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 | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Work Session of May 27, 2014; the Joint Work Session of June 2, 2014; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of June 24, 2014. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of May 27, 2014; and the Joint Work Session of June 2, 2014; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of June 24, 2014.
|
||||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda (or is listed under Possible Future Agenda Items). Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
|||||||||
6. | PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
|||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). None |
|||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: John Zanzucchi, “Granny's Closet", 218 S. Milton Ave., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
||||||||||
B. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Kelsey Drayton, “Brandy's Restaurant & Bakery", 1500 E. Cedar Ave. 40., Series 07 (beer and wine bar), Person Transfer.
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Jared Repinski, "Alpha Omega Greek Cuisine", 1580 E. Route 66., 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. |
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Donald Grosvenor, "Nadli", 7 N. San Francisco St., 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. |
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Andrea Gibson, "Air Cafe", 6200 S. Pulliam Dr., #109, 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 Approval of Sole Source Purchase: Consideration authorizing the purchase of Axon Flex body cameras manufactured by Taser International in the amount of $117,000 for the Flagstaff Police Department | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the funding of $117,000 to Taser International for the Axon Flex camera program to outfit patrol officers. The initial amount of $48, 628.10, will allow for the purchase of 50 Axon Flex body cameras with mounting, charging, and docking accessories and professional services. The costs for evidence storage and retention will be $12,446.16 annually, or $62,230.80 for the five year contract. The total amount of this request ($117,000) will cover the remaining tax and shipping.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Payment: Annual Computer Hardware and Software Maintenance and Support Services. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Authorize the payment in the amount of $562,101.09, plus applicable sales tax, to:
1) ERP - Financial Applications - $151,000.00 2) SHI Software - Microsoft Enterprise Agreement - $135,000.00 3) Intergraph Public Safety, Inc. - Maintain the map and corresponding DB for system - $196,428.08 4) SIRSI - Online Library Catalog 4/1-3/31 - $79,673.01 |
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Possible Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-11: An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2000-11 by modifying the Zoning Map Designation of that property generally known as Pine Canyon, through the amendment of a general condition related to the public's overnight access to Pine Canyon. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read ordinance No. 2014-11 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-11 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-11 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No 2014-12: An ordinance levying upon the assessed valuation of the property within the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, subject to taxation a certain sum upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of valuation sufficient to raise the amount estimated to be required in the Annual Budget, less the amount estimated to be received from other sources of revenue; providing funds for various bond redemptions, for the purpose of paying interest upon bonded indebtedness and providing funds for general municipal expenses, all for the Fiscal Year ending the 30th day of June, 2015 | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-12 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-12 |
||||||||||
C. |
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. |
||||||||||
D. | 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: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Possible Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-14: An ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map designation of approximately 33.6 acres of real property located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street and at the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Fourth Street, from Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Open (LI-O) to Highway Commercial (HC). (Amending Zoning Map for "The Trax" commercial development). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-14 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-14 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-14 |
||||||||||
F. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-13: An ordinance of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona amending Flagstaff City Code Title 6, Police Regulations, Chapter 6-01, General Offenses, by adding a new Section 6-01-001-0004, Graffiti Prohibited; and amending Title 7, Health and Sanitation, by adding a new Chapter 7-01, Graffiti Abatement. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-13 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-13 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-13 |
||||||||||
G. | 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: | ||||||||||
At the Council Meeting of July 1, 2014:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the Council Meeting of July 15, 2014: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-18 (and establish an effective for the recreation fees of September 1, 2014) |
||||||||||
H. | 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: | ||||||||||
At the meeting of July 1, 2014.
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the first time. 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the meeting of July 15, 2014. 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No.2014-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-19 (effective September 1, 2014) |
||||||||||
I. |
Consideration of Ratifying Approval of Agreement Amendment: Joint Project Agreement 11-085 between the State of Arizona and the City of Flagstaff acting for and on behalf of the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, Amendment 3 for Fiscal Year 2015 |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Ratify JPA 11-085 Amendment 3
|
||||||||||
J. |
Consideration of amendment to agreement: Authorizing an increase in funding to the Coconino Humane Association. |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the increase to the Coconino Humane Association in the amount of $50,000 for the final year of the current agreement.
|
||||||||||
K. | 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: | ||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014, Council Meeting:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014, Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-20 |
||||||||||
L. |
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-28: A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, ordering a question be submitted to the qualified electors of the City with respect to a temporary increase to the City's transaction privilege (sales) tax and authorization for the sale and issuance of bonds of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, said question to be submitted at the City's General Election to be held on November 4, 2014. (Road Repair and Street Safety Ballot Initiative) |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-28 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-28 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-28 |
||||||||||
RECESS
6:00 P.M. MEETING RECONVENE |
||||||||||
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
||||||||||
11. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
12. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | |||||||||
13. | CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA |
|||||||||
14. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS | |||||||||
A. |
Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-21: An ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map designation of approximately 3.06 acres of real property located at 703 South Blackbird Roost from "MH," Manufactured Housing, to "HC," Highway Commercial. (Zoning Map amendment ordinance review for the development known as "The Standard".) CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM WILL END AT 9:30 P.M. (IF NECESSARY) AND CONTINUE UNTIL 6:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting: |
||||||||||
B. | Public Hearing, 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: | ||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold Public Hearing 2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the first time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 6) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-17 and establish an effective date for the deposit adjustments of September 1, 2014 |
||||||||||
C. | Public Hearing, 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: | ||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2014-23 by title only 3) The City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12 7) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 9) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-15 |
||||||||||
D. | Public Hearing, 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: | ||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2014-24 by title only 3) The City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-24 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-24 7) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 9) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-16 |
||||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA None |
|||||||||
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 |
|||||||||
|
4.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Work Session of May 27, 2014; the Joint Work Session of June 2, 2014; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of June 24, 2014. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of May 27, 2014; and the Joint Work Session of June 2, 2014; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of June 24, 2014.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
Attached are copies of the minutes of the City Council Work Session of May 27, 2014; and the Joint Work Session of June 2, 2014; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of June 24, 2014. | |||||
Attachments: | 05.27.2014.CCWS.Minutes | ||||
06.02.2014.CCJWS.Minutes | |||||
06.24.2014.CCSMES.Minutes | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: John Zanzucchi, “Granny's Closet", 218 S. Milton Ave., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor) licenses are obtained through the person and/or location transfer of an existing license from another business. The transfer is from Linda Castillo for Granny's Closet located at 218 S. Milton Ave., Flagstaff, Arizona to John Zanzucchi. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance - regulatory action. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
An application for a person transfer Series 06 liquor license was received from John Zanzucchi for Granny's Closet at 218 S. Milton Ave. The transfer is from Linda Castillo for Granny's Closet located at 218 S. Milton Ave., Flagstaff, Arizona to John Zanzucchi. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager, resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a person transfer, consideration may only be given to the applicant's personal qualifications. A Series 06 (bar - all spirituous liquor) allows a bar retailer to sell and serve spirituous liquors, primarily by individual portions, to be consumed on the premises and in the original container for consumption on or off the premises. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is July 5, 2014. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on June 3, 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: | Granny's Closet - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 06 Description | |||||
Granny's Closet - PD Memo | |||||
Granny's Closet - Code Memo | |||||
Granny's Closet - Tax Memo | |||||
Location Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Kelsey Drayton, “Brandy's Restaurant & Bakery", 1500 E. Cedar Ave. 40., Series 07 (beer and wine bar), Person Transfer.
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Series 07 licenses must be obtained through the person and/or location transfer of an existing license from another business. The license is being transferred from Edward Wojciak with Brandy's Restaurant & Bakery, located in Flagstaff. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance - regulatory action. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
An application for a person transfer Series 07 liquor license was received from Kelsey Drayton for Brandy's Restaurant & Bakery, 1500 E. Cedar Ave. #40. The person transfer is from Edward Wojciak for Brandy's Restaurant & Bakery located at 1500 E. Cedar Ave., #40., Flagstaff, Arizona. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager, resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a person transfer only, consideration may be given to just the applicant's personal qualifications. A Series 07 beer and wine bar license allows a beer and wine bar retailer to sell and serve beer and wine, primarily by individual portions, to be consumed on the premises and in the original container for consumption on or off the premises. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is July 28, 2014. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on June 3, 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: | Brandy's - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 07 Description | |||||
Brandy's - PD Memo | |||||
Brandy's - Code Memo | |||||
Brandy's - Tax Memo | |||||
Location Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Jared Repinski, "Alpha Omega Greek Cuisine", 1580 E. Route 66., 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: | |||||
Jared Repinski is the agent for a new Series 12 (restaurant) liquor license for Alpha Omega Greek Cuisine. | |||||
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 Jared Repinski for Alpha Omega Greek Cuisine. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a 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 4, 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 3, 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: | Alpha Omega - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
Alpha Omega - PD Memo | |||||
Alpha Omega - Code Memo | |||||
Alpha Omega - Tax Memo | |||||
Location Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Donald Grosvenor, "Nadli", 7 N. San Francisco St., 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: | |||||
Donald Grosvenor is the agent for a new Series 12 (restaurant) liquor license for Nadli. | |||||
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 Donald Grosvenor for Nadli. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a 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 2, 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 5, 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: | Nadli - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
Nadli - PD Memo | |||||
Nadli - Code Memo | |||||
Nadli - Tax Memo | |||||
Location Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Andrea Gibson, "Air Cafe", 6200 S. Pulliam Dr., #109, 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: | |||||
Andrea Gibson is the agent for a new Series 12 (restaurant) liquor license for Air Cafe. | |||||
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 Andrea Gibson for Air Cafe. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a 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 2, 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 3, 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: | Air Cafe - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
Air Cafe - PD Memo | |||||
Air Cafe - Code Memo | |||||
Air Cafe - Tax Memo | |||||
Location Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Sole Source Purchase: Consideration authorizing the purchase of Axon Flex body cameras manufactured by Taser International in the amount of $117,000 for the Flagstaff Police Department | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the funding of $117,000 to Taser International for the Axon Flex camera program to outfit patrol officers. The initial amount of $48, 628.10, will allow for the purchase of 50 Axon Flex body cameras with mounting, charging, and docking accessories and professional services. The costs for evidence storage and retention will be $12,446.16 annually, or $62,230.80 for the five year contract. The total amount of this request ($117,000) will cover the remaining tax and shipping.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Increases in technology have made it possible to outfit officers with body cameras. Some of the benefits of using body cameras include: -reducing use of force incidents and citizen complaints, as well as reducing the time spent investigating them. -providing an accurate point of view recording of incidents and crime scenes. -capturing valuable statements by victims, witnesses and suspects to aid in prosecution. -giving officers an opportunity to review incidents to enhance their reports and their testimony in court. -allowing supervisors to review officer interactions to provide training in better communication techniques. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Upfront costs for the capital purchase of the camera and mounting equipment: $46,693.10. Cost for Taser to set up equipment and train the trainer on use, review and docking: $1,935.00 Year one evidence.com storage: $12,446.16 Year two evidence.com storage: $12,446.16 Year three evidence.com storage: $12,446.16 Year four evidence.com storage: $12,446.16 Year five evidence.com storage: $12,446.16 Estimated shipping costs: $46.74 Estimated tax: $6,094.36 Total allocation request: $117,000.00 |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective Governance (Public Safety) The Axon Flex camera system has many benefits to the individual officer and the police department. The use of this technology will help protect officers and the department from false accusations of wrong doing. It will benefit the community in the long run through better prosecution of crimes. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
This will be the first opportunity for the Police Department to utilize body cameras. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department is committed to the belief that body camera video is an important and valuable tool for law enforcement. The cameras provide audio-video documentation of a police officer’s investigative and enforcement activities from the perspective of the officer. The use of on-officer video is expected to result in greater transparency, more effective prosecution, and more effective investigations of allegations of excessive use of force, misconduct or racial profiling. Some officers who have recognized the protective function of audio or video recording have voluntarily purchased devices of varying types and made use of them in the field. Audio or video recordings of investigative or enforcement actions are evidence, and subject to rules of disclosure. It is in the best interest of justice that the Department standardizes the body cameras in use as well as evidence collection and storage policy and procedure. Having officers wear body cameras allows complete incidents to be viewed from the prospective of the individual officer. This complete video may help protect the Department if a person using a smartphone posts video clips which are scrutinizing officer conduct. The Police Department conducted a pilot program which was well received by the volunteer officers who utilized the cameras. A couple falsely made citizen complaints were easily unfounded upon video review by supervisors. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
After speaking with other agencies, and reviewing the research, and conducting an internal pilot program, we believe the Axon Flex body camera is the best system on the market with the features and capabilities no other vendor can provide. Therefore, Taser International is a sole source vendor. Benefits of the Axon Flex System as compared to other systems include: -a higher capacity recording life (12 hours). -the multiple point of view mounting options. -pre-event recording (30 seconds). -low light and night mode capability. The evidence management system (Evidence.com), allows for easy download and categorization of incidents, easy retrieval for disclosure or supervisory oversight, and allows departments to set up automatic retention periods in line with state law. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
During the three day budget retreat the Police Department requested funding for the body camera program. Our original plan was to purchase 60 body cameras for an amount of $33,000 and three years of evidence storage for $84,000, for the total request of $117,000. City Council was supportive of this funding and budgeted it in that way for us to move forward ($33,000 for cameras and $84,000 for evidence storage/maintenance) at the budget retreat. During the budget retreat the Police Department had just started a pilot program, after receiving three body cameras and three Axon Flex cameras to test. The body cameras have a basic clip attached to them and can be positioned on the officers clothing or belts only, limiting the viewpoint of the camera when recording. The Axon Flex is more versatile and has multiple mounting options. Most importantly the Axon Flex has mounting options on eyewear and over the ears, which allows the viewer to see exactly what the officer was viewing when the camera was on. This viewpoint is much more beneficial to the officers. Police Department leadership spoke at length with the pilot program officers at the end of the pilot program. They were overwhelming in support of the Axon Flex cameras system over the basic body cameras, due to the officer’s point of view benefit. The Axon Flex cameras are more expensive at $499 apiece versus the body cameras at $299. We felt it was in the best interest of the department and the city to explore this Axon Flex option. Purchasing has been able to secure a quote for this program to include 50 Axon Flex cameras ($47,000) and five years of evidence storage instead of three ($62,230.80). The 50 cameras will outfit the majority of our patrol officers. Those working special details (Airport, school resource officers, will not be assigned cameras). The department may be able to secure a grant at a later time to purchase more cameras. The Axon Flex utilizes a system that mounts to glasses. The Police Department was able to purchase the needed glasses in the current budget year at substantial savings over what the vender could provide. We were able to successfully reduce our evidence storage cost by sharing accounts among those who will have a need to review the video recordings. The costs for evidence storage and retention will be $12,446.16 annually, or $62,230.80 for the five year contract. The cost for the Axon Flex cameras ($47,000), five years storage ($62,230.80), along with professional services, shipping and tax makes the total amount of this request ($117,000). |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department values customer service and citizen trust. Body camera video will aid in prosecution, accurately documenting victim and witness statements as well as an objective recording of the crime scene. The use of body cameras allows us to be more transparent in our interactions with the public. The demeanor of both officers and suspects is less contentious when both parties are aware they are being recorded. As a risk management tool, the video may alleviate false accusations of wrong doing. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The law abiding citizens of our community deserve and expect our streets and neighborhoods to be places where they feel safe. The body cameras are another tool to ensure we are policing correctly, constitutionally, and consistently. The audio and video recording from the body cameras will increase our ability to review probable cause for arrests, view officer and suspect interactions, provide feedback for officers in training, and better collect evidence for investigation and prosecution. | |||||
Attachments: | Axon Flex Quote | ||||
Axon Flex Sole Source Documentation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Payment: Annual Computer Hardware and Software Maintenance and Support Services. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Authorize the payment in the amount of $562,101.09, plus applicable sales tax, to:
1) ERP - Financial Applications - $151,000.00 2) SHI Software - Microsoft Enterprise Agreement - $135,000.00 3) Intergraph Public Safety, Inc. - Maintain the map and corresponding DB for system - $196,428.08 4) SIRSI - Online Library Catalog 4/1-3/31 - $79,673.01 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the recommended action as submitted; 2) Present to Council the hardware and software maintenance support services exceeding the bid threshold on an individual basis. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
For the past five years, Purchasing has presented a comprehensive master listing outlining most computer hardware and software maintenance and support services. City staff's recommendation is to receive payment authorization as one action item at the onset of the fiscal year. During the current fiscal year we have expended to date $559,780.52 to the various vendors as outlined in the attached schedule. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Hardware and Software maintenance and support services are being acquired from designated vendors we purchased the computer hardware and software from. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Ongoing maintenance and support services assure the City the latest product enhancements and technical support that is critical in support of the City's computer infrastructure. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
No | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. | |||||
Council Action: | |||||
06/18/2013 - EAB - Approved | |||||
Attachments: | FY15 Software Maintenance | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Possible Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-11: An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2000-11 by modifying the Zoning Map Designation of that property generally known as Pine Canyon, through the amendment of a general condition related to the public's overnight access to Pine Canyon. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read ordinance No. 2014-11 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-11 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-11 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing to consider this modification of the Zoning Designation through the amendment of an underlying general condition at its regular meeting on April 23, 2014. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted (4-1) to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Zoning map amendments are required to be adopted by ordinance. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
In October of 2013, the City Council approved an agreement with the applicant that commits the City to erect and maintain a directional sign at the intersection of Lake Mary Road and John Wesley Powell, staff support to amend the rezoning ordinance to modify the gated provision during night time and extends the developer's transportation improvement contribution. The Public Hearing on this application was held on May 20, 2014, with not public input received. First read of the Ordinance was held on June 17, 2014. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve the ordinance as proposed, approve the ordinance with conditions, or deny the ordinance. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
In June of 2000, the City Council approved a rezoning request (Ordinance 2000-11) and development agreement allowing the development of Pine Canyon, which includes a mixture of condominium, estate twin houses (duplex units), estate homes, clubhouse and recreational facilities, maintenance and storage facilities, and an 18-hole private golf course with accessory facilities, located on approximately 660 acres. The primary entrance to Pine Canyon is located at the intersection of Lone Tree Road and John Wesley Powell Blvd. General condition No. 8 of of Ordinance 2000-11 states “all private roads within the development remain open to the public and never gated.” The applicant, True Life Companies (TLC), is requesting a modification of this condition in order to allow the installation of gates at the primary entrance that would prohibit public access to Pine Canyon at nighttime. Pine Canyon has constructed a gate house at both the main and secondary entries; however, the secondary entry has been closed off for general entry or exit from the community. The main gate monitors all persons entering and exiting the community since installation. The guards at the main entry do not prohibit the public from entering the property, upon showing proof of insurance and having a valid driver’s license. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Zoning Map amendments are adopted by the City Council via ordinance. Ordinance No. 2014-11 modifies general condition No. 8 of Ordinance 2000-11 from "All private roads within the development remain open to the public and never gated" to "All streets within Pine Canyon shall remain open to the public, without the use of a gate, from sunrise to sunset. Any means to restrict access to the streets of Pine Canyon may only be utilized from sunset to sunrise and never restrict emergency access." | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
There are financial considerations included within the agreement approved by the City Council in October 2013. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits and considerations related to this request are addressed in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, dated April 8, 2014. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform/Consult The applicants held a neighborhood meeting on March 20, 2014 that was advertised to all residents/property owners within Pine Canyon, all property owners within 300 feet of Pine Canyon and interested community members. Seventeen people attended the meeting apart from the applicant’s representatives. There were a number of questions about the proposal. None of those in attendance were in favor of the gate in lieu of a guard 24/7. The applicants received emails from 13 individuals mostly asking for more information. Pine Canyon representatives prepared a letter describing the request in full which was sent to many who had inquired about the request. Staff has received 6 phone calls and 4 emails, most of which were requesting more specific information about the request. One caller and two emails were in opposition to the installation of gates. The other two emails are in opposition to the gates with the removal of the guards; they do not address the two in combination. One caller was opposed to the installation of the gates regardless of the guards on duty. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on April 23, 2014. Notice of that Public hearing was provided in accordance with State Statute and the Zoning Code. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, one member of the public had questions in regards to the case. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-11 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No 2014-12: An ordinance levying upon the assessed valuation of the property within the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, subject to taxation a certain sum upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of valuation sufficient to raise the amount estimated to be required in the Annual Budget, less the amount estimated to be received from other sources of revenue; providing funds for various bond redemptions, for the purpose of paying interest upon bonded indebtedness and providing funds for general municipal expenses, all for the Fiscal Year ending the 30th day of June, 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-12 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-12 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arizona Revised Statute 42-17104 requires that an Ordinance to adopt property tax levies be passed after the adoption of the final budget. The final budget is anticipated to be adopted on June 17, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The City of Flagstaff is proposing a flat primary property levy on existing properties for the FY2014-2015 base levy of $5,520,173 plus the new construction levy of $41,567 for a total levy of $5,561,740. The primary property tax rate to support this levy is $0.8418 per $100 of assessed valuation. The City of Flagstaff proposing a flat tax rate for secondary property taxes for FY2014-2015 for a total levy of $5,611,045. The proposed secondary property tax rate is $0.8366 per $100 of assessed valuation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective governance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Both the State Constitution and State law specify a property tax levy limitation system. This system consists of two levies, a limited levy known as the primary property tax levy and an unlimited levy referred to as the secondary property tax levy. The primary levy may be imposed for all purposes, while the secondary levy in cities and towns may only be used to retire the principal and interest or redemption charges on general obligation bonded indebtedness. The adoption of the property tax levy is the final step in the entire budget approval process. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The key dates for budget and property tax levy adoption have been determined and have been followed throughout this process. The County adopts the property tax levy as proposed by the City on or about August 1, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The City has budgeted a total of $5,435,325 in FY2014-2015 primary property tax, an approximate 1.5% increase over the FY2013-2014 budget. This increase is due to new construction and reduced delinquencies. Primary property tax funds any general purpose use of the city government. The budgeted amount is less than the levy as the City is allowing for approximately 2% in bad debt. Statutorily, the maximum allowable primary property levy for FY2014-2015 is $5,901,999. The City can capture this additional levy in future budget years if Council so directs. The City has budgeted a total of $5,611,045 in FY2014-2015 secondary property tax, an approximate 1.46% increase over the FY2013-2014 budget. The increase is directly related to the increased assessed valuation and new construction. Secondary property tax funds general obligation debt and debt is issued to manage within the levy. Five years historical data is shown below:
Primary property taxes account for 10.4% of the General Fund revenues budgeted for FY2014-2015. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primary property taxes support a number of City services including public safety, parks and recreation, other public works services, and general administrative and management functions within the city. Secondary property taxes support the debt service payment on numerous city capital projects including: Aquaplex, Fire Stations, Open Space, numerous street/utility projects, Forest Restoration and the future Core Facility as well as many others. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform & Involve: Budget legal schedules were published in the June 5, 2014 and June 12, 2014 Arizona Daily Sun to allow for additional community review. In addition, the legal and other budget schedules were made available at City Hall, at both Flagstaff Public Libraries, and on the official city website. A public hearing on June 17, 2014 for both the final budget adoption and the property tax levy is open for public comment and allows citizens to provide input. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-12 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||
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. | |||||
10.D.
| |||||||||||
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: | |||||
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. | |||||
10.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Possible Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-14: An ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map designation of approximately 33.6 acres of real property located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street and at the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Fourth Street, from Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Open (LI-O) to Highway Commercial (HC). (Amending Zoning Map for "The Trax" commercial development). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-14 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-14 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-14 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission conducted Public Hearings to consider this Zoning Map amendment request at its regular meetings on May 14, 2014 and May 28, 2014. The Planning Commission voted (7-0) to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval subject to two conditions. The attached ordinance lists the two conditions of approval. Zoning Map amendments are required to be adopted by ordinance. Subsidiary Decisions Points: If the first reading of the ordinance is successful, the attached Development Agreement will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council on July 1, 2014, prior to the second reading of the ordinance. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Council considered, approved, and amended a purchase and sale agreement for the subject property on May 20, 2014. This Zoning Map amendment request is accompanied by a Regional Plan amendment request. First read of the ordinance was held on June 17, 2014 |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve the ordinance with the proposed conditions, approve the ordinance with additional or modified conditions, or deny the ordinance. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The site is currently vacant, undeveloped and un-subdivided land. At the date of this report, the property is owned by the City of Flagstaff. The applicant, Evergreen Devco, Inc., intends to close escrow on the property by September 2014 and following site plan and engineering construction plan approvals, to provide the development with new public and private infrastructure that includes roadway work, FUTS trail construction, water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure. Land uses north of the property, across Route 66, consist of commercial buildings with uses that include motels, restaurants, auto repair, retail, plant nursery and offices. New commercial construction on the north side of Route 66 includes the completed Walgreens at the northeast corner of Route 66 and 4th Street, a new bank east of the Walgreens (in construction), and a Tractor Supply Co. (in construction) at the northeast corner of Route 66 and Arrowhead Drive. The terrain on the Areas A, B, and C of the subject site is generally flat at an elevation ranging between approximately 6,840 to 6,860 feet. Area D is flattest at the corner of 4th Street and Huntington, and then slopes down towards the west; it is has a fairly even distribution of Ponderosa pine tree resources. A resolution for the development agreement must be approved prior to the second reading of the zoning ordinance (see attached draft development agreement). The development agreement will address responsibilities for constructing a FUTS trail, providing outdoor public space, preserving the trestle bridge, ensuring that construction of public improvements coincide with the phased development of the project, and designing drive-through facilities to ensure the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, the Developer will be required to contribute an agreed upon monetary sum into the City’s escrow account towards future I-40 Bridge improvements and to cover a pedestrian crossing study and any recommended improvements to Route 66 related to the development of the property. The development agreement also covers Route 66 lighting (ADOT requirements) and dedication of public easements and rights-of-way. The applicant received Inter-Division Staff (IDS) approval for the Conceptual Site Plan on April 3, 2014. The conditions of IDS review were addressed when the applicant submitted a revised Conceptual Site Plan for the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). Those conditions relating to requirements for future Site Plan submittals were agreed by the Developer in the “response to conditions.” Any outstanding, unresolved provisions addressed in the Conditions of Approval will be included in the development agreement. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Zoning Map amendments are adopted by the City Council via ordinance. Ordinance No. 2014-14 changes the Zoning Map designation of approximately 33.6 acres from the Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Open (LI-O) zones to the Highway Commercial (HC) zone. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits and considerations related to this Zoning Map amendment request are addressed in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission Zoning Map Amendment Staff Report, dated May 6, 2014. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform The Developer held a neighborhood meeting on February 20, 2014 at the Aquaplex; 37 people signed in for the meeting. Notice of the neighborhood meeting was provided in accordance with the Zoning Code. The results of the meeting are included in the Record of Proceedings, a copy of which is included in the attached Planning & Zoning Commission attachments. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 14, 2014 and May 28, 2014. Notice of those public hearings was provided in accordance with State statute and the Zoning Code. As of this writing, staff has received general inquiries from three members of the public at the Community Development Counter, and one email which expresses concern over the effect (commercial competition) the amendment might have on the 4th Street corridor north of Route 66; increased traffic flow and safety; and reducing the amount of light industrial land in areas that have easy access to housing. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-14 | ||||
P&Z CC Public Hearing Legal Notices | |||||
Exhibit A_Legal Descrip | |||||
Draft PZC Minutes 5-14-14 | |||||
PZC Staff Report | |||||
Ex & Proposed Zoning Exhibit | |||||
Application_RP & Zoning | |||||
Overall Site Plan | |||||
Concept Plan Area A | |||||
Concept Plan Area B | |||||
Concept Plan Area C | |||||
Concept Plan Area D | |||||
Evergreen Draft D.A. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.F.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-13: An ordinance of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona amending Flagstaff City Code Title 6, Police Regulations, Chapter 6-01, General Offenses, by adding a new Section 6-01-001-0004, Graffiti Prohibited; and amending Title 7, Health and Sanitation, by adding a new Chapter 7-01, Graffiti Abatement. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-13 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-13 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-13 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Ordinance 2014-13 will amend City Code Chapter 6-01 by adding a new section to prohibit graffiti within the City. The ordinance also adds a new Chapter 7-01 to provide standards for the removal and abatement of graffiti, including the recovery of expenses by the City for abatement. Subsidiary Decisions Points: This ordinance provides tools and procedures that will enable City staff to more comprehensively deal with an increase of graffiti within our community, thereby ensuring the preservation of property values, a reduction in urban blight, and causing the removal of graffiti within a reasonable period of time. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None. The adoption of Ordinance 2014-13 will not result in increased costs to the Comprehensive Planning and Code Administration Program. Currently $7,750 is allocated for graffiti removal by volunteers as part of the Graffiti Busters Program, including costs associated with the graffiti van, purchase of materials and supplies, etc. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The idea of developing improved standards for the abatement of graffiti was considered when a proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance was first discussed with the Council some years ago. In a work session on November 12, 2013 in which an update on various distressed properties was presented to the Council, a majority directed staff to prepare amendments to the City Code to provide tools and standards for graffiti removal and abatement. At the Council's June 17, 2014 meeting, Council directed staff to reconsider three sections of Ordinance 2014-13. These are described in further detail below. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Please see Expanded Options and Alternatives below. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The prevalence of graffiti within the City of Flagstaff has been an ongoing concern to the Flagstaff Police Department and City residents for many years. A volunteer program to abate graffiti was initially developed under the Police Department, but over time and due to limited resources, the program became difficult to administer and fund. However, when the Sustainability and Environmental Management enforcement staff were combined with the code enforcement staff in the Community Development Division, staff saw an opportunity to reinvigorate this program under the leadership of Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager. Following a presentation to the Council by Lt. Frank Higgins of the Police Department on November 21, 2012 on the issues and challenges associated with graffiti and its abatement during the FY13 budget process, funds were allocated for the creation of a "Graffiti Busters" graffiti removal and abatement program. The kick-off for this event was held on May 3, 2013 as illustrated in the attached photographs. The Graffiti Busters program has been effective in that volunteers are deployed to roll out or otherwise remove graffiti on public and private property. The number of cases abated by year is summarized below (Note that these totals under count the number of actual sites abated because not all abatements (such as on street poles or small utility cabinets) were documented:
2012 172 reported cases
2013 392 reported cases 2014 410 cases (YTD).
While staff has been successful in removing graffiti through the use of volunteers, a number of issues have prevented the more effective removal and abatement of graffiti, as described below:
A comprehensive description of the proposed amendments to City Code Title 6 (Police Regulations) and Title 7 (Health and Sanitation) is provided below:
City Code Title 6 (Police Regulations); Chapter 6-01 (General Offenses) Add a new Section 6-01-0001-0004 (Graffiti Prohibited) This new section prohibits graffiti within the City and is inserted into the Police Regulations Title of the City Code so that any person found to be in violation of this section may be cited by a Police officer for criminal damage as provided for in existing law. Title 7 (Health and Sanitation); Add a new Chapter 7-01 (Graffiti Abatement) This new chapter in Title 7 provides a procedure for the removal and abatement of graffiti in order to reduce blight and deterioration within the City. The general provisions included within this chapter include the following:
|
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Graffiti has been determined to be obnoxious, contributes to neighborhood blight and deterioration, provides a communication system for gangs and other vandals, damages property, and constitutes a public nuisance. Further, graffiti must be abated as quickly as possible in order to avoid its detrimental impacts on the City and its residents, and to prevent the spread of additional graffiti. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The incidents of graffiti on businesses, homes, utility cabinets, fences, and other structures has increased significantly in recent years. As a result Flagstaff residents have expressed concern that the continued presence of graffiti erodes community spirit and adversely impacts the overall attractiveness of their neighborhoods. It has also been determined that graffiti is a demoralizing visual symbol detrimental to the safety and welfare of the public as it tends to reduce the value of private property, invites vandalism, additional graffiti and other criminal activities, and it allows gangs to communicate threats. In general, graffiti produces urban blight which is adverse to the maintenance and continuing development of the City. Ordinance 2014-13 is intended to ensure the prompt removal of graffiti. It also provides the Flagstaff Police Department with additional enforcement tools to protect public and private property from acts of graffiti vandalism and defacement as well providing code enforcement personnel with the tools necessary for compelling property owners to remove graffiti within a reasonable amount of time or, in the alternate, for the removal of graffiti by City staff or volunteers within a reasonable amount of time. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform - over the past few months when staff has been meeting with various local stakeholders and organizations such as NAAR, NABA, Chamber of Commerce, etc. the issue of graffiti has been discussed. Community residents have been informed of the proposed amendments to the City Code to provide more effective tools for graffiti removal and abatement by notice on the City's webpage and traditional noticing locations of the Council's meetings on these amendments. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
OPTION 1: Adopt Ordinance 2014-13 to amend City Code Chapter 6-01 by adding a new section to prohibit graffiti within the City, and add a new Chapter 7-01 to provide standards for the removal and abatement of graffiti. OPTION 2: Do not adopt Ordinance 2014-13, and, therefore, maintain the status quo without adequate standards to require the removal and abatement of graffiti. |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-13 | ||||
Graffiti Photographs | |||||
Memo from tom Boughner | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.G.
| |||||||||||||
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: | |||||
At the Council Meeting of July 1, 2014:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the Council Meeting of July 15, 2014: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-18 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 5) 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 |
|||||
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. | |||||
10.H.
| |||||||||||||
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: | |||||
At the meeting of July 1, 2014.
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the first time. 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the meeting of July 15, 2014. 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-19 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No.2014-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 5) 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. | |||||
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. | |||||
10.I.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Ratifying Approval of Agreement Amendment: Joint Project Agreement 11-085 between the State of Arizona and the City of Flagstaff acting for and on behalf of the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, Amendment 3 for Fiscal Year 2015 |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Ratify JPA 11-085 Amendment 3
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
This ratifies the Mayor's approval of JPA 11-085 Amendment 3 with the Arizona Department of Transportation. The City benefits from its current relationship with the FMPO and, through the FMPO, the Arizona Department of Transportation. FMPO provides resources for regional planning, participation in state transportation plans, support for traffic impact analysis and access to federal transportation construction funding. Regional planning, and more specifically transportation planning, is an on-going function in which the City participates to meet other state and federal mandates. This JPA establishes the relationship with ADOT to permit the pass-through of federal funds. The JPA is amended annually to reflect changes in federal or state mandates, rules or expectations, and to create the new completion date, June 30, 2015. Subsidiary Decisions Points: This Amendment has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the City Grants Management office. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Annually, FMPO brings in about $260,000 in planning funds, $500,000 in general construction funds, and $600,000 in safety project funds. Failure to approve the amendment will de-fund the FMPO and essential services in transportation modeling, trails planning and more will fall to City staff. Loss of the FMPO will result in the City's eligibility for federal transportation construction funds. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) 5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, the original JPA was considered by Council on June 7, 2011. Amendment 2 on June 18, 2013. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve as written: This is the most expeditious path. Approve with conditions: This will result in delays due to state and local reviews. Reject the amendment: The FMPO will not be funded. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The FMPO has been in place since 1996. It started with an intergovernmental agreement between the City, County and State. More recently, an IGA between the City and County establishes the FMPO and this JPA 11-085 establishes the FMPO relation to the state. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The FMPO Executive Board approved the FY 2015 Work Program referenced by this Amendment 3. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Ensure continuation of important transportation planning and support functions. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Consult - a 30-day comment period on the work program was provided. The work program seeks to advance the regional transportation plan that enjoyed considerable public involvement |
|||||
Attachments: | JPA 11-085 Amnd 3 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.J.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of amendment to agreement: Authorizing an increase in funding to the Coconino Humane Association. |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the increase to the Coconino Humane Association in the amount of $50,000 for the final year of the current agreement.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Coconino Humane Association has provided animal sheltering and care services for the City of Flagstaff for over 60 years. The Humane Association entered an agreement with the City in 2010 for a one year contract at a value of $165,000. The contract allowed for four (4) additional one year term renewals making it valid through June 30, 2015. When the City began to face financial difficulty the City requested partner agencies take cuts as well. The Humane Association accepted these reductions graciously in the spirit of community service to assist the City of Flagstaff. The contract was reduced through the years as follows: FY 2011 = $165,000.00 FY 2012 = $161,985.00 FY 2013 = $161,985.00 FY 2014 = $161,985.00 Total reduction over the course of these years was $9,045.00 The Humane Association reports that they cut back as far as possible, while continuing to provide the services as outlined in the scope of work as well as additional services outside the scope of work. Due to rising costs of business, additional financial liabilities for compliance with changing laws, drops in total revenue, restricted grant opportunities, and very limited sources of other available revenue, the Coconino Humane Association has had to contribute substantial funds from donations and shelter service fees to what it costs to fulfill the contract with the City. Additionally, they withdrew $118,000 from savings earmarked for capital improvements, and cashed in a certificate of deposit several months ago just to cover payroll. They have requested a substantial increase of $78,000.00 for an annual contracted amount of $240,000.00 for the 2014-2015 animal sheltering contract, which is the last extension year. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The Coconino Humane Association has requested an increase of $78,000.00 (added to $161,985.00) for an annual contracted amount of $240,000.00 for the 2014-2015 animal sheltering contract. City Council was supportive of funding an additional amount of $50,000, during the budget retreat for FY 2015, which if approved would fund the final year of the contract at $211,985.00. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective Governance (Public Safety) An animal control program is necessary to ensure public health and safety to people as well as safe and humane care for the unwanted and stray (sometimes vicious) animals in our community. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Council has approved previous agreements with the Coconino Humane Association and discussed additional funding in the amount of $50,000 during the fiscal year 2015 budget retreat. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) The council may approve $50,000 in additional funds for the contract with the Coconino Humane Association. 2) The Council may choose to deny or limit any additional funding to the Coconino Humane Association. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff is currently contracted with the Coconino County Humane Association to provide Animal Shelter Services. The contract was originally signed on July 29, 2010 for one year at a contract value of $165,000. The contract was reduced to $161,985.00 in fiscal year 2012 and subsequent years in response to the recession. The contract allowed for four (4) additional one year terms, and if all renewals are exercised, the contract will be valid through June 30, 2015. The FY2014 appropriation for this contract was $161,985. Throughout the duration of the contract the Humane Association continued to provide those services required within the scope of work as well as additional services outside the scope of work. In fiscal year 2015, the Humane Association re-approached the City requesting increased funding for the final year of the agreement. The attached memorandum from Michelle Ryan outlines the cost increases they have had to absorb, as well as the costs of services provided outside the scope of work listed in the original contract with the City. During the April 2015 budget retreat the City Council was supportive of additional funding to the Humane Association in the total amount of $50,000. City Council supported providing $12,000 in one time money not tied to any additional services. An additional amount of $38,000 in one time money was recommended to help assist with those services the Humane Association provided over and above the original scope of work in the contract with the City. According to the Humane Association these additional services include: emergency animal ambulance and medical services, cruelty investigations, public education, low costs spay and neuter, and low cost euthanasia. The Humane Association estimates providing these services to the residents of the City have cost them approximately $168,572.32, during the course of the current agreement with the City. The Humane Association estimates to continue providing these services during the final year of the contract will cost them an additional $45,150.00. Additionally the Council supported providing $12,000 in one time money not tied to additional services. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
An animal shelter is necessary for the humane treatment of stray and injured animals within the City of Flagstaff. There has been an ongoing concern about the possibility of transferring impounded animals to “no-kill” shelters. The Humane Association has an agreement with Second Chance Center for Animals and Paw Placement of Northern Arizona that allows for the transfer of impounded animals to a “no-kill” shelter or a home. In addition the Humane Association participates in numerous adoption programs including Petsmart, Petfinder.com, Pet-a-Palooza and other rescue organizations. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
This contract will go to Request for Proposals (RFP) in Spring of 2015. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Flagstaff Community utilizes many services of the Humane Association, several of which are beyond the scope of work the Police Department requires for their operations. The Police Department is responsible for the enforcement of ordinances and statutes pertaining to animals. Services of the Humane Association are used regularly by the Police Department to house or quarantine impounded animals. The City of Flagstaff benefits by having an available facility that will accept, house and adopt stray dogs and cats as well as offering low-cost services (spay/neuter, euthanasia, adoption, and vaccinations). The Coconino Humane Association also provides free public education. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The Coconino Humane Association and its supporters presented to council previously at the April 8th, 2014 City Council Work Session, requesting additional funding. The Humane Association request was again discussed in public during the three day budget retreat in late April. |
|||||
Attachments: | Humane Association Memo | ||||
PowerPoint | |||||
Service Agreement | |||||
First Amendment to Agreement | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.K.
| |||||||||||||
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: | |||||
At the July 1, 2014, Council Meeting:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014, Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-20 by title only (if approved above) 5) 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: | |||||
No formal decision. Council, however, 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) | |||||
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 will consider has two options. The first option is 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. |
|||||
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 | ||||
PowerPoint | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.L.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-28: A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, ordering a question be submitted to the qualified electors of the City with respect to a temporary increase to the City's transaction privilege (sales) tax and authorization for the sale and issuance of bonds of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, said question to be submitted at the City's General Election to be held on November 4, 2014. (Road Repair and Street Safety Ballot Initiative) |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-28 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-28 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-28 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City Charter, Article XVI, Amendment No. 1 requires a vote for any bond issuance that will levy a bond that pledges City tax revenues as a guarantee for their payment, in whole or in part. Article VI requires an election to raise sales tax to occur at a general election. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City budgeted funds for elections in FY2015. The proposed sales tax increase would result in an additional 33 cents per $100 of taxable sales for a period of 20 years starting January 1, 2015. This increase will raise an estimated $106M over the term of the tax. The principal amount borrowed would not exceed $20,000,000. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
1. Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) 5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council reviewed information pertaining to this ballot initiative at several meetings, work sessions and budget retreats over the last two years. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve the question as written or amended to be placed on the November 4, 2014 general election. Do not approve the bond question to be placed on the November 4, 2014 general election. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Over the past two years, the City of Flagstaff has reviewed the current condition of Flagstaff streets and discussed possible scope and financing to fund repairs to existing street infrastructure (including some sidewalks, curbs, ADA ramps, and bike lane restriping) and underlying utility infrastructure. The following is a summary of past City action and discussion: 2010: Street and Utility Bond Initiative November 2012: Completed analysis on the condition and improvement costs of critical City infrastructure March 2013: First regional coordination meeting April 2013: Council discussion on project approach July 2013: Reallocation of $1M for FY15 Budget September 2013: Council discussion on funding proposals and direction to form Citizen Committee November 2013:Citizen Survey January – March 2014: Citizen Committee April 2014: Citizen Committee recommendation presented to City Council May 2014: Focus Groups and Survey Results June 2014: Ballot options presented to City Council |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
During the month of June, Council met four times to discuss the scope and financing for the Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative. Through these discussions, Council discussed the following key considerations:
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The City Manager's Office engaged the public in the development of the Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative. This included initiating a Citizen Review Committee to inform the public of the current condition of the City's infrastructure, consulting the public on possible solutions and empowering the public to provide a policy recommendation in the form of a resolution. City staff also consulted with the Transportation Commission and conducted surveys and focus groups on proposed the ballot initiative. | |||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-28 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-21: An ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map designation of approximately 3.06 acres of real property located at 703 South Blackbird Roost from "MH," Manufactured Housing, to "HC," Highway Commercial. (Zoning Map amendment ordinance review for the development known as "The Standard".) CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM WILL END AT 9:30 P.M. (IF NECESSARY) AND CONTINUE UNTIL 6:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting: |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing to consider this Zoning Map amendment request at its regular meeting on June 11, 2014. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted (6-0) to continue discussion and action to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 25, 2014. At the June 25, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission, after receiving additional public comment, voted (6-0) to forward this Zoning Map amendment request to the City Council with a recommendation for denial based on the second required finding of the Zoning Code that the proposed amendment was detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Subsidiary Decision Points: If the first reading of the ordinance is successful, the accompanying Development Agreement will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council on July 15, 2014 prior to the final reading of the ordinance. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities are associated with the approval of this Zoning Map amendment. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) Retain, expand, and diversify economic base Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No previous City Council action or decisions have been made related to this Zoning Map amendment request or the Subject Property. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the ordinance with the proposed conditions. 2) Approve the ordinance with no condition, additional conditions, or modified conditions. 3) Deny the ordinance based on the required findings of Section 10-20.50.040(F)(1)(a) of the Zoning Code. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Landmark Properties, Inc. (the “Developer”), is requesting a Zoning Map amendment to rezone approximately 3.06 acres located at 703 S Blackbird Roost (the “Subject Property”) from the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone to the Highway Commercial (HC) zone. This amendment, along with other parcels, would allow the development of a mixed-use multi-family style student housing development consisting of 191-units (650 beds) located within two buildings and including approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial uses and a six-level parking garage. The Subject Property is currently developed as a manufactured home park known as Arrowhead Village. There are no natural resources on-site and all existing slope is manmade from previous development. For additional information on the reason for the request, site characteristics, and anticipated community benefits, please reference the attached Site Analysis and Reason for Request Narrative. Land use north of the Subject Property is predominately light industrial and office development including automotive repair, motorcycle repair, and carpentry services. Land uses to the east of the Subject Property are a mixture of residential and commercial development including two apartment complexes, automotive repair, automotive accessories sales, and motorcycle rentals. Land uses to the south of the Subject Property are comprised of primarily commercial including automotive parts sales and lodging. Land uses to the east of the Subject property is primarily residential with a small amount of commercial including an existing manufactured home park known as Millpond Village Apartments and lodging. If the proposed Zoning Map amendment request is approved, the next steps in the process will be the filing of an application for Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit review followed by Civil Improvement Plan submittal and Building Plan submittal. A Development Agreement between the City and Landmark Properties has been drafted, a copy of which is attached to this report, to address various impacts on the surrounding neighborhood (i.e. building height, pedestrian crossing of Route 66, traffic calming and landscaping enhancements on Clay Avenue, etc.), affordable housing, project management, and good neighbor responsibilities. The Development Agreement must be approved by the City Council via a resolution prior to the second reading of the Zoning Map amendment ordinance. The proposed development encompasses four separately identified parcels (APN’s 103-02-021, 103-02-020, 103-01-003, and 103-01-005E). Only parcel APN 103-02-021 is subject to the proposed Zoning Map amendment; however, all parcels within the proposed development were analyzed for conformance to existing and proposed development standards. As a condition of approval, all parcels must be combined into one parcel prior to building permit submittal. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Zoning Map amendments are adopted by the City Council via ordinance when the proposed amendment meets the following findings: the proposed amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans; the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City of Flagstaff and will add to the public good as described in the General Plan; and, the affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities, to ensure that the requested zone designation and the proposed or anticipated uses and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits and considerations related to this Zoning Map amendment are addressed in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission staff report dated June 5, 2014. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are conducted in conjunction with any request for Zoning Map amendment. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statute and City Code, notice of the public hearing must be provided by placing an ad in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, posting a notice on the property subject to the proposed amendment, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300-feet of the property subject to the proposed amendment. All notifications must be completed at least 15-days prior to the first schedule public hearing. In order to notice as many people as possible, staff ensured that a notice was published in the Daily Sun, four notice signs were posted on the site (one at the north driveway of Arrowhead Village on Blackbird Roost, one at the south driveway of Arrowhead Village on Blackbird Roost, one at the driveway between the Snow Peak Inn and AAMCO on Route 66, and one adjacent to the abandon gas station on Route 66), and a notice was mailed to all property owners within 600-feet of the site as well as all residents within the Arrowhead Village park. A copy of the publication notice, pictures of the postings, a mailing list, and a copy of the mailing notice are attached to this report. As of the writing of the attached staff report, staff has received eight letters, 37 e-mails, and one online petition, which can be divided into three categories: opposed, neutral, and support. Those comments in opposition (43 total) expressed concerns over location, traffic, neighborhood character, displacement of low income residents, view shed preservation, building height, student behavior, pedestrian connectivity, parking, availability of land within Northern Arizona University, inflated rent, conflict to Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030, conflict to La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Plan, conflict to the Flagstaff Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan, and the implementation of a Health Impact Assessment. The online petition, which contains approximately 395 signatures, opposes the proposed Zoning Map amendment and expresses support for the immediate creation of a plan to accommodate expected student body growth. Those neutral comments (2 total) expressed support for using a Health Impact Assessment as a tool in the decision making process. Those comments in support (1 total) expressed the need for student housing, conformance with the goals of the Regional Plan, conformance with the goals of Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, and compatibility. A table summarizing all public comments received to the date of this writing as well as copies of each comment is attached to this report. As of the writing of this report, staff has received 11 additional e-mails, one letter, and one online petition, which can be divided into three categories: opposed, neutral, and support. Those comments in opposition (7 total) expressed concerns over traffic, clarifying Friends of Flagstaff's future position, location, displacement of low income residents, adequacy of proposed compensation package, neighborhood character, affordable housing, noise, heavy truck traffic, littering, lighting, building height infill, ghetto-ization of students, increased crime, loss of rental income, building size, building design, increase in housing prices, availability of land within Northern Arizona University, number of students, conformance with Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. The online petition, which contains approximately 445 signatures, opposes the proposed Zoning Map amendment and expresses support for the immediate creation of a plan to accommodate expected student body growth. Those neutral comments (2 total) clarified the position of NAIPTA regarding the relocation of the Barnes & Nobel transit stop. Those comments in support (3 total) expressed the need for a pedestrian crossing of Route 66, the need for traffic calming along Blackbird Roost, support for staff recommended conditions regarding building mass and appearance, improvements to the community, support for and the benefit of the relocation package, potential energy conservation, and conformance with the Regional Plan. Section 10-20.30.060 of the Zoning Code (Page 20.30-5) requires the Developer to conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing in accordance with an approved neighborhood meeting plan. After completion of the neighborhood meeting, the Developer must prepare a Record of Proceedings in accordance with Section 10-20.30.060.F of the Zoning Code (Page 20.30-7). That record is then presented as part of the report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Neighborhood Meeting Plan, a copy of which is attached to this report, was submitted on February 7, 2014 and approved by staff on February 11, 2014. The required neighborhood meeting was conducted on February 19, 2014 at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel Flagstaff. The meeting was noticed in accordance with established City standards. The meeting was conducted in an open house format with several stations set-up to discuss the various topics of interest. The results of the meeting were submitted on February 24, 2014 in a Neighborhood Meeting Summary, a copy of which is attached to this report. The meeting was attended by approximately 150 people. Comments were divided into two categories, non-supportive and supportive. The key areas of non-support were: concerns about the relocation of existing Arrowhead Village residents; traffic (into/through the neighborhood and along Route 66); and, gentrification of the area (increasing of property values and therefore rents). The key areas of support were: Northern Arizona University is not providing sufficient student housing (especially for Juniors/Seniors); location and proximity to campus (i.e. ability to walk and avoid automobile use); and, income/investment into the City. The Developers response to the comments received (i.e. relocation, traffic, gentrification, student housing needs, location and proximity to campus, and investment in the City) are included on Pages 4 and 5 of the Neighborhood Meeting Summary. As a result of this meeting, the Developer identified the need for two additional meetings, the first to discuss the relocation needs of the existing residents and the second to discuss “zoning” related topics (i.e. building design, traffic, site planning, etc.). The second (Relocation) and third (Zoning) neighborhood meetings were held on April 21, 2014 and April 23, 2014, respectively, at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel Flagstaff. Each meeting was noticed in accordance with established City standards. The meetings were conducted in a more traditional speaker/audience formant with a primary presentation given in both English and Spanish followed by a question and answer (Q&A) session. The results of the meeting were submitted to staff on May 6, 2014 in a Follow-up Neighborhood Meeting Summary, a copy of which is attached to this report. The second neighborhood meeting was attended by approximately 101 people. During the Q&A session, the major topics of discussion were: • When will the 180-day vacate notice be issued? • Will residents have to sign any sort of a contract with the Developer in order to establish ownership of their trailer before May 20th? • Will undocumented residents be eligible for state relocation funding? If not, will the Developer cover those funds? • Are there enough spaces at trailer parks around the City at $425 per month (or less) to accommodate all relocations? • Can residents access the funds before the 180-day vacate notice? • I want to be paid now and the proposed compensation is not enough. • I want a mobile home fair first, will the Developer do that? • The La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association Board of Directors has adopted the following position: All displaced residents must be fairly compensated and ensured access to permanent affordable housing. The Developers responses to these topics are included in Section C of the Follow-up Neighborhood Meeting Plan. The third neighborhood meeting was attended by approximately 98 people. During the Q&A session, the major topics of discussion were: • How will students be “kept in line?” • Are there “RAs” or “floor managers?” • On-site management? • There is a big need for student housing in the City. Upper-class students are being pushed off campus. • What about traffic? Students crossing Route 66 will be at risk. • We don’t want cars in our neighborhood. • What happens after project is built and there are traffic issues? • Who pays for these improvements? The City shouldn’t pay for these. • Why can’t the project be two or three stories? Fifth floor isn’t wanted. • Can the Developer reduce the height? The Developers responses to these topics are included in Section D of the Follow-up Neighborhood Meeting Plan. Upon completion of all neighborhood meetings, it is the understanding of staff that the Developer continues to have conversations with the neighborhood regarding solutions to the above-referenced topics of discussion. One such conversation is the reduction of the building height for Building 200 along Blackbird Roost from a four and five story building to a four story building. The Developer intends to relocate these units to Building 100 adjacent to Route 66, which may require the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning and Zoning Commission to exceed the established maximum building height. |
|||||
Council Action: | |||||
ATTACHMENTS: May be accessed at http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44506 (Please allow time for this document to download - it is very large) |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||
Public Hearing, 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: | |||||||||||||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold Public Hearing 2) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the first time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-17 by title only for the final time 6) 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: | |||||||||||||||
No. | |||||||||||||||
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. | |||||
14.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, 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: | |||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2014-23 by title only 3) The City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-12 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12 7) Read Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-15 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 9) 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: | |||||
No | |||||
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. | |||||
14.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, 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: | |||||
At the July 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
1) Hold the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2014-24 by title only 3) The City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-24 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the first time (if approved above) At the July 15, 2014 Council Meeting: 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-24 7) Read Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 9) 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. | |||||
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. | |||||