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. 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). |
||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | ||||||||
A. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Bryan Ledbetter, "Rilibertos Fresh Mexican Food", 3666 E. Route 66, 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.
|
|||||||||
B. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Mark Wagner, “Chevron", 357 W. Forest Meadows St., Series 10 (beer and wine store), 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.
|
|||||||||
C. | Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Evan Anderson, "Drinking Horn", 506 N. Grant St., Suite K, Series 13 (Farm Winery), 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 Cooperative Contract: PFM Asset Management, LLC Services Contract No.2016-48 | ||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
Approve a Cooperative Purchase Contract with PFM Asset Management Services, LLC utilizing the Arizona Board of Regents/University of Arizona RFP#3061422 and resulting contract for investment management services.
|
|||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Sole Source Purchase: Purchase five (5) utility truck beds meeting the specifications for the Utilities Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection Sections. | ||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
Approve the purchase of five (5) heavy duty utility truck beds from Drake Equipment of Phoenix, Arizona for the amount $177,732 plus all applicable taxes. |
|||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | ||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement: Arizona Department of Transportation Intergovernmental Agreement for the Frontage Road 40 (Old Route 66) Overlay Project. | ||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement/Joint Project Agreement (IGA/JPA) between the City of Flagstaff and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the use of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding in the amount of $1,212,000 and City funds in the amount of $73,260 for the construction of the Frontage Road (FR) 40 Overlay Project.
|
|||||||||
B. |
Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: Enter into a contract with Greenberg Traurig, LLP of Phoenix, Arizona to purchase Bond Counsel Services. |
||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
Bonds for State entities- up to $10,000,000 is a fee of $40,000 Bonds issued between $10MM and 50MM- is a fee of $50,000 Bonds issued on behalf of ADOT up to $100MM- is a fee of $60,000. |
|||||||||
C. |
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Supplemental Agreement for Forest Treatment operations on Section 6 of the Observatory Mesa Natural Area by Perkins Timber Harvesting LLC. |
||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
Approve the not-to-exceed Award/Supplemental Agreement of $414,052.40 for 540 acres of completed forest treatment work (Cutting and decking of wood products, grinding of debris, removal of grindings) on Section 6, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, to Perkins Timber Harvesting LLC of Williams AZ.
|
|||||||||
RECESS
6:00 P.M. MEETING RECONVENE |
|||||||||
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
|||||||||
11. | ROLL CALL
|
||||||||
12. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | ||||||||
13. | CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA |
||||||||
14. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS | ||||||||
A. | Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2016-21 and 2016-13, and Ordinance No. 2016-22: Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code, Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps); consideration of Resolution No. 2016-13 declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-22, adopting amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps), by reference, and consideration of Resolution No. 2016-21 to adopt the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone (Zoning Code Amendments - Sign Standards; adopting the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone) | ||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
At the May 17, 2016, Council Meeting:
1) Continue holding Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2016-21 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-21 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-21 5) Read Resolution No. 2016-13 by title only 6) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-13 by title only (if approved above) 7) Read Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only for the first time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only (if approved above) At the June 7, 2016, Council Meeting: 9) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-13 10) Read Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only for the final time 11) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only (if approved above) 12) Adopt Ordinance No. 2016-22 |
|||||||||
B. | Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-19 and Ordinance No. 2016-26: Declaring the "2016 Amendments to City Code Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-04, Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service” a public record and adopting said revisions to Chapter 7-04 "Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service" of the City Code by reference. | ||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||
At the May 17, 2016, Council Meeting
1) Open the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2016-19 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-19 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only (if approved above) At the May 31, 2016, Council Meeting 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-19 7) Read Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only (if approved above) 9) Adopt Ordinance No. 2016-26 |
|||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | ||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS | ||||||||
A. | Recap of the 2016 Legislative Session | ||||||||
B. | Discussion of 2017 League Resolution Process and Recommendations | ||||||||
17. | FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS After discussion and upon agreement by a majority of all members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. |
||||||||
A. | Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Mayor Nabours and Councilmember Evans to place on a future agenda a discussion on local preference in procurement and project delivery methods such as CMAR, Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build, etc. | ||||||||
B. | Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Mayor Nabours to place on a future agenda discussion on an Expedited Permit Process for Green-Standard Building. | ||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS | ||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT | ||||||||
|
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Bryan Ledbetter, "Rilibertos Fresh Mexican Food", 3666 E. Route 66, 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. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a new license, consideration may be given to both the location and the applicant's personal qualifications. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is May 31, 2016. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on April 28, 2016. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Attachments: | Rilibertos - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 12 Description | |||||
Rilibertos - PD Memo | |||||
Rilibertos - Code Memo | |||||
Rilibertos - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Mark Wagner, “Chevron", 357 W. Forest Meadows St., Series 10 (beer and wine store), 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 10 license allows a retail store to sell beer and wine (no other spirituous liquors), only in the original unbroken package, to be taken away from the premises of the retailer and consumed off the premises. Chevron is an existing business that was recently sold and is under new management. The property has been posted as required, and the Police Department, 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. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a new license, consideration may be given to both the applicant's personal qualifications and the location. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is June 12, 2016. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on April 28, 2016. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Attachments: | Chevron - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 10 Description | |||||
Chevron - PD Memo | |||||
Chevron - Code Memo | |||||
Chevron - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Evan Anderson, "Drinking Horn", 506 N. Grant St., Suite K, Series 13 (Farm Winery), 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 13 license is for a winery located in Arizona that produces at least 200 gallons but not more than 40,000 gallons of wine annually. The license has on and off-sale retail privileges and allows the holder to sell, deliver and serve wine produced on the premises for on and off-sale consumption and sampling. The property has been posted as required, and the Police and Sales Tax divisions have reviewed the application with no concerns noted. Community Development did note that the applicant has not yet received concept site plan approval for the establishment of this new use in the Light Industrial Zone as required by the Flagstaff Zoning Code; they recommend approval pending the site plan review. | |||||
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. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a new license, consideration may be given to both the location and the applicant's personal qualifications. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is June 12, 2016. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on April 28, 2016. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Attachments: | Drinking Horn - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 13 Description | |||||
Drinking Horn - PD Memo | |||||
Drinking Horn - Code Memo | |||||
Drinking Horn - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: PFM Asset Management, LLC Services Contract No.2016-48 | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve a Cooperative Purchase Contract with PFM Asset Management Services, LLC utilizing the Arizona Board of Regents/University of Arizona RFP#3061422 and resulting contract for investment management services.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The City currently has approximately $86 million in City funds invested by PFM Asset Management Services, LLC (PFM). The City's existing contract with PFM is expiring July 2016. In 2014 the Arizona Board of Regents/University of Arizona entered into a contract with PFM to provide Asset Management Services, which allows other cities to receive the same terms and conditions via a "cooperative purchase contract." The City's proposed cooperative purchase agreement with PFM will commence July 1, 2016 and continue through June 30, 2019. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City will pay contractor the following fee: 10 basis points (0.10%) per year on the first $25 million of assets under management 8 basis points (0.08%) per year on assets between $25 million and $50 million under management 7 basis points (0.07%) per year on assets between $50 million and $100 million under management 6 basis points (0.06%) per year on assets over $100 million under management This will equate to approximately $70,200 during FY 2017 based on an estimated $86 million investment portfolio for the City of Flagstaff. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS 1) Improve the economic quality of life for Flagstaff through economic diversification, and by fostering jobs and programs that grow wages and revenues |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
If this cooperative purchase contract with the PFM is not approved, the City will explore other investment options, such as the following: (a) issue a request for proposals for investment firms; (b) directly manage City funds using City staff (additional staffing would be required); (c) invest funds through the Local Government Investment Pool; or (d) any combination of such options. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff has had a successful relationship with PFM. We began a contract with PFM for investment management in 2011 and the relationship has grown over the past 5 years. We continue to invest additional funds with PFM. In the last year alone, the City of Flagstaff has invested an additional 5 million dollars because of the returns received from PFM. The returns are greater than the average, measured against the ML Government Index (Merrill Lynch Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets). We wish to continue using PFM's services for the next 3 years beginning July 1, 2016 and continuing through June 30, 2019. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
A key consideration of hiring an investment manager is investment expertise and higher rate of return on investments versus managing investments internally. The City currently invests funds through the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), Certificate of Deposits (CDs) through Alliance Bank for community investments, and PFM. An investment manager will allow the City to invest in financial instruments allowed by the City’s Investment Policy. Additionally the City has a great relationship with the PFM that extends over the past 5 years and have return on our investments. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Since the inception of our contract in 2011 with PFM Group, the City of Flagstaff has realized a total return of .84% in comparison to the ML 1-5 Year Government Index of .81%, a Merrill Lynch index provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets. City Council receives a Quarterly Investment Report via a CCR. The Quarterly Investment Report includes further financial detail as to City investments. The rates listed under Financial Impact are slightly higher than the City of Flagstaff negotiated with PFM five years ago when the original contract was negotiated, but the rates are in line with the current rates being offered for a municipality of the same size as the City of Flagstaff. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The main benefit is that we are obtaining a .84% return on investments which means more money in the Flagstaff economy. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
None | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | Cooperative Agreement | ||||
UofA RFP Agreement | |||||
Copy of Contract | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Sole Source Purchase: Purchase five (5) utility truck beds meeting the specifications for the Utilities Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection Sections. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the purchase of five (5) heavy duty utility truck beds from Drake Equipment of Phoenix, Arizona for the amount $177,732 plus all applicable taxes. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
City Council approved the replacement of 17 City owned diesel trucks, with new gas powered trucks at the May 11, 2015 council meeting item 9 D. Utility beds need to be equivalent to the existing units due to equipment and specialized functions. The approved vendor was unable to meet the requirements of the contract and agreed to allow the City to procure the utility beds outside of the original agreement. Drake Industries has designed a utility bed to meet the needs of the Water Services Section and is the only manufacturer to meet our requirements therefore should be considered a sole source. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The original PO 16-000784 City Council approved on 5/11/15 will be closed, and the remaining balance on the PO of $118,387 with additional funding of $59,345 will be used for this purchase. The budget funding of $177,732 for the purchase of the truck beds is in the Utility funds under accounts 202-08-303-1050-0-4401, 203-08-313-1130-0-4401, and 202-08-370-3177-0-4421. |
|||||
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 : May 19, 2015 Consent Item 9D. Council approved | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Option 1.Award the contract to Drake equipment as a sole source bidder. Option 2. Complete the vehicle trade, re-bid the utility bed, extend time without service vehicles. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In FY 2016, each affected division initiated requisitions for the replacement vehicles. The utility service trucks required a heavy duty utility bed with additional reinforcing for the crane system. Original specifications were for the dealers to re-use the existing cranes, hydraulic pumps, and safety jack stands. After numerous discussions with the utility bed manufacturer selected by the auto dealer as part of his proposal, it was evident that they could not meet our requirements. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
|
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The Utilities Division Water Services Section has been struggling with the loss of service vehicles, due to engine failure for the past two years. Crews are limited on capabilities based on the vehicles available. The beds need to be constructed with the proper reinforcement to withstand the long term work load. Additional items were added to the final proposal due to safety concerns ( emergency lighting, new safety stands for cranes, replace one old broken crane, New Hydraulic hoses, etc.) These items would need to be included at some point, when putting the vehicle in to service. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Maintain a high level of service. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | Drake Proposal 2016 | ||||
Summary of Drake proposal. | |||||
Sole Source | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement: Arizona Department of Transportation Intergovernmental Agreement for the Frontage Road 40 (Old Route 66) Overlay Project. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement/Joint Project Agreement (IGA/JPA) between the City of Flagstaff and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the use of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding in the amount of $1,212,000 and City funds in the amount of $73,260 for the construction of the Frontage Road (FR) 40 Overlay Project.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Council's approval of this agreement will allow for the City to utilize Federal Surface Transportation Program funding and City of Flagstaff Road Repair and Street Safety (RRSS) funding for the rehabilitation of a severely degraded section of roadway in east Flagstaff. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The current total estimated cost for the construction of the project is $1,285,260.The cost will be shared by the City and ADOT in accordance with the following percentages: ADOT - 94.3% $1,215,000 City of Flagstaff - 5.7% $73,260 ADOT's portion is Federal STP funding, the City’s match of $73,260 will be allocated from account #040-06-162-3303-0, which has an anticipated FY 17 budget of $148,700, and any construction overage will be allotted from account #046-06-116-3359-6, which has an anticipated FY 17 budget of $700,000. |
|||||
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.
-Maintain existing infrastructure by investing in ongoing maintenance and operations to get closer to target conditions. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Council approved the IGA/JPA agreement for the use of STP and City funding for the design portion of the project at the June 3, 2014 Council Meeting. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the agreement as recommended. Approval will allow the project to be constructed in the summer of 2017. 2. Reject the agreement. a. Direct City staff to abandon construction of the overlay improvements on FR 40. b. Direct staff to fund 100% of the construction costs from the RRSS Program funding. i. This direction would reduce the amount of RRSS funding for other City project areas. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The FR 40 Overlay Project area is located south of the Flagstaff Mall and extends from El Paso Flagstaff Road to a point 9,200 linear feet to the east. This frontage road is also a section of Historic Route 66. The roadway ownership was transferred from ADOT to the City of Flagstaff in 2004 as part of a Route Transfer. At that time, the roadway became the maintenance responsibility of the City. Design fees in the amount of $158,000 have already been approved and expended for the project. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
STP funding is provided through the Federal Highway Administration and State of Arizona and will be applied to the project's construction. The City of Flagstaff was granted self-administration for design and ADOT will administer construction of the project. This IGA/JPA outlines the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the City's and ADOT's responsibilities during the construction stage. This section of FR 40 is currently a deteriorated roadway surface that has large cracks and potholes. It has an Overall Condition Index (OCI) rating of 28.4 out of 100 as determined by City of Flagstaff Public Works. This project will provide an improved roadway surface for the traveling public and improved shoulder for bicyclists/pedestrians. This STP funding reduces the City's overall burden for funding these improvements and increases the remaining fund balance for the RRSS program. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The current total estimated cost for the construction of the project is $1,285,260.The cost will be shared by the City and ADOT in accordance with the following percentages: ADOT - 94.3% $1,215,000 City of Flagstaff - 5.7% $73,260 ADOT's portion is Federal STP funding, the City's portion is transportation funding (account #040-06-162-3303-0) and RRSS funding (account #046-06-116-3359-6). The City is responsible for costs above the $1,285,260 funding limit. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This project will provide an improved roadway surface for the traveling public and an improved shoulder for bicyclists/pedestrians. This STP funding reduces the City's overall burden for funding these improvements and increases the remaining fund balance for the RRSS Program. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Community involvement related to this project has been coordinated by the City of Flagstaff and ADOT. Community partners such as the Coconino National Forest, State Land Department, Arizona Game and Fish, as well as adjacent residential communities (i.e. Rain Valley area) were contacted during the design stage to inform them of the project's goals and to solicit comments. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the agreement as recommended. Approval will allow the project to be constructed in the summer of 2017. 2. Reject the agreement. a. Direct City staff to abandon construction of the overlay improvements on FR 40. b. Direct staff to fund 100% of the construction costs from the RRSS Program funding. i. This direction would reduce the amount of RRSS funding for other City project areas. |
|||||
Attachments: | FR 40 IGA/JPA | ||||
FR 40 Vicinity Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: Enter into a contract with Greenberg Traurig, LLP of Phoenix, Arizona to purchase Bond Counsel Services. |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Bonds for State entities- up to $10,000,000 is a fee of $40,000 Bonds issued between $10MM and 50MM- is a fee of $50,000 Bonds issued on behalf of ADOT up to $100MM- is a fee of $60,000. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Approval of this contract for bond counsel services provides the specialized services required to issue bonded debt. The City of Flagstaff will consider issuing voter approved bonds at an upcoming council meeting. A bond counsel attorney is an essential member of a governmental issuers bond financing team. Bond counsel renders an opinion on the validity of the bond offering, the security for the offering and whether to and to what extent interest on the bonds are exempt from income and other taxation. The opinion of bond counsel provides assurance to both issuers and to investors, who purchase the bonds, that all legal and tax requirements relevant to the matters covered by the opinion are met. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Fees paid to bond counsel for services rendered, are based on the value of each bond issuance. We would pay a flat fee based on the following: Up to $10,000,000 in bonds issued is a fee of $40,000 Bonds issued between $10,000,000 and $50,000,000 is a fee of $50,000 These fees are allocated to the specific project(s) that the bonds are issued for. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS 2) Long Term Water Supply 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) Provide a well-managed transportation system 11) Resiliency and preparedness REGIONAL PLAN: Goal OS.1. The region has a system of open lands, such as undeveloped natural areas, wildlife corridors and habitat areas, trails, access to public lands, and greenways to support the natural environment that sustains our quality of life, cultural heritage, and ecosystem health. Goal WR.6. Protect, preserve, and improve the quality of surface water, groundwater, and reclaimed water in the region. Goal LU.7. Provide for public services and infrastructure. Goal T.4. Promote transportation infrastructure and services that enhance the quality of life of the communities within the region. Goal REC.1. Maintain and grow the region’s healthy system of convenient and accessible parks, recreation facilities, and trails. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve contract as recommended; 2. Conduct our own competitive City RFP process; or 3. Not approve this contract and not purchase Bond Counsel Services. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Staff selected Greenberg Traurig of the state cooperative contract based on the fact that they were the highest scoring Proposer out of the six (6) firms who responded to the State's RFP, as well as the City's past experiences with this firm. Greenberg Traurig has demonstrated excellent customer service, as well as its in depth knowledge of bond financing in Arizona. Greenberg Traurig only charges for services when bond financing is completed. Greenberg Traurig also provides many additional support services for our organization at no additional cost. Most recently, the firm has assisted us with the formation of the downtown revitalization district (FDBIRD), dissolution of the Municipal Facility Corporation, and the Road Repair and Street Safety tax at no cost. We will look for the firm's assistance with the potential bond election for the courthouse, again at no cost. This added value is greatly appreciated by our organization. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The City will be considering issuing revenue bonds in the amount of $10,000,000 for the Road Repair and Street Safety project. The fee related to bond counsel services will be $40,000. In addition, we are looking to issue General Obligation bonds in the amount of $18,200,000 for Open Space, Core Facility and Watershed Protection projects that are voter approved for bonds. The fee related to this transaction will be $50,000. These cost will be allocated to the cost of the specific projects. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Involve - Bonded debt is a result of prior voter approval. |
|||||
Attachments: | Cooperative Purchase Contract | ||||
State of Arizona Award Determination | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Supplemental Agreement for Forest Treatment operations on Section 6 of the Observatory Mesa Natural Area by Perkins Timber Harvesting LLC. |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the not-to-exceed Award/Supplemental Agreement of $414,052.40 for 540 acres of completed forest treatment work (Cutting and decking of wood products, grinding of debris, removal of grindings) on Section 6, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, to Perkins Timber Harvesting LLC of Williams AZ.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Approval of this Supplemental Agreement will ensure needed initial forest treatments on 540 acres of city owned land within the Observatory Mesa Natural Area (OMNA), located within the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP) area. In 2015, Perkins Timber Harvesting LLC was awarded the initial 475 acres of work within OMNA (Section 18) and has now satisfactorily completed the required work (Cutting/Decking of wood, Grinding of debris, and Removal of grindings). Perkins initial bid and subsequent award for the Section 18 work allowed for additional work to be assigned upon satisfactory completion, at the same cost for the same services (cutting and decking, grinding, and removal). Based upon his performance within Section 18, and his interest in doing the reuqired work in Section 6, the subsequent Supplemental Agreement for the 540 acres within Section 6 is both warranted and to the advantage of the City. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Of the total not-to-exceed award of $414,052.40 (540 acres of forest treatment work), the distribution breakout of City Bond-and-Grant provided funds are as follows:
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
This effort addresses the following - COUNCIL GOALS: 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics, 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan, 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events. REGIONAL PLAN: Environmental Planning & Conservation – Vision for the Future: In 2013, the long-term health and viability of our natural resource environment is maintained through strategic planning for resource conservation and protection. Policy E&C.3.3 – Invest in forest health and watershed protection measures. Policy E&C.6.1 – Encourage public awareness that the region’s ponderosa pine forest is a fire-dependent ecosystem and strive to restore more natural and sustainable forest composition, structure, and processes. Policy E&C.6.3 – Promote protection, conservation, and ecological restoration of the region’s diverse ecosystem type and associated animals. Policy E&C.6.6 – Support collaborative efforts for forest health initiatives or practices, such as the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), to support healthy forests and protect our water system. Policy E&C.10.2 – Protect, conserve, and when possible, enhance and restore wildlife habitat on public land. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Council approved the original contract on 7/21/2015 to Perkins Timber Harvesting Inc. for Observatory Mesa Hazardous Fuels Thinning, the original contract allowed subsequent purchases/contract work for the same terms and conditions as submitted in the bid, for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of City Council approval. In addition, Council has been engaged in the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Program bond issue when it was approved to be presented to the voters (summer 2012), and has approved other grant awards and contracts related to FWPP, and has been kept updated on issues throughout the overall effort. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Options and Alternatives: Four options exist:
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Damage and loss of our forests from destructive wildfire and insect infestations are ever-present threats to our community. Areas that have undergone proactive forest treatments (ie – thinning, debris disposal, and/or prescribed/managed fire) are not only healthier and more resilient to damaging agents, they also provide a barrier to the spread of these agents once they do become established. Such treated areas enhance public safety, ensure infrastructure protection, and safe-guard community well-being. Within our community and immediate area, the Woody Fire (2005), Hardy Fire (2010), and Slide Fire (2014) dramatically demonstrate the value of these treatments: the Schultz Fire (2010) shows what can happen when such treatments are not in-place. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The OMNA and the forest treatments that are planned, and that have occurred, were presented during the bond campaign leading-up to the election, as part of the overall goal, area, and effort that would occur with passage of the measure. Regardless of location or casual factor, insect infestations are always difficult to manage. Wildfires on Observatory Mesa are a challenge due to access, lack of on-site water supply, adjacent neighborhoods, and other factors. Recovery efforts undertaken following a damaging event are always reactive in-nature, expensive, and never are able to fully restore a natural environment. Proactive completion of forest treatments have proven highly effective in reducing occurrence and severity of these damaging events, and of ensuring the sustainability of our forested environment. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
We anticipate the total per-acre cost to conduct this operation – from site set-up to final debris disposal following cutting – to be $771/acre. Combining two grants with city bond funds substantially reduces the cost to city taxpayers by upwards of $335 per acre (46% of total expected cost). |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Multiple partners have been engaged in the FWPP effort since its inception, and these partnership efforts have continued throughout planned and completed work on the OMNA. Working with City Staff, the AZ State Forestry Division was the principle author of the OMNA Forest Stewardship Plan. AZ Game & Fish Department, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and NAU's Ecological Restoration Institute provided input and review. The Nature Conservancy, Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership, US Forest Service, private consultants, and NAU's School of Forestry have all been on the OMNA during-and-following other forest treatments providing feedback. Completion of the forest treatment work funded by this grant award will protect adjacent neighborhoods, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat, while promoting forest resiliency and sustainability. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform – Following the 50 campaign events leading up to the bond election (Nov 2012), we have continued to work at keeping the community informed of what we are doing, and why. The Project website (www.flagstaffwatershedprotection.org) is one way: numerous news stories have also been crafted and/or otherwise reported. Impromptu and announced field trips have been conducted, most recently during the Festival of Science: OMNA stakeholder members, city staff, and Council members have also been provided tours. City staff has interacted with numerous individuals hiking, running, or biking through the area, as well as with other community members interested in the work. The OMNA Stakeholder Group and the Friends of the Rio have been briefed. Information boards have established, and continue to be maintained, where the Urban Trail crosses the site and where roads enter the parcel. Consult – We’ve worked with both AZ Game & Fish and US Fish & Wildlife Service to protect habitat, with adjacent neighborhoods regarding access, the US Forest Service regarding transportation routes, Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural Gas and the Snowbowl regarding pipeline crossings, and AZ State Forestry regarding plan development. Involve – Following treatment work on other OMNA sites, both the public and the Winter Wood For Warmth program have been engaged in removing firewood for use and distribution to area/regional residents. A few individuals who have raised issues about the work have been engaged directly by staff from NAU’s Ecological Restoration Institute to provide context and a more complete understanding of the need, and the work, itself. Other City Staff, including those from Sustainability and Stormwater, have also been engaged. Community members have also been hired as seasonal Fire Dept crew members and have been engaged in conducting some of the work itself. Empower – The planned forest treatments are part of a larger effort underway in our area and throughout northern AZ. We and our many partners have been engaged for nearly two decades in this work, on various jurisdictions and site conditions, and have utilized a variety of prescriptions and approaches to ensure we have a full-suite of treatments across the greater landscape. The work to be funded by this award is based upon credible and proven science-based forest restoration and hazard fuel management standards and knowledge. It adheres to guidelines established in the Greater Flagstaff Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan (City & County - 2005), is consistent with forest treatments designed and implemented by the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (1999-present) and the City of Flagstaff Wildland Fire Management program (1998-present), meets the goals of the State of AZ 20-Year Strategy (2007), is consistent with the required actions identified in both the initial and final Observatory Mesa Forest Stewardship Plan (2013 and 2015, respectfully) and both the Four Forests Restoration Initiative's and the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project's Final Records of Decision (USFS - 2015). Further, it meets grant requirements for post-treatment conditions. |
|||||
Attachments: | Contract Amendment | ||||
Scope of Work - Harvesting Guidelines | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2016-21 and 2016-13, and Ordinance No. 2016-22: Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code, Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps); consideration of Resolution No. 2016-13 declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-22, adopting amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps), by reference, and consideration of Resolution No. 2016-21 to adopt the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone (Zoning Code Amendments - Sign Standards; adopting the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the May 17, 2016, Council Meeting:
1) Continue holding Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2016-21 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-21 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-21 5) Read Resolution No. 2016-13 by title only 6) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-13 by title only (if approved above) 7) Read Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only for the first time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only (if approved above) At the June 7, 2016, Council Meeting: 9) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-13 10) Read Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only for the final time 11) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-22 by title only (if approved above) 12) Adopt Ordinance No. 2016-22 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) are needed in response to the US Supreme Court's decision last year in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign case. At a work session with the Council on December 8, 2015 the reason for these amendments was discussed and an overview of them was presented by staff. Council provided direction to staff on these amendments which has been included in the amendments, which were reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 24, 2016, attached to Resolution 2016-13. Recent revisions proposed after further legal review have been inserted in Track Changes format. Resolution No. 2016-21 is also attached if the Council agrees to the adoption of the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Council's possible adoption of the proposed amendments to the City's sign standards will not have a financial or budgetary impact on the Comprehensive Planning and Code Administration Program's budget. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan. REGIONAL PLAN: The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 supports the amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) with the following goals and policies: Goal CC.1. Reflect and respect the region’s natural setting and dramatic views in the built environment. The proposed amendments support this goal by ensuring the aesthetic beauty of the City’s natural and built environment is protected (Purpose statement B.5). Policy ED.7.1. Support planning, design, and development that positively, creatively, and flexibly contribute to the community image.” |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Council held an executive session and work session on December 8, 2015 to discuss the proposed amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) and an additional executive session on April 12, 2016. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In June this year the US Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign code case which clarified when government regulation of speech is content based. Content-based laws are presumptively unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision in the Reed case has wide-ranging implications for sign ordinances in cities across the nation.
|
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The proposed amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) are intended to ensure consistency with the US Supreme Court’s decision, and to streamline, simplify, and improve the standards to provide flexibility and maintain a positive community image, while supporting the needs of business owners. Resolution 2016-13 (2016 Amendments to City Code Title 10, Zoning Code, Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) and Other Related Divisions) is attached. This is a “Clean” version of the amendments to the sign standards and other related Sections of the Zoning Code with all changes accepted to assist in the Council's review, except that recent revisions proposed after further legal review have been inserted in Track Changes format. This version has been reorganized into a more logical structure, cross references and formatting are completed, and it is a final version. A “Track Changes” version of the draft amendments that shows new text in underline and text to be deleted in The majority of the amendments included within this Division, especially in the Portable Signs Section (formerly Temporary Signs), are proposed in response to the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign code case to ensure that the City’s sign provisions are content neutral. The Planning and Zoning Commission as part of their review of the entire Zoning Code in June 2015 recommended approval of a few minor amendments within the Permanent Sign Section of the Code (Section 10-50.100.060), and these, together with additional amendments, especially in the Portable Signs Section (10-50.100.090) are included in the attached amendments documents. The narrative below provides an overview of the more substantive amendments organized by Section and Subsection. 10-50.100.010 Purpose
Chapter 10-20 Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement: Division 10-20.40 Permits and Approvals Section 10-20.40.130 Sign Permits – Temporary Wall Banner Sign Permits
Division 10-80.20 Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions
Section 10-20.50.100.F of the Zoning Code establishes findings for the approval of text amendments. It is staff's recommendation that the Council may find that the proposed amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) and other related Divisions meets the following findings: Findings for Text Amendments:
|
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Flagstaff residents and business owners, users of the City's sign standards, and City staff will benefit from the adoption of these proposed amendments as they will fix known deficiencies and redundancies in the standards, simplify the permitting processes for temporary (portable) signs, clarify and simplify standards and procedures, and importantly, provide consistency with the US Supreme Court's decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert sign case by ensuring that the sign standards do no contain content-based regulations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM, CONSULT, and INVOLVE Once a preliminary draft of the proposed amendments to the Sign Standards was completed, staff has engaged with members of such local organizations as Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Northern Arizona Builders Association, Northern Arizona Association of Realtors, and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee to solicit their comments and reaction to the amendments. Also, a number of articles were published in the Flagstaff Business News and Cityscape, and staff has participated in frequent interviews on KAFF Radio. Consistent with state law and the requirements of the Zoning Code the Planning and Zoning Commission held a work session on the proposed sign code amendments on February 10, 2016. No residents were in attendance and no comments were provided to the Commission. The Council also held a work session on December 8, 2015 on the proposed amendments at which time general policy direction was provided to staff. No residents spoke to the Council at that work session. In advance of all Council and Planning and Zoning Commission work sessions as well as the Commission’s February 24th public hearing, staff has sent out an email to local stakeholder organizations such as Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Northern Arizona Builders Association, Northern Arizona Association of Realtors, and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. These groups were requested to forward the email to their members. Interviews with KAFF radio have also been scheduled regularly, and posts to the City’s Facebook accounts have been posted. Further, in compliance with state law and the Zoning Code’s noticing requirements, a ¼ page display advertisement (larger than the minimum required 1/8 page ad) was printed in the Arizona Daily Sun in advance of all public meetings and public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. About six members of the public attended the Planning Commission's February 24th public hearing, but none chose to speak to the Commission. At this meeting the Commission unanimously recommended that the Council approve the amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) attached to Resolution 2016-13. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Overview - Reed v. Town of Gilbert | ||||
Res. 2016-21 | |||||
Res. 2016-13 | |||||
Sign Standards Amendments TrackChanges Version | |||||
Ord. 2016-22 | |||||
PowerPoint Presentation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-19 and Ordinance No. 2016-26: Declaring the "2016 Amendments to City Code Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-04, Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service” a public record and adopting said revisions to Chapter 7-04 "Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service" of the City Code by reference. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the May 17, 2016, Council Meeting
1) Open the Public Hearing 2) Read Resolution No. 2016-19 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2016-19 by title only (if approved above) 4) Read Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only for the first time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only (if approved above) At the May 31, 2016, Council Meeting 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-19 7) Read Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only for the final time 8) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only (if approved above) 9) Adopt Ordinance No. 2016-26 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
A revision to Chapter 7-04 "Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service Ordinance of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona." (amended, Ord. 2007-40, 09/18/2007) of the City Code is brought about by the passage of SB 1079 during the legislative session of 2015, which amended A.R.S. 49-746. The law was signed into effect by the Governor on April 1, 2015 with an effective date of July 1, 2016. The legislation created a new class of solid waste collections customer, Multifamily Residential Properties, and directed municipalities to prescribe rules for the delivery of recycling and solid waste management services to Multifamily Residential Properties that promote the availability of these services and competition in the delivery of these services. Historically, Multifamily Residential Properties have been considered residential properties that were serviced by the City. The rates for service have been the same as commercial customers because of the type of containers used to service them. Those rates were established using a flat, across the board calculation for a per yard cost recovery. Solid Waste performed an evaluation of our routes, comparing the service time of standard commercial accounts to the service time of multifamily residential accounts. We discovered that, due to the efficiencies created by having multiple containers at one service address, we gain efficiencies in service time for multifamily residential properties, allowing for consideration of a rate structure that better accounts for collection density and waste volume. In addition there are a number of proposed general revisions to the Solid Waste Code proposed that will update antiquated language, such as the rate escalator provision, improve and include definitions related to current operations, and include the residential glass collection guidelines, which are currently practiced but not addressed in the current code. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Solid Waste’s multifamily residential customers comprise 24 percent of its commercial collection revenue, or an estimated $700,000 per year. If we lose multifamily residential accounts to competition, we would need to adjust routes, staffing and landfill revenue collection expectations. Solid Waste is recommending that we adjust our rates to allow for this efficiency and to remain competitive. As we adjust multifamily residential rates to remain competitive with collections, the estimated collection revenue reduction is approximately $66,000/year, if all accounts are retained and no new accounts are obtained. Competition created by Legislation may also create some account loss. Under the current collections structure, Multifamily Residential customers comprise 46 percent of its total commercial tonnage taken into the landfill, generating an estimated tipping fee of $560,000 per year. Losing all multifamily residential collections runs the risk of dropping our waste tonnage collected at the landfill below our break-even tonnage target. |
|||||
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: | |||||
No | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Continue to use current Commercial Rate Sheet and working with our existing clients to maintain our collection relationship for Multifamily Residential Properties. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
Historically, the City has been responsible for solid waste collection to all residential properties in the city. On April 1st, 2015 the Governor signed into law legislation amending Arizona Revised Statutes Section 49-746 establishing Multifamily Residential Properties as its own class of customer similar to commercial accounts. The amendment allows private waste haulers the opportunity to compete for solid waste collection services to Multifamily Residential Properties. This law goes into effect June 30, 2016. Here is the complete legislation: 1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Section 49-746, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to 3 read: 4 49-746. Private enterprise recycling and solid waste
5 management; definitions 7 restrain a private enterprise from delivering RECYCLING OR SOLID WASTE
8 MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE MUNICIPALITY OR TO commercial,
9
10 11 B. The municipality shall prescribe rules for the delivery of
12 recycling AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT services
13 industrial
14 PROPERTIES that promote availability of these services and 15 competition in the delivery of these services. 16 C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION: 17 1. "DWELLING UNIT" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 33-1310. 18 2. "MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" MEANS ANY REAL PROPERTY THAT 19 HAS ONE OR MORE STRUCTURES AND THAT CONTAINS FIVE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS FOR 20 RENT OR LEASE THAT ARE SUBJECT TO TITLE 33, CHAPTER 10. 21 Sec. 2. Effective date 22 Section 49-746, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, is 23 effective from and after December 31, 2015. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Key Considerations for Collections: Solid Waste’s multifamily residential customers comprise 24 percent of its commercial collection revenue, or an estimated $700,000 per year. If we lose multifamily residential accounts to competition, we would need to adjust routes, staffing and landfill revenue collection expectations.
Solid Waste performed an evaluation of our routes. We compared the service time of standard commercial accounts to the service time of multifamily residential accounts. We discovered that, due to the efficiencies created by having multiple containers at one service address, the service time for multifamily residential properties is more efficient. Solid Waste is recommending that we adjust our rates to allow for this efficiency and to remain competitive. As we adjust multifamily residential rates to remain competitive with collections, the estimated collection revenue reduction is approximately $66,000/year, if all accounts are retained and no new accounts are obtained. Competition created by Legislation may also create some account loss. Key Considerations For Landfill: Under current collections structure, Multifamily Residential customers comprise 46 percent of its total commercial tonnage taken into the landfill, generating an estimated tipping fee of $560,000 per year. Losing Multifamily Residential collections runs the risk of dropping the City's daily tonnage below the landfill operation's break-even point. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
While competition in the Multifamily Residential market may result in account loss, in order to remain competitive, the proposed rate structure accounts for efficiencies realized from customers with high volume in a small geographic area. While revised collection rates may decrease collection revenues, the rate structure may help avoid greater losses from customer loss.
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | Solid Waste Presentation | ||||
Res. 2016-19 | |||||
Ord. 2016-26 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Recap of the 2016 Legislative Session | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Discussion only
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The Intergovernmental Relations Program coordinates with the City’s contract lobbyists, League staff, and City staff to review proposed legislation and works to inform legislators, legislative staff, the governor’s office, federal agencies and stakeholders regarding those impacts. The City’s interests are also represented through the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Advocacy is also supported by Council adoption of guiding principles and partnerships. The City contracts lobbying services at the State level with Richard Travis of Triadvocates, LLC to advocate and monitor specific legislation impacting the City's interests and established priorities. The 2nd Regular Session of the 52nd State Legislature began on January 11th and has yet to end at time of submission of this staff summary. It is anticipated the session will end no later than this Friday, May 6th. The purpose of this discussion item is to provide City Council a recap of the recent session of the State Legislature as well as a summary of advocacy efforts on behalf of the City's 2016 legislative priorities. A final summary on the session will be added to the final agenda packet. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 1) Invest in our employees and implement retention and attraction strategies 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 5) Develop and implement guiding principles that address public safety service levels through appropriate staffing levels 6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments 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 |
|||||
Attachments: | Agenda | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Discussion of 2017 League Resolution Process and Recommendations | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Discussion item
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The City’s membership in the League of Arizona Cities and Towns is a critical component of Flagstaff’s advocacy strategy. The City Council will participate in the League’s annual priority-setting process. The League established a Policy Committee framework to give elected officials and staff the opportunity to provide expertise and direction on proposed policy issues that come to the League. The purpose of this agenda item is to revisit the League's annual resolution development process and discuss Council's proposed resolutions. League Resolution Process Each year, members of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns may recommend items for the League’s legislative program by submitting policy issues/resolutions for consideration. The policy issues submitted by cities through this process are vetted by the relevant League Policy Committee and may become a formal League Resolution, or may go on for further discussion with a non-legislative solution. Proposed resolutions are then advanced to the Resolutions Committee for a formal recommendation. If the Committee proposes resolutions, those resolutions will be provided to all cities and towns prior to the League Annual Conference in August. This is so that individual city and town councils may take positions on those resolutions prior to the Resolutions Committee Meeting. The resolutions that are passed by the committee are then formally adopted at the League’s Annual Business Meeting, also held during the Annual Conference. The adopted resolutions then become that year’s Municipal Policy Statement. Guidance on Submitting Policy Issues/Proposed Resolutions There are two types of resolutions accepted for consideration by the League: 1) Statements requesting a specific action, such as requesting that the Legislature enact a statute relating to a zoning issue; and 2) Statements of general policy direction, such as supporting increases for transportation funding. Resolutions should be broadly applicable and advance our municipal goals. The resolutions process is designed for issues that impact a broad cross section of cities and towns. Single city/town issues are not generally part of the League’s overall agenda. It is helpful to consider resolutions by answering the following questions:
|
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 1) Invest in our employees and implement retention and attraction strategies 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 5) Develop and implement guiding principles that address public safety service levels through appropriate staffing levels 6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments 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 |
|||||
Attachments: | City Priorities | ||||
League Resolution Form | |||||
Resolutions | |||||
Municipal Policy Statement | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
17.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Mayor Nabours and Councilmember Evans to place on a future agenda a discussion on local preference in procurement and project delivery methods such as CMAR, Design/Build, Design/Bid/Build, etc. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Council direction.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Rule 4.01, Procedures for Preparation of Council Agendas, of the City of Flagstaff City Council Rules of Procedure outlines the process for bringing items forward to a future agenda. Mayor Nabours and Councilmember Evans have requested this item be placed on an agenda under Future Agenda Item Requests (F.A.I.R.) to determine if there is a majority of Council interested in placing it on a future agenda. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
None | |||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
17.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Mayor Nabours to place on a future agenda discussion on an Expedited Permit Process for Green-Standard Building. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Council direction.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Rule 4.01, Procedures for Preparation of Council Agendas, of the City of Flagstaff City Council Rules of Procedure outlines the process for bringing items forward to a future agenda. Mayor Nabours has requested this item be placed on an agenda under Future Agenda Item Requests (F.A.I.R.) to determine if there is a majority of Council interested in placing it on a future agenda. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
None | |||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||