active participant of the Picture Canyon Working Group, Weaver assisted with efforts to record rock art, place the site on the National Register of Historic Places, and acquire Picture Canyon as a natural and cultural preserve. He was exceedingly generous in sharing his time and talents to achieve a permanent record of fragile rock art resources through documentation. In memory of his efforts to restore and preserve the cultural resources of Picture Canyon, this resolution proposes the Educational Loop Trail be named the Don Weaver Trail. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Section 3 of Resolution No. 2001-73, as amended by Resolution No. 2010-72, lists four acceptable criteria for selecting names for City facilities. The fourth criterion, which is relevant in this case, reads as follows:
The proposed name acknowledges significant non-monetary support received from either an individual or an organization that contributed in a definitive way to the betterment of the Flagstaff community and its citizens. The individual or organization must be accepted by the general public and/or the related professional field as a local, state, or national hero/contributor, or has had some historical significance. If the proposed name is that of an individual, the person must have been deceased for two years, unless it is an individual who has contributed outstanding civic service to the City and who has been deceased for a period of at least one year. Mr. Moody and Dr. Weaver were both experts in their respective fields and widely viewed as integral contributors to the successful preservation of Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve. With Council approval, we ask that the one year requirement for the trail dedication be waived in the case of Dr. Weaver due to the extraordinary circumstances of his contributions to Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
This decision has no financial impact on the City. The Flagstaff Sustainability Program has existing budgeted funds for trail signage at Picture Canyon. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Members of the community continue to express admiration for Mr. Moody and Dr. Weaver's contributions to Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve. This proposal allows public recognition and a constant reminder of their dedication to the restoration and protection of Picture Canyon.
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Consult The proposed trail dedications were developed in consultation with the Picture Canyon Working Group and the Friends of the Rio de Flag, two groups that were central to the restoration and protection of Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve. On June 18, 2014, the City of Flagstaff Parks and Recreation Commission received a presentation on the trail dedications and had no questions. On June 26, 2014, the City of Flagstaff Open Spaces Commission unanimously voted in support of the trail dedications, as required by Resolution 2001-73. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the proposal allowing for the trails in Picture Canyon Natural and Cultural Preserve to be dedicated to Tom Moody and Don Weaver. 2. Approve of the proposal to dedicate the Outer Recreation Loop to Tom Moody and wait until the one year anniversary of Don Weaver's passing to approve the dedication of the Educational Loop to Don Weaver. 3. Not approve the request. |
|||||
Attachments: | Resolution 2014-29 | ||||
Picture Canyon Trail Dedication Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Proposals: Purchase of Property for the Core Services Maintenance Facility (Consider proposals submitted in response to RFP 2013-44). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Reject all proposals as submitted for Request for Proposal (RFP) 2013-44 for the purchase of property for the Core Services Maintenance Facility and approve the McAllister Ranch property for construction of the Facility.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
There were a total of nine (9) proposals submitted for the RFP and Baylu Group, LLC (proposed property at the far north end of Cortland Blvd, near County Club and I-40 interchange) rose to the top as the highest scoring proposer. City staff, in conjunction with a local professional design firm, conducted extensive on-site/off-site infrastructure, design, review and construction cost analysis for both Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property and the McAllister Ranch property. Given the results of the cost of future building, Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property would be significantly more expensive to construct the Core Services Maintenance Facility than the McAllister Ranch property. Staff did not find any of the remaining proposals to be superior to McAllister Ranch | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
We will be committing the $14,000,000 bond money approved by the voters, as well as requesting the reinstatement of the $2.50 per ton surcharge at the landfill to pay for the Solid Waste portion of the new Facility. The reinstatement would produce revenue we could borrow against and that, coupled with what we currently have in our legal reserve fund for this project, would give us $5,500,000 for the Facility. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Address Core Services Maintenance Facility | |||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
In 2012/2013, Council rejected the F.W. Thompson (Wayne Thompson) proposed property because an acceptable agreement could not be reached and directed City staff to go back out and advertise through a new RFP. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Reject all proposals and approve McAllister Ranch for the site for the Facility. 2. Approve the Baylu Property for the Facility site. 3. Discontinue negotiations with the Baylu Group and enter into negotiations with the next highest ranking eligible proposer. 4. Go back out for RFP to see if there are any additional sites to consider to construct the Facility. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In the spring of 2012, a bond question was approved to be placed on the November 2012 ballot for voters to approve $14,000,000 for a new Core Services Maintenance Facility. The voters approved this bond initiative and the City's Purchasing Section advertised an RFP for the purchase of property for the new Core Services Maintenance Facility. The City received one (1) proposal response from Wayne Thompson and negotiations began. Negotiations with Wayne Thompson continued into early 2013. With the parties unable to reach an acceptable agreement, negotiations were formally terminated and the proposal was rejected by the Council with discretion for staff to go back out with an RFP. The City's Purchasing Section advertised a 2nd formal competitive RFP for the purchase of approximately 20 contiguous acres of developable land for a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for the Public Works Division. The RFP was structured to allow for the purchase only or purchase property and exchange City owned-property (specifically the current Mogollon property and the McAllister Ranch property) to assist in offsetting the purchase of any other proposed property. The RFP document also referenced the McAllister Ranch as a competing piece of property along with all other proposed property sites. The RFP was advertised on July 22, 2013, with proposals due on or before September 24, 2013. This time frame for advertising the RFP allowed for approximately nine (9) weeks for prospective proposers to be made aware of the RFP and submit a proposal response. The Purchasing Section held two (2) Pre-proposal Conferences to go over the project description/scope of work and evaluation criteria, as well as answer any questions from prospective proposers. The City received a total of nine (9) proposals involving eight (8) separate properties. One (1) of the proposals submitted involved two (2) different offers for the same proposed property. The RFP outlined four (4) evaluation criteria as follows:
|
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
City staff has spent extensive time and money on comparing Baylu Group LLC's Cortland Blvd. property and the McAllister Ranch property to determine the best choice for the City. Site plans were developed for both properties to determine if and how the facilities would fit on each site and costs associated with those facilities. Both properties are capable of housing all Public Works' existing facilities. Both are capable of future expansion. However, the City would have to encumber approximately seven (7) acres of park land adjacent to the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property for future expansion. City staff has taken into consideration not only location but also compared on-site and off-site infrastructure costs for each location as well as estimating the annual operational and maintenance costs associated with each site. In addition, since the Baylu property is at the end of a dead end street passing through a multi-family residential area, staff also investigated the possibility of an alternate route that could be used as a primary access to the property. A route was designed that would exit the east end of the property, travel through the floodplain in the proposed park and exit onto Country Club. The estimated cost of the road is $4,100,000 and would require the acquisition of two (2) pieces of privately owned property. Appraisals were performed on the City's McAllister Ranch and Mogollon properties for purposes of calculating the resources available to the City to purchase land and build the Facility. An appraisal was also performed on the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property to compare it to their asking price. Staff also communicated with the Baylu Group, LLC representative during the due diligence process as to our progress and timeline and shared with them the results. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The money resources for the Facility are $14,000,000 bonding authority, landfill fees, both debt and one time money, totaling $5,500,000 and the appraised values for McAllister Ranch at $2,178,000 and the Mogollon property at $2,256,000. It should be noted that the appraisal for the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property is $5,200,000. Total resources: $23,934,000 available for the Facility. The best and final offer from the Baylu Group, LLC is $5,200,000 and they will take in trade both City properties at their respective appraised values. This figure is compared to the McAllister property which is already owned by the City. A local professional design firm, Shephard Wesnitzer, Inc., performed on-site and off-site comparison of costs associated with each property as well as building and construction costs. These costs are $22,553,679 for the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property and $21,431,955 for McAllister Ranch. Given the cost of the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property at $5,200,000, the design, review and construction costs of $22,553,679 and the estimated $4,100,000 cost to build the primary access road, the total move-on cost for the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property is $31,853,679. $22,553,679 Design, Review & Construction (DCR) Costs 5,200,000 Property Purchase 4,100,000 Primary Access Road construction $31,853,679 BAYLU TOTAL COSTS - $23,034,000 TOTAL RESOURCES $ 7,919,679 (Shortfall) For the McAllister Ranch property, the property is owned by the City. $21,431,955 Design, Review & Construction (DCR) Costs 0 Property Currently Owned $21,431,955 McCALLISTER TOTAL COSTS - 21,756,000 TOTAL RESOURCES $ 324,045 Surplus |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The community around the current site on Mogollon will benefit because we will be moving our operations out of the residential area. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Reject all proposals and approve McAllister Ranch for the site for the Facility. 2. Approve the Baylu Group, LLC's Cortland Blvd. property for the Facility site. 3. Discontinue negotiations with the Baylu Group, LLC and enter into negotiations with the next highest ranking eligible proposer. 4. Go back out for an RFP to see if there are any additional sites to consider to construct the Facility. |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Form Review | |||||||||||||||||||||
|