WORK SESSION AGENDA
|
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 work session, 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. | Pledge of Allegiance | ||||||||
3. | Roll Call
|
||||||||
4. | Preliminary Review of Draft Agenda for the June 21, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items may be taken under “Review of Draft Agenda Items” later in the meeting, at the discretion of the Mayor. Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council for discussion under the second Review section may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
|
||||||||
5. | Public Participation Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. 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 to have 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. | Flagstaff Regional Plan 2015 Annual Report | ||||||||
7. | History and Overview of Mogollon Public Works Facility, History of Project Scope and Funding of Core Services Maintenance Facility, and future of Mogollon Public Works Facility and Funding of Project | ||||||||
8. | Transit Tax Renewal | ||||||||
9. |
Discussion of New Municipal Courts Facility and draft ballot language |
||||||||
10. | Review of Draft Agenda Items for the June 21, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items will be taken at this time, at the discretion of the Mayor.
|
||||||||
11. | Public Participation | ||||||||
12. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager; and future agenda item requests. |
||||||||
13. | Adjournment | ||||||||
|
6.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2015 Annual Report | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Inform City Council and the public of efforts to implement and measure how the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 is being used. Provide direction to staff on what missing information to prioritize for the next annual report and the proposed plan amendment tasks. Staff is requesting feedback on the following:
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Comprehensive Planning staff has prepared the 2015 Annual Report of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. This second assessment of the City’s efforts to implement the Plan shows progress towards comprehensive data tracking and incorporating the Plan into decision-making processes. The City’s commitment to produce an annual report will help determine future specific plan needs and Plan amendments, advancing the idea that the Regional Plan is a living document. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Continue to implement the Flagstaff Regional Plan and focus efforts on specific plans 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments Annual Report Summary The purpose of the annual report is to keep Planning and Zoning Commissioners, City Council, and the public informed of the City’s progress towards meeting the goals and policies of the Regional Plan. The 2015 Annual Report does this in four ways:
The 2015 report builds on last year’s initial data and incorporates several metrics that were missing from the 2014 report, establishing several new baseline measurements. Staff began identifying trends in the data, where feasible. It will take several years’ worth of information for variability ranges to be determined and trend analysis to be most meaningful in assessing the Plan. A total of nine missing metrics are identified at the end of the Natural, Built, and Human Environment sections, which is down from 13 in the 2014 report. Some of the metrics have no tracking method developed, and others do not have current information. Goals Cited in City Council Staff Memos A total of 67 out of 75 Regional Plan goals were cited in staff memos to Council in 2015. Goals from all 15 chapters of the Plan were used to link a project’s relationship to particular goals from the Plan. The top cited goals are listed with a brief connection made to the corresponding work item or project staff brought forward to Council last year. Regional Plan Accomplishments Last year’s Plan implementation included one major and two minor plan amendments: the Map 25 major amendment, the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan, and the Core Services Yard map amendment. In Fall 2015 Comprehensive Planning launched an online civic engagement platform that aims to enhance meaningful public participation across all city departments. This additional avenue for public input will inform a range of City decision-making processes. Regional Plan accessibility will be increased with IT’s upcoming online interactive GIS maps, which is a long term project that has seen much progress in 2016. Part of the presentation will include a tour of the new interactive map feature. Future Comprehensive Planning Projects Three amendment tasks are outlined in the report, down from last year’s five. They involve two substantive amendments to the Growth and Land Use chapter and clarification of the terms “corridor” and “great streets” used throughout the Plan. Two of the amendment tasks from the 2014 report were completed and summarized in the Regional Plan Accomplishments section. In early 2016 Council gave direction on the prioritization of specific plan work. A list of those plans and other projects spanning 2016-2017 is summarized under Upcoming Specific Plans. First on that list is the High Occupancy Housing Plan (HOH). Comprehensive Planning staff has already chartered a team to begin work on the HOH. |
|||||
Attachments: | 2015 FRP Annual Report | ||
PZ Staff Report |
7.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
History and Overview of Mogollon Public Works Facility, History of Project Scope and Funding of Core Services Maintenance Facility, and future of Mogollon Public Works Facility and Funding of Project | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Staff is seeking direction from Council on next steps to secure total financing for the estimated cost of the Facility.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
In 2012, the current Public Works Yard on Mogollon was identified as a property to sell to help pay for the new Core Services Maintenance Facility. There has been interest and concern by residents in the area of the current Public Works Yard and other residents in the City concerning the end use for the Mogollon Yard once Public Works has moved to its new Facility. Staff has conducted several public meetings, listened to resident input and questions and will answer some of those questions during this presentation. Staff will also provide suggestions for Council to consider concerning this issue. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: * Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics * Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments |
|||||
Attachments: | Presentation Power Point | ||
May 18th public meeting notes | |||
Mogollon Public Mtg. Comments | |||
Public Mtg. Add'l Comments | |||
Pages from Publicity Pamphlet |
8.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Transit Tax Renewal | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Information and discussion
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) is the transit agency in northern Arizona operating the Mountain Line, Mountain Lift and Mountain Link systems in Flagstaff. NAIPTA also coordinates with Campus Shuttle Service at Northern Arizona University. Established in 2001, NAIPTA has grown into a system that employs more than 75 people and transports nearly 2 million riders a year. The purpose of this work session discussion is to discuss feedback received on the proposed renewal of the local transaction privilege tax revenues dedicated for public transportation ("transit tax") and review draft ballot language renewing the dedicated sales tax. The Flagstaff City Council has authority to ask City voters whether the transit tax should be renewed. Attached to this staff summary is a memo from NAIPTA General Manager/CEO, Jeff Meilbeck. The memo requests the City Council send a question to voters this November regarding the renewal of the existing transit tax. At the June 14th Work Session, Mr. Meilbeck will present feedback received through the NAIPTA Citizen Review Committee and a recent survey of likely voters. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Tax Authority and Background The City Charter Article V, Section 2 provides that the City Council shall have the power to levy a transaction privilege tax (also referred to as a sales tax) subject to approval by a majority of the qualified electors voting in the regularly scheduled general election. The City base local transaction privilege tax rate is 2.051% of gross revenues from a taxable activity (with an additional 2% rate on bar/restaurant/lodging businesses). The transit tax was approved by the City electorate via five separate propositions, totals as a .295% rate,and is part of the base rate of 2.051%. The approved propositions dedicate the transit tax revenues for specific public transportation purposes, and impose a "sunset" or expiration date for such tax of June 30, 2020. The applicable propositions are referenced in the City Code, Section 3-05-008-0800.A.5,7,8,9,10. 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 6) Provide a well-managed transportation system 7) Continue to implement the Flagstaff Regional Plan and focus efforts on specific plans 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments 10) Support and assist the most vulnerable 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events REGIONAL PLAN: Goal LU.7. Provide for public services and infrastructure Goal LU.12. Accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and private cars to supplement downtown's status as the best-served and most accessible location in the region. Goal T.1. Improve mobility and access throughout the region. Goal T.2. Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes. Goal T.7. Provide a high-quality, safe, convenient, accessible public transportation system, where feasible, to serve as an attractive alternative to single-occupant vehicles. |
|||||
Attachments: | Memo from Meilbeck | ||
PPT - NAIPTA | |||
Res. 2016-25 |
9.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Discussion of New Municipal Courts Facility and draft ballot language | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Council direction |
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
During the Council work session held on April 12, 2016 we discussed the need for a new municipal courthouse. During that session staff provided a proposed funding scenario that included a ballot question for a $10 million dollar bond in the secondary property tax. There is sufficient bonding capacity available and it would not result in an increase in the secondary property tax rate. Upon conclusion of the presentation Council indicated its willingness to consider a ballot question for the November 8, 2016 general election. The proposed new municipal courthouse would be a co-located facility with the Coconino County Justice Court and built on County owned property at the site of the old downtown jail. This collaborative effort with Coconino County would allow for the most efficient use of land and the sharing of costs for design, construction, and joint use space at the new facility. Additionally, the project would include the construction of a nearby parking garage which would serve the needs of the new facility and potentially provide additional parking spaces for the downtown area. Staff proposes that the existing municipal courthouse property on Beaver St. as well as the Cherry Building property be sold to defray the costs associated with the construction of the new courthouse. The costs of maintaining these two aging buildings is not considered to be an effective use of our resources and their potential for redevelopment would certainly be a benefit in terms of additional tax revenue for the City. Of course, any redevelopment of these City owned properties would be accomplished in the strictest conformance with our zoning standards and include public engagement in the process. If Council should desire to retain the Cherry Building property for some other future use then we would need to increase the requested bond amount to $12 million in order to assure the full funding of the courthouse project. Again, there is sufficient bonding capacity available and a $12 million dollar bond would not result in an increase in the secondary property tax rate. The cost breakdown for the new courthouse is as follows: Demolition of old jail site $250,000 Land $400,000 Parking structure $4,100,000 Building $13,000,000 Prisoner Holding $2,200,000 Contingency (7.77%) $1,550,000 Total City share of project: $21,500,000 Available Funding: Various sources including court facility funds, court improvement funds, property sales, redevelopment funds, and capital funding transfer. Total amount available: $11,500,000 Bond Funding Needed: Total Estimated Project Cost: $21,500,000 Less total funding available: $11,500,000 Total Remaining: $10,000,000 Public Outreach: On May 19th we held a public open house at the municipal courthouse in order to provide information on the need for a new facility and receive feedback on a possible ballot question for the November election. Staff provided some static displays with information about the new courthouse project and conducted tours of the existing facility. We received a total of 32 comment cards and the general consensus is as follows:
Proposed Ballot Question for the November 2016 general election: Staff has worked closely with bond counsel and the City Attorney's Office to draft a proposed ballot question for the upcoming general election. That ballot language is attached to this staff summary. Pending any changes from Council, this ballot language will be brought back for consideration and possible adoption at its regular meeting scheduled for July 5, 2016. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
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.
|
|||||
Attachments: | Proposed draft Ballot Language | ||
Courthouse conceptual design 1 | |||
Courthouse conceptual design 2 | |||
Summary of comment cards |