DRAFT AGENDA
4:00 P.M. MEETING
Individual Items on the 4:00 p.m. meeting agenda may be postponed to the 6:00 p.m. meeting.
|
1. | CALL TO ORDER
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
|||||||||
2. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
3. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens. |
|||||||||
4. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS | |||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda (or is listed under Possible Future Agenda Items). Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
|||||||||
6. |
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
|||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). |
|||||||||
A. | Consideration of Appointments: Open Space Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make two Natural and Cultural Science appointments to a term expiring April 2018.
|
||||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Tina Martinez, "Martanne's Breakfast Palace", 112 E. Route 66, Suite 101, Series 12 (restaurant), New License. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold the Public Hearing; absent any valid concerns received from the public hearing, staff recommends the Council forward a recommendation for approval to the State.
|
||||||||||
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 Contract: West St. and Arrowhead Ave. Improvements Phase III Project CMAR Construction Contract. (Approve contract with Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $1,704,962.95). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Bonito Street Water and Sewer Improvement Project. (Approve contract with Falcone Brothers and Associates in the amount of $1,254,444.44). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $95,556.00 (8% of the contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the documents. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Hospital Rim and Switzer Mesa Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) Improvements (Approve contract with RTR Paving and Resurfacing, Inc. in the amount of $297,434.00). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Approve the construction contract with RTR Paving and Resurfacing, Inc. in the amount of $297,434.00 (includes a $30,500 contract allowance) and a contract time of 150 calendar days. |
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Miscellaneous Account Receivable Account Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Miscellaneous Account Receivable Account Write-offs) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable miscellaneous receivable accounts in the amount of $31,095.45.
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Approval of Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Account Write-offs) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable transaction privilege (sales) tax accounts in the amount of $94,271.80.
|
||||||||||
F. | Consideration and Approval of Utility Account Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Utility Account Write-offs) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable utility accounts in the amount of $190,000 (approximate amount).
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-14: A resolution approving the City of Flagstaff 2015/2016 Annual Action Plan and authorizing its submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-14 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-14 (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-14 |
||||||||||
B. |
Consideration and Acceptance of Proposal and Contracts and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-13: Local Bank Deposit Program Services (Approve contracts with Alliance Bank and adopt Resolution authorizing agents for financial transactions) |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Accept the proposal and approve contracts with Alliance Bank of Arizona for Local Bank Deposit Program Services (CDARS Placement Agreement; CDARS Placement Agreement Supplement; Custodial Agreement; Custodial Agreement Amendment); |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-03: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council amending the Flagstaff City Code to add freight and trucking facility as a permitted use in the Research and Development (RD) zone. Specifically, Title 10, Zoning Code, Division 10-40.30 (Non-Transect Zones), Section 10-40.30.050 (Industrial Uses) and related amendments to Division 10-80.20 (Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions), specifically Sections 10-80.20.060 (Definitions, "F.") and 10-80.20.200 (Definitions, "T."). (Adding Freight and Trucking Facility as permitted use in Research and Development zone) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-03 for the final time by title only
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-03 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-03. |
||||||||||
D. |
Consideration and Adoption of Annexation Ordinance No. 2015-02: An annexation ordinance extending and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Flagstaff by annexing land totaling approximately 135.91 acres located at 4100 & 4250 Kiltie Lane, establishing city zoning as RD (Research and Development) for 125.91 acres and HC (Highway Commercial) for 10 acres including right-of-way for Flagstaff Ranch Road and Kiltie Lane. (Annexation of property for W.L. Gore located on Kiltie Lane) |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-02 by title for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-02 by title for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-02 |
||||||||||
E. | Consideration of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)/Joint Project Agreement (JPA) 15-0005176-I between the City of Flagstaff (City) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the FY 2016 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Design and Installation of Signs. (Continue replacement of signs to increase safety under federal mandates). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Flagstaff and Arizona Department of Transportation for grant funds in the amount of $36,891.00 with no City match required. |
||||||||||
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 / Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-15 and Ordinance No. 2015-05: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona declaring that certain document known as the "2015 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, by adopting “2015 City Tax Code 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. (2015 City Tax Code Amendments) |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Hold Public Hearing |
||||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-06: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-10, User Fees, Section 3-10-001-0006, City Clerk, by increasing the Liquor License fee from $560.00 to $815.00; Providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Increasing the Liquor License application fee.) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
At the Council Meeting of May 5, 2015
1) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-06 for the first time by title only 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) At the Council Meeting of May 19, 2015 3) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-06 for the final time by title only 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-06 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-08: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council amending Title VI, Police Regulations, of the Flagstaff City Code by amending Section 6-08-001-0005, Large Parties, Gatherings or Events, thereof; providing for severability and authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Amending, revising and supplementing Section 6-08-001-0005, Large Nuisance Parties, Gatherings or Events, of the Flagstaff City Code) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
At the Council meeting of May 5, 2015
1) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only (if approved above) At the Council meeting of May 19, 2015 3) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-08 |
||||||||||
C. | Discussion and Possible Action: Proposed 2016 State Legislative Resolutions to be submitted to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
City Council to discuss and adopt any City of Flagstaff proposed resolutions that came out of the April 28 Work Session. These have to be submitted by the May 15 deadline to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns for Policy Committee review.
|
||||||||||
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. |
|||||||||
A. | Possible Future Agenda Item Request: Minimum Wage Increase Litigation | |||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS | |||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT |
|||||||||
|
7.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Open Space Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make two Natural and Cultural Science appointments to a term expiring April 2018.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Open Space Commission consists of the following seven (7) regular members all of whom shall be appointed by the City Council, except for designee from the Planning and Zoning Commission: four (4) members from the natural and cultural sciences; one (1) member from the Planning and Zoning Commission; one (1) member who markets real estate or is a representative from real estate development; and one (1) public at-large member. All Commission members shall be voting members. The commission serves as an advisory body on the acquisition, management, use, restoration, enhancement, protection, and conservation of open space land. There are currently two natural and cultural sciences seats available. It is important to fill vacancies on Boards and Commissions quickly so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are four applications on file for consideration by the Council, they are as follows: Libby Kalinowski (new applicant) Vince Knaggs (new applicant) Richard Miller (current commissioner) Margo Wheeler (new applicant) Please note that Richard Miller is eligible to serve as a Natural and Cultural Science member; it is unknown if the other applicants have experience in the natural and cultural sciences based on the information in their application. COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Brewster and Mayor Nabours. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
There is no Council goal that specifically addresses appointments to Boards and Commissions; however, boards and commissions do provide input and recommendations based on City Council goals that may pertain to the board or commission work plan. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The City Council recently took action to reduce the number of commissioners on the Open Space Commission from nine members to seven; this is why there are only two appointments before the Council rather than three. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint two Natural and Cultural Science Commissioners: By appointing members at this time, the commission will be at full membership and able to continue to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: The vacancies are posted on the City's website and individual recruitment and mention of the openings by Board members and City staff has occurred, informing others of these vacancies through word of mouth. | |||||
Attachments: | Open Space Roster | ||||
Open Space Authority | |||||
Open Space Applicant Roster | |||||
Open Space Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Tina Martinez, "Martanne's Breakfast Palace", 112 E. Route 66, Suite 101, Series 12 (restaurant), New License. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold the Public Hearing; absent any valid concerns received from the public hearing, staff recommends the Council forward a recommendation for approval to the State.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The liquor license process begins at the State level and applications are then forwarded to the respective municipality for posting of the property and holding a public hearing, after which the Council recommendation is forwarded back to the State. 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 property has been posted as required, and the Police, Community Development, and Sales Tax divisions have reviewed the application with no concerns noted. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Liquor licenses are a regulatory action and there is no Council goal that applies. | |||||
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 Tina Martinez for Martanne's Breakfast Palace. 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 May 6, 2015. 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 April 13, 2015. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Attachments: | Martanne's - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
Martanne's - PD Memo | |||||
Martanne's - Code Memo | |||||
Martanne's - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: West St. and Arrowhead Ave. Improvements Phase III Project CMAR Construction Contract. (Approve contract with Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $1,704,962.95). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Approval of the contract will allow for the completion of the third and final phase of the West St. and Arrowhead Ave. Project. Upon completion, this roadway will be a fully improved travel corridor that will include new roadway, new utilities, storm drainage improvements, a new mini-roundabout intersection at West Street and Arrowhead Avenue, new traffic signal at Arrowhead Avenue and Route 66, a dedicated west bound right-hand turn lane on Route 66 at Arrowhead Avenue, and safety items such as sidewalks, improved street lighting, and pedestrian cross walks. The project is funded by Transportation Tax Bond funds and Utility funds.
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The project has a total FY 15 budget appropriation of $2,119,100 in Transportation Tax funds (Account # 040-05-112-3058-6) and $110,433 in Utilities funds (Account # 202-08-370-3161-0). | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics.
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Phase I and Phase II of the improvement project have been previously awarded by City Council. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. This would allow for the project to be constructed in the summer of 2015 and complete the improvements for the community. 2) Reject approval of the award and hard-bid the construction contract. This option could delay the construction start and cause work to be deferred to the summer of 2016 which would further delay project completion for the community. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The West St. and Arrowhead Ave. Improvement Project Phase I and Phase II construction was completed in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Originally, Phase III construction work was included in the Phase II contract, but the awarded contractor was unable to complete the improvements and the remainder of the work was removed from the contract. It is this remaining work that consists of the proposed Phase III GMP contract with Hunter Contracting. The work includes completion of minor construction items on West Street in the previous Phase II project area, and full improvements from the intersection of West St. and Arrowhead Ave. down to Route 66. The improvements also include full street reconstruction, sidewalk, curb/gutter, driveways, water main replacement, storm drain, sewer services, a mini-roundabout intersection at West St. and Arrowhead Ave., improved traffic signal at Arrowhead Ave. and Route 66, and a new west bound right-hand turn lane at Arrowhead Ave. and Route 66. City staff conducted a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RSOQ) solicitation for CMAR construction services in the summer of 2014. The City received seven responses, and the evaluation committee selected Hunter Contracting Company as the most qualified to perform the services. Over the last six months, City staff has been working with the contractor and the project engineer, Peak Engineering, to segregate the remaining work out of the original construction plans, design the right-hand turn lane on Route 66, address relocation of utility conflicts, conduct property owner coordination, and investigate value engineering measures. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This Phase of the project will upgrade the water and sewer services for the neighborhood and provide new storm drain facilities to remediate existing inundation conditions. It will also provide roadway reconstruction, sidewalk, curb/gutter, a mini-roundabout intersection at West St. and Arrowhead Ave. to improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. The CMAR delivery method was selected for the completion of this improvement project for several reasons. In selecting a contractor based on qualifications, the City has the opportunity to form a partnership with a contractor that will provide value engineering, flexibility to adapt to existing field conditions, and increased interaction with the community and outside agencies. Since the Phase II project terminated mid-stream, the City desired a contractor that could determine the current status of the field construction and resume the improvements with minimal impact to the project and community. A dedicated turn lane was added to the project design at Route 66 at Arrowhead. The CMAR contractor was able to work with the design team and ADOT to provide constructability reviews and cost estimating for the additional work and integrate that work in the final project. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Since Phase II of the project was cancelled before completion, the remaining contact amount of $1,400,000 is being utilized to fund the Phase III GMP contract with Hunter Contracting. The balance of funding consists of original budget from Phase II that was not needed due to the low bid of the original contractor. The right-hand turn lane at Route 66 is funded by Transportation tax funds. Project expenditures will be funded by the current budget appropriation of $2,119,100 from Transportation Tax funding (account # 040-05-1112-3058-6) and $110,433 in Utility funding (account # 202-08-370-3161-0). |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
There are many community benefits of this project, including:
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform/Involve: In 2004 and 2005 there was an extensive public outreach effort coordinated for the West and Arrowhead Corridor Study that included public meetings and door to door meetings to address individual’s property concerns. Public Open houses were held during the design phase on November 15, 2011 and September 13, 2013. One on one discussions (in person and by telephone) have been conducted with property owners and Capital staff has attended the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association. City staff and the contractor will continue to work closely with the community through one-on-one meetings during the completion of Phase III. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. This would allow for the project to be constructed in the summer of 2015 and complete the improvements for the community. 2) Reject approval of the award and hard-bid the construction contract.This option could delay the construction start and cause work to be deferred to the summer of 2016 which would further delay project completion for the community. |
|||||
Attachments: | CMAR Construction Contract | ||||
West Arrowhead III GMP | |||||
West Arrowhead vicinity map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Bonito Street Water and Sewer Improvement Project. (Approve contract with Falcone Brothers and Associates in the amount of $1,254,444.44). | |||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $95,556.00 (8% of the contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the documents. |
|||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||||
Award of this contract will authorize the construction of the Bonito Street Water and Sewer Improvement Project and will provide four blocks of the downtown Flagstaff neighborhood with replaced water mains and services, replaced sewer mains and services, new storm drain facilities, and surface improvements including reconstructed roadway, asphalt mill and overlay, and new sidewalk, curb and gutter. The project is funded by Utilities funds. | |||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||
The project has a total FY 15 budget appropriation of $320,000 and anticipated FY 16 appropriation of $1,053,000 in Utilities account #203-08-375-3284-0 and $363,600 from the Utilities' Aging Sewer Replacement Program, Account #203-08-375-3220-0. | |||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||||
Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||
There has been no previous Council decision on this item. |
|||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. Approval will allow the project to be constructed in the summer of 2015. 2) Reject approval of the award. This would delay the project. If rejection occurs, possible options include:
|
|||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||
The Bonito Street Water and Sewer Improvement Project is located in downtown Flagstaff and the project area includes four blocks of Bonito Street from Santa Fe Avenue to Elm Avenue. The project scope includes replacement of water main and services, replacement of sewer main and services, new storm drain, curb/gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, and asphalt street reconstruction and mill/overlay. Staff solicited for construction bids on March 17 and March 24, 2015. Six bids were received by the opening date of April 8, and Falcone Brothers and Associates were determined to be the lowest responsive responsible bidder. A tabulation of bids is summarized below in Expanded Financial Considerations. |
|||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||
The existing utilities in this area are aging and are due for replacement. The water main was constructed in 1926 and the sewer main was constructed in 1919. This project also includes new storm drain. The project area currently has no storm drainage facilities and there has historically been severe flooding during large storm events to the extent where private properties have reported flooding from the street. This new system will remediate a long standing problem for the community and City. This project will also improve the sidewalk and complete the curb and gutter on the west side of Bonito Street. This street is a bus route and pedestrian route for Flagstaff High School and Marshall Elementary School students and these facilities will greatly improve pedestrian safety. |
|||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||
Below is a summary of the bids received:
The project has a total FY 15 budget appropriation of $320,000 and anticipated FY 16 appropriation of $1,053,000 in Utilities account #203-08-375-3284-0 and $363,600 from the Utilities' Aging Sewer Replacement Program, Account #203-08-375-3220-0. |
|||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||
The Community benefits of this project include updated utility mains and services, new storm drain facilities to remediate current flooding conditions, and improved pedestrian facilities. |
|||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||
Inform: City staff has met with property owners in the project area, FUSD staff, and Townsite Neighborhood Association members to discuss the improvements and construction activities. The Contractor will distribute flyers and be available to residents to inform the neighborhood about ongoing construction work. Involve: During design, the City's Project Manager met with residents to discuss options and solutions for construction items that impact their property frontage. |
|||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. Approval will allow the project to be constructed in the summer of 2015. 2) Reject approval of the award. This option would delay the construction start and likely cause the work to span to two construction seasons. This option would also increase project costs and delay needed improvements for the community. |
|||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Construction Contract | ||||
Vicinity Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Hospital Rim and Switzer Mesa Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) Improvements (Approve contract with RTR Paving and Resurfacing, Inc. in the amount of $297,434.00). | |||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||
1) Approve the construction contract with RTR Paving and Resurfacing, Inc. in the amount of $297,434.00 (includes a $30,500 contract allowance) and a contract time of 150 calendar days. |
|||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||
Award of this contract will authorize the construction of aggregate surfaced trails in two locations; 1.) Hospital Rim between Beaver Street and the intersection of Fort Valley Road and Forest Avenue and 2.) Switzer Mesa from N. Pine Cliff Drive to Hemlock Way. The construction will infill two missing segments of the FUTS system resulting in a more complete bicycle and pedestrian route. The projects are funded with Transportation Tax and are elements of the Flagstaff Urban Trail System Plan and the Regional Bikeways Plan. | |||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||
The Hospital Rim FUTS has a total FY 15 budget of $266,750 (account 045-05-111-3013-5) and the Switzer Mesa FUTS has a total FY 15 budget of $141,350 (account 045-05-111-3022-5) for a combined project total of $408,100. | |||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics
6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan Goal T.1. Improve mobility and access throughout the region. Goal T.2. Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes.
Goal T.5. Increase the availability and use of pedestrian infrastructure, including FUTS, as a critical element of a safe and livable community.
Goal T.6. Provide for bicycling as a safe and efficient means of transportation and recreation. |
|||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||
The Council adopted the FY 15 budget at the June 17, 2014 Council meeting and this appropriation was included in that budget. | |||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||
1.) Approve the award as recommended. Approval will allow the work to move forward in calendar year 2015, or 2.) Reject approval of the award. This would delay the project. If rejection occurs, possible options include:
|
|||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||
The 1,400 LF Hospital Rim FUTS will be primarily an aggregate trail that will convert an existing social trail into an official trail of the FUTS system. Approximately 450 LF of the trail will be concrete, specifically where steeper grades preclude the use of aggregate as a surface. The trail alignment begins at Beaver St., following a natural bench on the hillside between the medical center and the Bashas' shopping center and then transitions down the hillside to Forest Avenue at Fort Valley Rd. The trail will provide a link from Beaver St. to the Fort Valley Trail. The City has acquired property rights (easements) from the Flagstaff Medical Center. The 1,430 LF Switzer Mesa FUTS (also known as the McMillan Mesa trail) is an aggregate trail that will connect N. Pine Cliff Drive to Hemlock Way. The project will complete the connection between the Arizona Trail and the Sunset Trail and will also link to the Mesa Ridge Trail, adjacent to Basis School. Staff issued a solicitation for construction bids, and was advertised on March 15 and March 29. Three bids were received by the opening date of April 7, and RTR Paving and Resurfacing were determined to be the lowest responsive responsible bidder. A tabulation of bids is summarized below in Expanded Financial Considerations. |
|||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||
The project will add approximately 2,850 linear feet (LF) to the Flagstaff Urban Trail System. Neighborhoods will have a more direct and continuous bicycle and pedestrian connection to other trails within the FUTS network. | |||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||
The trails are programmed in the Capital Improvement 5-year plan and are part of the Flagstaff Urban Trail System Plan and the Regional Bikeways Plan. Three bids were received on April 7, 2015 and staff has determined that RTR Paving and Resurfacing is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Below is a summary of the bids received. The bid tabulation sheet is included as an attachment.
A Contract Allowance is established to accommodate costs for unanticipated items of work and is included in the contract amount. Change Order Authority establishes a dollar amount (10% of the contract amount, less allowance) and provides the City Manger, on behalf of the City Council, authority to amend the contract amount in response to unforeseen costs that are more than the contracted amount. |
|||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||
The community benefits of this project include:
|
|||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||
Collaborate: the Capital Improvements project manager, the Assistant to the City Manager for Real Estate and the City Legal Department have met with the Flagstaff Medical Center staff and negotiated for property rights acquisition. | |||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||
1.) Approve the award as recommended. This would allow the project to be built in 2015. 2.) Reject approval of the award. This option would likely delay the construction until calendar 2016. This may increase construction costs and would increase overall cost to the project budget. |
|||||||||||
Attachments: | Vicinity Map | ||||
Construction Contract | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Miscellaneous Account Receivable Account Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Miscellaneous Account Receivable Account Write-offs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable miscellaneous receivable accounts in the amount of $31,095.45.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Generally accepted business practices allow for the write-off of uncollectable accounts annually. City staff has exhausted collection efforts on the eligible accounts and will no longer actively collect on them. Where possible, any amounts due are applied to a customer's credit. As a result, debt that has been previously written-off is occasionally paid some time later to clear a customer's outstanding debt. Pursuant to federal consumer debt collection law, delinquent account information is not subject to public release. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None that is unbudgeted. Each year, the City anticipates that there will be uncollectable miscellaneous account receivable accounts and reserves an amount at year end for these accounts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before any account is eligible for write-off, staff must initiate collection efforts on each account after it becomes delinquent. When collection efforts are exhausted, the account is eligible for write-off. If possible, any amounts due are applied to the customer's credit. If placed on the customer’s credit, the amount owed remains active for seven years after the delinquency date. Application against the credit of the debtor may lead to the recovery of some of the delinquent amounts in the future. This often occurs when customers apply for credit via other avenues (i.e., mortgages, car loans, apartment rentals, etc.). Examples of miscellaneous account receivable write-offs may include, but are not limited to, the following possible types: landfill, airport, fire contract, retiree insurance, damage claims, among others. Total miscellaneous account receivable billings in FY15 are estimated at $9.5 million. The write-offs equate to approximately 0.33% of the total amount. Pursuant to federal consumer debt collection law, delinquent account information is not subject to public release.
Write-Off Breakdown Information
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Staff, using billing statements, letters, and telephone calls, has worked the write-off accounts. When customers fail to make payments, they are denied access to future City services and, when possible, the amount owed is applied to their credit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is sound financial management practice to reduce assets to reflect their true valuation. Failure to write-off accounts deemed uncollectable overstates the asset value of the City. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform. Yearly write-offs ensure that the City is following generally accepted business practices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Account Write-offs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable transaction privilege (sales) tax accounts in the amount of $94,271.80.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Generally accepted business practices allow for the write-off of uncollectable accounts annually. City staff has exhausted collection efforts on the eligible accounts and will no longer actively collect on them. Where possible, any amounts due are applied to a taxpayer's credit, applied to a property lien, or applied to the state run debt set-off program. As a result, debt that has been previously written-off is occasionally paid some time later to clear a taxpayer's outstanding debt. Pursuant to state law, taxpayer delinquent account information is not subject to public release. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None that is unbudgeted. Each year, the City anticipates that there will be uncollectable transaction privilege (sales) tax accounts and reserves an amount at year end for these accounts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before any account is eligible for write-off, staff must initiate collection efforts on each account after it becomes delinquent. When collection efforts are exhausted, the account is eligible for write-off. If possible, any amounts due are applied to the taxpayer's credit, applied to a property lien, or applied to the state run debt set-off program. Application through any of these means may lead to the recovery of some of the delinquent amounts in the future. In FY15, the City estimates to receive $40.6 million in transaction privilege (sales) taxes, transportation taxes, BBB taxes, and franchise fees. The write-offs are 0.232% of the total estimated amount of revenues. Each of the write-off accounts no longer operates in Flagstaff. Pursuant to state law, taxpayer information is confidential and information is not subject to public release.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Staff, using billing statements, letters, and telephone calls, has worked the write-off accounts. When taxpayer's fail to make payments, they are denied access to future City services. When possible, the amount owed is applied to the taxpayer's credit, applied to a property lien, or applied to the state run debt set-off program. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is sound financial management practice to reduce assets to reflect their true valuation. Failure to write-off accounts deemed uncollectable overstates the asset value of the City. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform. Yearly write-offs ensure that the City is following generally accepted business practices. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.F.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Utility Account Write-offs: Delinquent and uncollectable accounts for Fiscal Year 2015. (2015 Utility Account Write-offs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the write-off of delinquent and uncollectable utility accounts in the amount of $190,000 (approximate amount).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Generally accepted business practices allow for the write-off of uncollectable accounts annually. City staff has exhausted collection efforts on the eligible accounts and will no longer actively collect on them. Where possible, any amounts due are applied to a customer's credit. As a result, debt that has previously been written-off is occasionally paid some time later to clear a customer's outstanding debt. Pursuant to state law, delinquent account information is not subject to public release. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. Each year, the City anticipates that there will be uncollectable utility accounts and reserves an amount at year end for these accounts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before any account is eligible for write-off, staff must initiate collection efforts on each account after it becomes delinquent. When collection efforts are exhausted, the account is eligible for write-off. If possible, any amounts due are applied to the customer's credit. If placed on the customer’s credit, the amount owed remains active for 7 years after the delinquency date. Application against the credit of the debtor may lead to the recovery of some of the delinquent amounts in the future. This often occurs when customers apply for credit via other avenues (i.e., mortgages, car loans, apartment rentals, etc.). Total utility revenues in FY15 are estimated at $33.8 million. The write-offs are approximately ????% of the estimated total amount. The number decreased in FY15 due to a few changes in utility billing operations that are discussed in more detail below. The first significant change was the addition of a temporary meter technician in November 2013. Total disconnects in 2014 were 1,605, approximately 3x the 2013 total. The additional meter technician helped increase the total number of disconnects, which has a direct correlation in the reduction in the amount of write-offs. The last table below contains information on the number of disconnects that staff is able to perform with the additional staff member. The second significant change was the approval by City Council in summer 2014 to increase the utility deposit for residential and commercial customers. Residential customer deposits went from $25 to $150 and commercial customer deposits went from a time-intensive calculated rate to a flat rate of $300. When customers do not pay a past due bill and do not respond to collection efforts, the City is able to recoup a higher percentage of the delinquent amount by applying the higher deposit figure. Pursuant to federal consumer debt collection law, delinquent account information is not subject to public release.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Staff, using billing statements, letters and telephone calls, has worked the write-off accounts. When customers fail to make payments, they may be denied access to future City services and, when possible, the amount owed is applied to their credit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is sound financial management practice to reduce assets to reflect their true valuation. Failure to write-off accounts deemed uncollectable overstates the asset value of the City. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform. Yearly write-offs ensure that the City is following generally accepted business practices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-14: A resolution approving the City of Flagstaff 2015/2016 Annual Action Plan and authorizing its submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-14 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-14 (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-14 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An Annual Action Plan (AA Plan) is a HUD-required document that specifies how the annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be spent. The submission of the AA Plan is required to maintain the City of Flagstaff’s annual entitlement allocation of CDBG and is due to HUD on May 15, 2015. Subsidiary Decisions Points: Staff presented Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations to City Council at the April 14, 2015 Work Session for discussion and consideration. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The 2015/2016 CDBG allocation is $579,591, an increase of $8,650 from last year. In addition, the City of Flagstaff is able to combine program income and reallocated funds from previous years to increase the funds available for allocation. Total program income and reallocated funds will equal $235,757.89 for a grand total of $815,348.89 available for the 2015/16 allocation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 4) Explore and adopt policies to lower the costs associated with housing to the end user 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 10) Decrease the number of working poor REGIONAL PLAN: Goal NH.1. Foster and maintain healthy and diverse urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods in the Flagstaff region. • Policy NH.1.1. Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. Goal NH.3. Make available a variety of housing types at different price points, to provide housing opportunity for all economic sectors. • Policy NH.3.1. Provide a variety of housing types throughout the City and region, including purchase and rental options, to expand the choices available to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • Policy NH.3.3. Increase the availability of affordable housing for very low-income persons, through innovative and effective funding mechanisms. Goal NH.4. All housing is safe and sanitary. • Policy NH.4.1. Expand the availability of affordable housing throughout the region by preserving existing housing, including housing for very low-income persons. Policy NH.4.2. Reduce substandard housing units by conserving and rehabilitating existing housing stock to minimize impacts on existing residents. • Policy NH.4.3.Address accessibility issues and other housing barriers to persons with disabilities or special needs. • Policy NH.4.4. Encourage green practices in housing construction and rehabilitation that support durable, healthy, and energy efficient homes. • Policy NH.4.5. Renovate the existing housing stock to conserve energy and re- duce utility and maintenance costs for owners and occupants. • Policy NH.4.6. Consider and integrate public transportation when possible in planning housing developments, to help reduce a household’s transportation costs and minimize impact on the community’s roads and transportation system. • Policy NH.4.7. Enforce compliance with fair housing laws. Goal NH.5. Eliminate homelessness. • Policy NH.5.1. Provide adequate resources for families with children experiencing homelessness. • Policy NH.5.2. Provide adequate resources for individuals experiencing homelessness. • Policy NH.5.3. Support and expand programs that prevent homelessness. • Policy NH.5.4. Make transitional housing resources available to populations experiencing homelessness. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No formal Council decisions have been previously made, however Staff received Council direction concerning the allocation at the April 14, 2015 Work Session. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A) Approve Resolution No. 2015-14 and authorize the submission of the AA Plan to HUD. B) Modify Resolution No. 2015-14 authorize its submission to HUD at the May 5, 2015 meeting. Submitting the AA Plan to HUD later then May 15, 2015 could put the City of Flagstaff at risk for receiving 2015/2016 allocations. C) Not approve Resolution No. 2015-14 and risk losing CDBG funding for 2015/2016 and possibly future allocations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Every two years, staff comes to a Council Work Session to request guidance on Council CDBG Priorities and the overall CDBG process for the coming two years. On January 27, 2015 Council established four priorities (housing, homelessness, neighborhood revitalization and mentally ill / serial inebriate populations) and provided guidance to conduct a formal public proposal process to assess the community need for CDBG funds. In the 2015 CDBG process, nine external agency proposals were received, along with one City of Flagstaff requests. Housing staff are responsible for determining whether a proposed activity is eligible, conducting a risk assessment of the project and applying agency. Federal funds require administrative knowledge and capacity to ensure compliant and timely expenditure of funds. Additionally, a committee comprised of three community representatives (one non-profit representative, one neighborhood association leader, and one community member at large) and three City staff met to review the external proposals and rank them by consensus. Rankings are created primarily to serve as a risk and benefit assessment and are a crucial part of the staff recommendations forwarded to City Council. Below is a list of the proposals in ranking order. The proposals are divided between Housing and Public Service categories as they have two separate funding limits and different criteria. Internal City of Flagstaff proposals are presented to meet City Council priorities or other unmet needs in the community and are not ranked (NR) competitively with the other proposals as the City would administer these projects directly. A comprehensive Proposal Book that included each of the below proposals was distributed to Council on April 8, 2015.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HUD requires that funded activities implement strategies from the Consolidated Plan. All recommended activities further this goal and address Council Priorities. Also important are project eligibility and viability. CDBG funds must be used to further the CDBG Primary Objective to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate-income persons in Flagstaff (80% of the AMI = $48,150 currently for a family of four). HUD has two funding caps with regard to the use of CDBG funds. Public Service expenditures are capped at 15% of the allocation and Program Administration is capped at 20% of the allocation. The rest of the available funding can be spent on Housing/Economic Development Activities. Staff presented and discussed the following recommendations with City Council at the April 14, 2015 agenda review. Public Service Funding Recommendation Federal CDBG regulations do not allow more than 15% of funds to be spent on Public Service Activities; $119,261.37 for Program Year 15/16. The top ranked agencies total a recommendation allocation of $106,400, below the required cap. Below are the funding recommendations for the Public Service Category:
Housing Funding Recommendation Based on the above Public Service recommendations, there is $550,948.89 in CDBG funds available for Housing Activities. Below are the funding recommendations for the Housing Category:
Administration Recommendation
CDBG administration and compliance are limited to 20% of the allocation.
Total Administration = $158,000.00
Grant Compliance and Administration 9.8% = $82,352.00 City Indirect Rate up to 10.2% = $75,648.00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The attached Resolution 2015-14 is reflective of the recommendations listed above. The 2015/2016 CDBG recommendations are based on a total of $815,348.89 in available funding and the City of Flagstaff's indirect rate for 2015/2016 of 10.2%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CDBG funds, leveraged with other private and public funds over the past 15 years, have resulted in benefits to thousands of Flagstaff residents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Annual Action Plan process has two opportunities for Community Involvement. Involve - The public participation process is a requirement of the Plan and encourages public involvement. Collaborate - The ranking committee is an example of public participation at the collaboration level. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A) Approve Resolution No. 2015-14 and authorize the submission of the AA Plan to HUD. B) Modify Resolution No. 2015-14 authorize its submission to HUD at the May 5, 2015 meeting. Submitting the AA Plan to HUD later then May 15, 2015 could put the City of Flagstaff at risk for receiving 2015/2016 allocations. C) Not approve Resolution No. 2015-14 and risk losing CDBG funding for 2015/2016 and possibly future allocations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Res. 2015-14 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Acceptance of Proposal and Contracts and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-13: Local Bank Deposit Program Services (Approve contracts with Alliance Bank and adopt Resolution authorizing agents for financial transactions) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Accept the proposal and approve contracts with Alliance Bank of Arizona for Local Bank Deposit Program Services (CDARS Placement Agreement; CDARS Placement Agreement Supplement; Custodial Agreement; Custodial Agreement Amendment); |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Per Council direction, staff was asked to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Community Banking Services (subsequently retitled Local Bank Deposit Program Services) to purchase certificates of deposit (CDs) in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 and for a term not to exceed three (3) years. The goal of the RFP process, with direction from Council, was to solicit proposals from lending institutions that met the following criteria.
The RFP process resulted in the proposal now under consideration by Council. The proposal contains investments allowed by the City's investment policy that maintain the City's goals of safety, liquidity and yield.
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no direct financial impact for the City. The City is allowed under its investment policy to invest in the proposed securities and the projected returns of the proposed investments are in line with other investments the City may invest in. In addition, the City will invest up to $5,000,000 dollars under a "laddering" strategy. This will allow the City to reinvest funds at higher interest rates if interest rates rise over the short term. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Effective governance.
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes. Barbara Goodrich provided a City Council Report (CCR) to City Council in September 2013. Ms. Goodrich also presented more information to City Council at a City Council work session in March 2014. Another presentation to City Council was giving by Andy Wagemaker at the September 30, 2014 City Council work session. On April 7, 2015 the City Council considered whether to award a proposed contract award to Western Alliance Bank, at which time there were questions about the actual banking services to be provided. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Accept the Proposal and approve the agreement with Alliance Bank of Arizona for Local Bank Deposit Program Services. 2) Reject the proposal and do not approve the agreement with Alliance Bank of Arizona for Local Bank Deposit Program Services. The designated funds will be invested in other investments approved in the City's investment policy. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff Revenue Section is responsible for the safekeeping and investment of all public monies and has created an investment policy that provides for the prudent and efficient investment of the City’s temporarily idle cash while safely maximizing returns within carefully defined investment parameters. The objectives of the City’s Investment Policy, in order of priority, are safety, liquidity, and yield. Within these objectives, the Revenue Section is continuously evaluating investment opportunities to maximize the return on City monies. The City of Flagstaff Mayor and Council directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals for a Local Bank Deposit Program similar to a program City of Tucson has implemented. Under the program, the City would purchase certificates of deposit up to a maximum of $5 million dollars, which funds will be deposited into a Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (“CDARS”) at “local” financial institutions where the City’s deposit would be totally insured by FDIC insurance, fully collateralized with U.S. Government Obligations, or fully covered by a combination of FDIC insurance or the aforementioned collateral. Barbara Goodrich provided a City Council Report (CCR) to City Council in September 2013. Ms. Goodrich also presented more information to City Council at a City Council work session in March 2014. Another presentation to City Council was giving by Andy Wagemaker at the September 30, 2014 City Council work session. At this last work session, City Council gave the direction to proceed with the RFP and this proposal is the culmination of all those efforts. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City advertised the RFP through its standard public procurement process. Through the RFP process the City received one (1) proposal response from Alliance Bank of Arizona. With only one (1) proposal response submitted, a small group of City staff reviewed the proposal to ensure that the City's requirements were met and to ensure the intent of the solicitation was met. The bank provided its local lending plan and information summarizing its local loans issued in 2014. The bank also provided a deposit term sheet. The City is not required to invest the full $5 million, it has discretion to purchase CDs with satisfactory interest rates. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Attachments: | CDARS Placement Agreement | ||||
CDARS Placement Agreement Supplement | |||||
Custodial Agreement | |||||
Custodial Agreement Amendment | |||||
Res. 2015-13 | |||||
Signature Form | |||||
RFP | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-03: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council amending the Flagstaff City Code to add freight and trucking facility as a permitted use in the Research and Development (RD) zone. Specifically, Title 10, Zoning Code, Division 10-40.30 (Non-Transect Zones), Section 10-40.30.050 (Industrial Uses) and related amendments to Division 10-80.20 (Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions), specifically Sections 10-80.20.060 (Definitions, "F.") and 10-80.20.200 (Definitions, "T."). (Adding Freight and Trucking Facility as permitted use in Research and Development zone) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-03 for the final time by title only
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-03 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-03. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When rewriting and updating the former Land Development Code (LDC) as the new Zoning Code adopted on November 1, 2011, the former Euclidian or conventional use-based zones were combined with the performance-based zones established with the 1991 adoption of the LDC to create the new zoning districts now in effect. In the Research and Development (RD) Zone, the freight and trucking land use category was inadvertently omitted. The proposed text amendments described in this staff summary and detailed in Ordinance 2015-03 seek to remedy this error by re-instating the freight and trucking facility land use. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COUNCIL GOALS: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Public Hearing was held on April 7, 2015, and the ordinance was read for the first time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In late January 2015, staff and a business owner who owns a developed parcel near the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport held a pre-application meeting to discuss a proposal for the expansion of the existing use, a freight and trucking facility. While preparing for this meeting, staff realized that there was an error in the Zoning Code with regard to the uses allowed in the Research and Development (RD) Zone. As part of the rewrite and update of the former Land Development Code (LDC) as the new Zoning Code adopted on November 1, 2011, the former Euclidian or conventional use-based zones were combined with the performance-based zones established with the 1991 adoption of the LDC. In this case the following zones were combined to create the Research and Development (RD) Zone in the Zoning Code:
Prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Code, on July 22, 2008 a freight and trucking company applied for and received Site Plan Review approval for a new 14,600 sq. ft. warehouse building on a property located near the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport. At the time of approval and establishment of this new business the property was zoned Business Park Intermediate (BPI). This business has been successful, and now desires to expand the existing building by an additional 4,370 sq. ft. However, upon reviewing the Zoning Code staff determined that the use could not be expanded because the original use as allowed in the LDC (transportation or trucking yards) was no longer permitted in the Research and Development (RD) Zone. This meant that the present use is nonconforming, and consistent with Section 10-20.60.030 (Restrictions on Nonconforming Uses and Structures), specifically Subsection A.2, nonconforming uses may not be expanded. The business owner was dismayed to hear this news, yet following staff’s suggestion, prepared to proceed with a zone change application to rezone the property to a zoning designation that would allow for the continued use of the property as a freight or trucking facility. After some consideration, staff agreed that it made the most sense to amend the Zoning Code to accommodate the continued use of the property as a freight or trucking facility consistent with its current use, rather than to guide the applicant through a zone change. After all, freight and trucking uses were permitted in the BPI Zone prior to the adoption of the 2011 Zoning Code, and the proposed amendment essentially is putting back an allowed use that was inadvertently removed when the former zones in the LDC were combined. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following amendments are, therefore, proposed (new text is shown in underline, and text proposed to be deleted is shown as Chapter 10-40 Specific to Zones Division 10-40.30 Non-Transect Zones Section 10-40.30.050 Industrial Zones Table 10-40.30.050.B (Allowed Uses) lists the allowed uses by category for all the Industrial Zones. A copy of Page 40.30-22 from the Zoning Code is attached that shows the context of these amendments in Table 10-40.30.050.B. On Page 40.30-22 under the category “Industrial, Manufacturing, Processing & Wholesaling” uses, amend the “Transportation or Trucking Yards” row and insert a new row, “Freight or Trucking Facility”:
Explanations:
Division 10-80.20 Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions Section 10-80.20.060 Definitions, “F.” Insert a new definition as follows: Freight or Trucking Facility: A facility for the receipt, transfer, short-term storage, and dispatch of goods transported by truck. Includes express and other mail and package distribution facilities.
Explanation:
This new definition clearly defines a freight or trucking facility as a distinct use that is different to a transportation yard (see below). It contemplates such uses as the US Postal Service or freight and delivery companies such as UPS, FedEx, or other similar companies.
Section 10-80.20.200 Definitions, “T.” Amend the definition as follows: Transportation
Explanation:
“Trucking” has been deleted to make a clearer distinction between a transportation yard used for the servicing and storage of large trucks and semi-trailers and a freight or trucking facility as defined above. Insert a new definition as follows to provide a cross-reference: Trucking Facility: See “Freight or Trucking Facility”. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The amendments to the Zoning Code included in Ordinance 2015-03 resolve an error in the current Code by putting back a use (freight or trucking facility) that was erroneously omitted when the Zoning Code was adopted in 2011. This is not only beneficial to the business owner who brought this omission to the City's attention, but it is also beneficial to other property owners within the Research and Development (RD) Zone. Furthermore, by establishing a 1/4 mile buffer from established residential uses, any possible impacts from a freight or trucking facility are mitigated consistent with similar buffer standards already in place in the Zoning Code. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform and Involve As required by Arizona law and the Zoning Code, an 1/8 page display advertisement was published in the February 24, 2015 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s March 11th public hearing. The Commission’s work session on February 25th was also noticed in compliance with applicable law. A similar notice was used to advertise the City Council's public hearing. All property owners whose properties are in the Research and Development (RD) Zone were notified by first class mail of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s public hearing. Notice was also provided to those citizens whose names are listed on the Registry of Persons and Groups who requested to be informed of all upcoming public meetings and hearings. At the February 25th Planning and Zoning Commission work session no citizens addressed the Commission on these proposed amendments. However, the commissioners discussed the proposed amendments, asked questions of staff, and offered clarifying suggestions, which have been included into the proposed amendments. On March 11, 2015 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. No members of the public spoke at this hearing. The Commission unanimously moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments as described in Ordinance 2015-03. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Page 40.30-22, Table 10-40.30.050 | ||||
Ord. No. 2015-03 | |||||
RD Zone Quarter-Mile Buffer Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Annexation Ordinance No. 2015-02: An annexation ordinance extending and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Flagstaff by annexing land totaling approximately 135.91 acres located at 4100 & 4250 Kiltie Lane, establishing city zoning as RD (Research and Development) for 125.91 acres and HC (Highway Commercial) for 10 acres including right-of-way for Flagstaff Ranch Road and Kiltie Lane. (Annexation of property for W.L. Gore located on Kiltie Lane) |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-02 by title for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-02 by title for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-02 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The City Council approved a preannexation agreement in January 2014 for the annexation of the three parcels subject to this request. This agreement allowed for the extension of necessary water and sewer infrastructure to serve potential future development of the W.L. Gore Woody Mountain campus which is located in both City of Flagstaff and Coconino County jurisdictions. Because this annexation surrounds rights-of-way under County jurisdiction it is proposed to include those rights-of-ways in this annexation to better serve future development of these sites. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this annexation to the City Council on March 11, 2015. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff participated in the upsizing of a water line to serve the proposed annexation area as well as potential future growth. Final cost for the City has not yet been determined but is less than $325,000. W.L. Gore intends to construct a gravity sewer line to their site as well. The City has agreed to participate in the upsizing of this sewer line to serve future growth in the area. The City may also need to extend a portion of this line to serve the proposed Core Services Maintenance facility located at McAllister Ranch. Costs for the upsizing and extension were included in the utility rate study but official estimates have not yet been developed. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitment to partners REGIONAL PLAN: A full policy analysis of the goals and policies of the Regional Plan that relate this annexation can be found in the attached Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report. Below are the goals that were included in that analysis
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
A pre-annexation agreement was approved by Council in 2005 for APN 116-04-007F, one of the parcels subject to this annexation request. This agreement allowed for new construction built under County jurisdiction to connect with existing City of Flagstaff water and sewer infrastructure. A second pre-annexation agreement was approved by Council in January 2014 for all three parcels subject to this annexation request. This pre-annexation agreement included approval for the upgrade and construction of a new water line along Route 66 and Flagstaff Ranch Road to improve fire flows and provide for future growth in this area. The Public Hearing and first reading of the ordinance occurred at the April 7, 2015, Council meeting. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve the ordinance as proposed, approve the ordinance with conditions, or deny the ordinance. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
A request by W.L. Gore to annex 135.91 acres located at the intersection of Flagstaff Ranch Road and W. Kiltie Lane. The area subject to this annexation consists of three Assessor’s Parcels including 116-04-008E a 71.82 acre parcel, 116-04-003Y a 42.56 acre parcel (both located west of Flagstaff Ranch Road) and 116-04-007F a 21.54 acre parcel (located east of Flagstaff Ranch Road). The two parcels located west of Flagstaff Ranch Road are currently vacant and the parcel located to the east of Flagstaff Ranch Road is partially developed with a research and development facility operated by W.L. Gore. All parcels to be annexed are located within the Urban Growth Boundary. Two pre-annexation agreements have been approved for the subject properties. The first agreement was completed in 2005 for the construction of the facility on parcel 116-04-007F which allowed for the extension of the existing water and sewer lines from the other W.L. Gore facilities located within the city limits along W. Kiltie Lane. This pre-annexation agreement had a term of five years. In January 2014 a second pre-annexation agreement was completed that included all three parcels subject to this request. This agreement allowed for the extension and development of a new water line along W. Route 66 from Woody Mountain Road to Flagstaff Ranch Road and then along Flagstaff Ranch Road to W. Kiltie Lane creating a looped water system. The most recent pre-annexation agreement was completed prior to the adoption and ratification of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP 2030) and was approved based on compliance with the Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan (RLUTP). For comparison purposes, policies from both plans are identified and discussed in this report. The RLUTP designates the subject parcels as Office/Business – Park/Light Industrial and the FRP 2030 designates the subject parcels as Suburban/Future Employment. The Office/Business – Park/Light Industrial land use category is intended to encourage the development of offices and planned business parks; to promote excellence in the design and planning of buildings, outdoor spaces, and transportation facilities; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Future Employment land use category includes Office – Research and Development – Business Park – Light Industrial, Light-Medium Industrial and Heavy Industrial. The Suburban land use category includes single-family residential and multi-family residential development, as well as commercial development such as strip centers and big box stores with large parking lots to a mixture of retail establishments, office buildings, automobile dealerships, gas stations, and motels. The land use category designations originate from two different studies that considered the impacts and needs if the West Side was annexed into the City of Flagstaff. The first was completed in 1989 around the same time W.L. Gore annexed 50 acres in the 4000 Block of South Woody Mountain Road. An update was prepared to this plan in 1999 (West Side Small Area Plan and Infrastructure Study) which was incorporated into the 2001 Regional Land Use and Transportation Study. The plan includes a review and update of background information for the planning area, a generalized concept land use plan, infrastructure system plans, and a revenue/cost analysis update. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Annexations are adopted by the City Council via ordinance. Ordinance No. 2015-02 annexes 135.91 acres located at 4100 & 4250 W. Kiltie Lane into the City of Flagstaff. Prior to the second read of Ordinance No. 2015-02 the County Board of Supervisors will approve transfer of the adjoining rights-of-way to the annexation parcels. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits and considerations related to this request are addressed in more detail in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, dated February 25, 2015. A preannexation agreement approved in January 2014 allowed W.L. Gore to move forward extending a new water line along Route 66 from Woody Mountain Road, along Flagstaff Ranch Road to Kiltie Lane. The completion of this water line created the looped water system infrastructure necessary to provide adequate fire flows at the existing W.L. Gore facilities as well as for future development of their properties included in this annexation. Additionally, W.L. Gore intends to extend a gravity sewer line to service the subject properties as well as future growth in the surrounding area. The gravity sewer will allow W.L. Gore to abandon their existing lift station which is costly to maintain and operate. Annexing these properties also provides for extended development opportunities to the largest private employer in the City of Flagstaff. The growth of their campus will allow for the expansion and retention of a significant employee base. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform/Consult Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with any annexation request. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, positing a notice on the public hearing, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. As of the writing of this report staff received one phone call requesting additional information about the annexation. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 11, 2015 at 4 p.m. No one from the public spoke on the case. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | P&Z Commission Staff Report | ||||
Annexation Application | |||||
Preannexation Agreement | |||||
Notice of Annexation | |||||
Concept Plan | |||||
Zoning Boundaries | |||||
Ordinance 2015-02 | |||||
Exhibit B | |||||
Exhibit F | |||||
Exhibit I | |||||
Exhibit J | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)/Joint Project Agreement (JPA) 15-0005176-I between the City of Flagstaff (City) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the FY 2016 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Design and Installation of Signs. (Continue replacement of signs to increase safety under federal mandates). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Flagstaff and Arizona Department of Transportation for grant funds in the amount of $36,891.00 with no City match required. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
This project continues the city wide sign replacement program which will provide greater safety benefits in accordance with new minimum retroreflectivity Federal mandates. The original IGA/JPA was for the inventory of all signs citywide and the second was for the design and construction of Phase I. Approving the IGA/JPA will obligate Federal HSIP funding in the amount of $36,891 for development of specifications and spreadsheets for Phase II. The IGA/JPA will be amended at a later date to include the installation of new signs which is estimated to be $297,000. The City is responsible for any cost overruns. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This IGA/JPA will fund the development of specifications and spreadsheets for approximately 3000 signs in the amount of $36,981. The total cost of the Sign Replacement Plan is estimated to be $894,000 and will be paid for from HSIP funds. The federal share is funded at $894,000 (100%). This project will be administered by ADOT and no budget authority will be needed by the City. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes – Original IGA/JPA for FY 2010 HSIP funds awarded on July 20, 2010 in the amount of $175,000 with an Amendment One on June 10, 2011 for an additional $50,000. An IGA/JPA was approved in November 2013 for construction of Phase I which will be completed in May 2015. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the IGA/JPA as presented. This IGA/JPA will authorize the funds for the project up to the maximum available. Upgraded signs will achieve greater safety by adhering to minimum federal reflectivity standards. 2) Reject the IGA/JPA and de-obligate HSIP funding for signage improvements. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The purpose of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. This is to be accomplished through the development and implementation of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. SHSP is intended to identify the state’s key safety needs and guide HSIP investment decisions. Funding is from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration through the Arizona Department of Transportation which is responsible for administering the HSIP in Arizona. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The 2010-11 IGA/JPA entered into between the City and ADOT developed a video log and inventory of all the signs within the City. As part of the sign inventory a Sign Replacement Plan was developed that separated the regulatory, warning and guide signs into replacement phases. This IGA/JPA is the second phase and will replace no parking, bicycle and pedestrian warning signs. The HSIP funds must have an approved IGA/JPA to be obligated by ADOT. Any funding not obligated by the City or County in the FMPO Region within this fiscal year is returned to ADOT. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The sign replacement funding is included in the FMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It is anticipated that future IGA/JPA Amendments will provide funding for additional replacement of street names and warning signs. The total cost of the sign replacement plan is estimated to be $894,000 and will be paid for from HSIP funds. The federal share is funded at $894,000 (100%). |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Provide additional safety and reduced maintenance cost. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Although there has been no formal public involvement process, this project has been approved by the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program. |
|||||
Attachments: | IGA/JPA Agreement | ||||
Sign List | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, Consideration / Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-15 and Ordinance No. 2015-05: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona declaring that certain document known as the "2015 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, by adopting “2015 City Tax Code 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. (2015 City Tax Code Amendments) |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Hold Public Hearing |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Model City Tax Code is the City of Flagstaff’s guiding tax document. The Model City Tax Code has been updated by the Model City Tax Code Commission to conform with new laws adopted by the state legislature and to improve uniformity with state transaction privilege tax laws. No new taxes are being imposed by the City. The majority of the changes concern Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Licensing, which will move from City control to the Arizona Department of Revenue on January 1, 2016. Many of the changes to the Model City Tax Code are retroactive and are already recognized by the City. When changes are made to the Model City Tax Code, the City is required to align the City Code with the Model City Tax Code. In addition, by adopting the proposed ordinance, the City is doing its part to help in the Governor's Transaction Privilege Task Force's efforts to make the Model City Tax Code more uniform. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There are no expected financial impacts from these Model City Tax Code changes. The Arizona Department of Revenue will collect the City's Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax license fees on behalf of the City. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments. |
|||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt the proposed ordinance. If the City adopts the proposed ordinance, the City of Flagstaff will incorporate the most recent changes to the Model City Tax Code into the City Code. 2) Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. If the City chooses to not adopt the proposed ordinance, the most recent changes to the Model City Tax Code will not be incorporated into the City Code. City staff will abide by the most recent changes to the Model City Tax Code but the City Code will not be uniform to the Model City Tax Code. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
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 taxable 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 2.051% and there is an additional voter approved 2% BBB tax levied on the restaurant/bar and the hotel/motel classifications. The City of Flagstaff is required to adopt all changes to the Model City Tax Code issued by the Municipal Tax Code Commission. The attached ordinance contains the approved changes from the last Municipal Tax Code Commission meeting in October 2014. The changes fall into 3 broad categories: 1) Statutory changes passed by the state legislature during the last legislative session; 2) Municipal Tax Code Commission changes approved as part of the transaction privilege tax simplification effort; 3) Miscellaneous cleanup changes (grammar, spelling, numbering, verbiage, etc.). The changes to the Model City Tax Code are noted in the proposed ordinance document. Below are the major changes that are included in this update. •Transaction Privilege (Sales) Tax Licensing: Changes to Division 3-05-004 Licensing and Recordkeeping are part of a larger effort intended to help simplify tax collection, licensing and administration when the Arizona Department of Revenue starts collecting sales tax for all cities beginning January 1, 2016. Currently the cities are continuing to collect taxes pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Department or Revenue. These changes make the licensing requirements uniform among cities. The changes mentioned below are not exhaustive, rather, they capture the main points of the changes.
|
|||||
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. If the City chose not to adopt the ordinance, the City Code would not mirror the revised Model City Tax Code. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. |
|||||
Attachments: | Res. 2015-15 | ||||
Ord. 2015-05 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-06: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3, Business Regulations, Chapter 3-10, User Fees, Section 3-10-001-0006, City Clerk, by increasing the Liquor License fee from $560.00 to $815.00; Providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Increasing the Liquor License application fee.) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the Council Meeting of May 5, 2015
1) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-06 for the first time by title only 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) At the Council Meeting of May 19, 2015 3) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-06 for the final time by title only 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-06 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
At the February 11, 2015 Council Budget Retreat, the Council expressed support to increase the Liquor License application fee from a 70% cost recovery to 100% cost recovery based on the cost established in the City 2009 User Fee Study. The City has provided the required 60 day notification on the City website of this potential fee increase. Staff proposes a July 1, 2015 effective date. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff receives approximately $13,000 per year in Liquor License application fees. The proposed fee increase is estimated to generate an additional $6,000 per year in revenue for the General Fund. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the fee increase to set cost recovery at 100% based on the 2009 User Fee Study and generate an estimated $6,000 new revenue to the General Fund. 2) Do not approve the fee increase leaving cost recovery at 70% based on the 2009 User Fee Study. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
As part of the City of Flagstaff annual budget process, certain user fees are brought forward to Council for consideration to increase. For FY2016, City staff provided information to Council on the Liquor License Application fee. The Liquor License Application Fee was first established in 2009 for $560 representing 70% cost recovery. At the February 11, 2015/ City Council Budget retreat, the Council reviewed several user fees. One staff proposal was to consider increasing the Liquor License Application fee from a 70% recovery to 100% recovery based on the 2009 City of Flagstaff user fee study. This recovery increase takes the fee amount from its current $560 to $815 per application. It is estimated this will generate an additional $6,000 per year in revenue that will be deposited into the General Fund. With six Council members in full support and one Council member providing tentative support, City staff posted the statutorily required 60 day notice on the City website and stated this fee increase would be considered at the May 5, 2015 Council meeting. Staff is recommending that it become effective on July 1, 2015. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The estimated new revenue of $6,000 has been included in the total ongoing resources used to balance the FY2016 City of Flagstaff budget proposal. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Consult The public has been notified through the website post that the City is considering this fee increase. The public will have the opportunity to provide feedback to the Council as the proposed Ordinance is considered by Council for approval. |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2015-06 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-08: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council amending Title VI, Police Regulations, of the Flagstaff City Code by amending Section 6-08-001-0005, Large Parties, Gatherings or Events, thereof; providing for severability and authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. (Amending, revising and supplementing Section 6-08-001-0005, Large Nuisance Parties, Gatherings or Events, of the Flagstaff City Code) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the Council meeting of May 5, 2015
1) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only (if approved above) At the Council meeting of May 19, 2015 3) City Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-08 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
In recent years the Flagstaff Police Department has responded to an increasing number of loud, unruly gatherings on large student housing properties. We are always looking for alternatives or better methods to deter this criminal activity and an amendment to our current ordinance would be one alternative. We would redefine our current ordinance to impose civil sanctions instead of criminal sanctions for a “Nuisance Party” violation. The ordinance would also reflect that a “Nuisance Party” would be defined as a gathering of five (5) or more persons on any private property. The current ordinance calls for fifteen (15) or more persons to be on the premises and more than two (2) officers are needed for the response. Under this amendment any persons attending the party and contributing to the nuisance can be cited on a first response by one or more officers. Also, any sponsor, host or organizer of the event may be cited during a first response. Civil fines will range from $250, on the first offense, to $500 on the second offense within (90, 120, 180) days and $1000 for the third or subsequent offense within (90, 120, 180) days. This is an amendment from our current ordinance, which the responsible person(s) are billed for our services when more than two (2) officers have responded to the same address within a 90 day period. Lastly, if the property owner is on the premises during the “Nuisance Party” and takes no reasonable action to prevent the “Nuisance Party” the property owner may be cited. However if the property owner is not on premises but proper notice was provided making the property owner aware of a “Nuisance Party” a civil fine can be imposed if the “Nuisance Party” has occurred within ( two (2) weeks, 20, or 30 days) after the notification was made. The ordinance does allow for a waiver to be issued if the property owner has taken steps reasonably necessary to prevent other parties, is in the process of an eviction, or agrees to actively participate in the Flagstaff Police Department’s Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, or if over 100 individual units obtains private security on the property. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no financial impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographic. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, a Student Housing Work Plan was brought before the Mayor and Council and on January 6, 2015, resolution 2015-01, was passed and adopted. On March 10, 2015 a work session presentation regarding police response to student housing was given to the Mayor and Council. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In October of 2009, Ordinance 6-08-0001-0005 regarding “Large Party, or events was modified. Since that time the FPD continues to see the burdens on communities plagued by these types of gatherings. Neighborhoods, particularly those adjacent to or near the University, have consistently borne the burden of residents who violate the peace and tranquility of the community as a whole for their own selfish ends. Public urination, litter from spent alcohol cups and containers, upended trash and recycling receptacles, loud music and noise in the form of amplified music, traffic congestion and parking problems, are just a small sample of the disruptions residential neighbors adjacent to these disturbances are faced with. In essence, the problems associated with disruptive parties constitute quality of life concerns in the community. The Police Department’s goal in regard to loud and disruptive parties is to respond to disturbances quickly in order to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, and to prevent disturbances from growing to an unmanageable and unsafe degree. Often, this requires the involvement of numerous police officers leaving their designated patrol areas to respond to these events. As a result, police response times to the rest of the City are increased and general policing for the remainder of the City may be compromised. In an effort to help deter criminal behavior associated with nuisance parties, gatherings or events, it is proposed that City Ordinance 6-08-001-0005 be amended. The proposed ordinance is based upon a number of similar ordinances enacted around Arizona, which impose liability based on public nuisance legal theory, upon persons responsible for the private premises where these gatherings take place and those engaged in the nuisance party, event or gathering. Through our research, we believe this is best practice. In collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office we have been in contact with the Tempe Police Department and the Tucson Police Department. Over the years they have faced similar challenges with student housing and each has adopted a specific ordinance to address large unruly/nuisance parties, gatherings or events. The Nuisance Ordinance will allow officers to issue civil citations for police service and response. Citations can be issued to all responsible persons. This can include any persons in attendance at the nuisance party, including owner, occupant tenant or tenants guest, or any sponsor, host or organizer. We will no longer charge for police services, but rather impose the following civil penalties; First offense is a $250 fine. Second offense, after notice is issued and within a (TBD 90-120 or 180) period, the fine is $500. Third and subsequent offense, the fine is $1000. The civil penalty does have due process for those that are issued citations, but it will not appear on a person’s criminal history. If an owner of a property is issued a citation under the nuisance ordnance, he/she may petition to the Chief of Police or his designee for a waiver. If the owner has taken steps reasonably necessary to prevent a subsequent nuisance party or to exclude the uninvited persons from the premises or the owner is actively attempting to evict the tenant from the premises a wavier shall be granted. Also the ordinance allows a waiver to the owner if he/she agrees to actively participate in the Flagstaff Police Department’s Crime Free Multi Housing program. This will require tenants to sign a crime free lease addendum and the owner will then be provided, free of charge, police reports regarding criminal activity on the property. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
In collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, any amended or new ordinance adopted may assist to effectively deter criminal behavior associated with Student Housing properties. We have researched a number of similar ordinances enacted around Arizona, and will present to Council a number of options for an amended ordinance. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
By imposing financial liability on the individuals responsible for disruptive nuisance parties, gatherings or events, it is our hope that this will deter future problems. In doing so, we are effectively restoring the peace, health, safety and welfare of those communities disrupted by a nuisance party, gathering or event and should hold those individuals accountable for their actions. There is no cost to the City to make these amendments. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Benefits include more peaceful living conditions for those residents living in the areas affected by loud and nuisance parties; a reduction in the crimes normally accompanying these disturbances, such as assaults, littering and criminal damage; more efficient and effective policing of the community because with a reduction in party disturbances; and the officers’ time is no longer monopolized by nuisance parties, gatherings or events. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
We continue to build a collaborative partnership with Northern Arizona University to pass and share information that involves student conduct off campus. The new ordinance information sheet will be included during student orientation and included in their electronic guide book. The proposed ordinance was presented and discussed in detail on April 15th at the monthly Good Neighborhood Coalition meeting. All in attendance supported the recommended revisions to the ordinance. The ordinance was also presented and discussed on April 16th and the Southside Neighborhood Association monthly meeting. All in attendance supported the recommended revisions to the ordinance. |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2015-08 | ||||
Landlord-tenant | |||||
Notice to Owner | |||||
Notice of Violation | |||||
Nuisance Party Info Sheet | |||||
Nuisance Party Ordinance PowerPoint | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Discussion and Possible Action: Proposed 2016 State Legislative Resolutions to be submitted to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
City Council to discuss and adopt any City of Flagstaff proposed resolutions that came out of the April 28 Work Session. These have to be submitted by the May 15 deadline to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns for Policy Committee review.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
With the introduction by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns of a year-round Resolutions process last year (see attached), the discussion before the City Council is to determine if any Resolutions are to be submitted at this time. If accepted by the League at the annual conference, it would become the basis for lobbying efforts in the 2016 Legislative Session. Based off the April 28, 2015 Work Session discussion, action will need to be taken this evening in order to provide any recommended resolutions to the League by the May 15 deadline as first notified on April 17. Any Resolutions that are of interest to Councilmembers will be continued forward in our 2016 State Legislative Agenda that will be formally presented to the City Council later this fall. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Depending on the resolutions that will move forward to the League, there may or may not be known financial implications at this time. However, all of our State legislative agendas are guided by the principles of (1) protecting State Shared Revenues that come to the City and (2) working to prevent any erosion of local control on local matters that are best decided by the City Council. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 1) Invest in our employees and implement retention and attraction strategies (i.e., pensions) 2) Ensure Flagstaff has a long-term water supply for current and future needs 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics 4) Explore and adopt policies to lower the costs associated with housing to the end user 6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff 9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitment to partners 10) Decrease the number of working poor 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events (i.e., wildland fire prevention and planning) |
|||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
April 28, 2015 Work Session | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
If not Resolutions are recommended to move forward to the League, we can support others in their legislative issues whether by Resolution or lobbying within the principles of our State Legislative agenda the Council will adopt. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | New League Resolutions Process | ||||
Members of League Reso Policy Cmtes | |||||
Annual Legislative Calendars | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
17.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Possible Future Agenda Item Request: Minimum Wage Increase Litigation | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Council direction
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Councilmember Putzova has asked that the issue of the minimum wage increase litigation be placed on the agenda as a possible future agenda item to see if there are three members of the City Council interested in bringing it back for discussion/action at a future meeting. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
10) Decrease the number of working poor |
|||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||