WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 211 WEST ASPEN AVENUE 6:00 P.M. MINUTES
|
|||||||
1. | Call to Order
Mayor Nabours called the Work Session of the Flagstaff City Council held January 26, 2016, to order at 6:00 p.m. 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 The Council and audience recited the pledge of allegiance. |
||||||||||
3. | Roll Call
|
||||||||||
4. |
Preliminary Review of Draft Agenda for the February 2, 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.
|
||||||||||
Councilmember Oravits asked in regards to the zoning code amendments if the agreed sign size was 24 or 32. Mayor Nabours stated that the sign code is not part of next week’s discussion. Councilmember Oravits asked when the sign code will be coming back to Council for discussion. Planning Director Dan Folke stated that the sign code is going before the Planning and Zoning Commission in February so it will come to Council hopefully in March. He stated that he will be sure to address his question on temporary sign size in the materials that are provided. Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she would like to talk about the process for how motions will be made concerning the amendments; she would like for each section to have its own motion and not one action for the entire set of amendments. |
|||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||
John Viktora addressed Council with concerns about the State’s recent actions to limit what municipalities can do within their own cities and towns. Andy Fernandez addressed Council with a number of concerns. |
|||||||||||
6. | Presentation on Children's Garden in Foxglenn Park. | ||||||||||
Public Works Section Director Michael O’Connor addressed Council providing some history on the JLB project. JLB is a non-profit organization that provides services to families who have lost a child. They approached the City about five years ago about establishing a memorial garden at one of the City parks. At the time there was no donation policy to allow a project such as this to come in. It took some time but the City was able to develop a resolution that addressed this kind of donation. In 2014 the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the proposed resolution and project after which the City Council approved the resolution that allowed for donations to the City for the memorial. Mr. O’Connor introduce the President and founder of the JLB Project Anna LaBenz. Ms. LaBenz stated that the project was developed to help provide services and assistance to help families who have lost a child. She explained that over time she found that people wanted and needed a place to reflect on the lives of their loved ones which led them to begin the process of developing such a space. Ms. LaBenz provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: EXISTING SITE AND CONDITIONS GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CHILDREN’S GARDEN RIBBON-LIKE FORMS SERVED AS DESIGN INSPIRATION FOR THE GARDEN CHILDREN’S GARDEN AERIAL VIEW – PHASE I CHILDREN’S GARDEN AERIAL VIEW – PHASE II PERSPECTIVE OF GARDEN ENTRY SPACE PERSPECTIVE OF GATHERING SPACE ONE SCULPTURE AT THE HEART PERSPECTIVE OF MEMORIAL PLAQUES AT GATHERING SPACE PERSPECTIVE OF STONE FORMATION AT GATHERING SPACE PRECEDENT IMAGES THAT SERVED AS DESIGN INSPIRATION FOR CHILDREN’S GARDEN RIBBON
CONCEPT DESIGN FOR MEMORIAL PLAQUESVice Mayor Barotz stated that she remembered the first day Ms. LaBenz took her to the site to express the vision; it is a number of years later but the design and proposal is beautiful. Mayor Nabours asked what the plan is for Phase 2 and the timeline of when it might happen. Mr. O’Connor stated that the area is ideal because there are no plans for future improvements. City staff worked very closely with JLB in the development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 to make sure that the design complimented the existing park. The amenities that the project proposes work very well with the existing elements and there is already a naturally occurring path that the project wishes to enhance. Ms. LaBenz stated that the goal is to break ground this spring for Phase 1 and complete in October, 2016. After Phase 1 is complete JLB will begin fundraising efforts for the funding of Phase 2; because it is donation driven the timeline for Phase 2 is still developing and is very dependent upon when funding becomes available. Mayor Nabours asked if there is a limit on the number of memorial plaques. Ms. LaBenz explained that there is no limit and that was something that was very important to JLB. It is very important to them that this memorial stands the 50 year test and that additional plaques can be added over time. Councilmember Oravits asked what the funding goal for Phase 1 is. Ms. LaBenz stated that the goal is $150,000. Mayor Nabours stated that sponsors have been mentioned, he asked how they will be recognized without having issues with advertising. Mr. O’Connor explained that the sponsorship recognition is specifically addressed in the resolution. Ms. LaBenz added that it is very important to allow a space for community members to be recognized even if they did not lose a child and one of the options they are looking at is a placard that states that the space was made possible by the following donors. Mayor Nabours stated that the design and project have turned out quite well and he looks forward to seeing it move forward. |
|||||||||||
7. | Introduction of Terros and Crisis Response Network: The Mobile Crisis System That Helps Get Flagstaff's Mentally Ill the Help They Need When They Need It. | ||||||||||
Flagstaff Police Chief Kevin Treadway stated that the Police Department places great care and support to its most vulnerable populations within the community. To this end, there is continued support for the partnership with the Guidance Center to train officers on how to better understand and respond to the mentally ill in the community. He reported that a few months ago a new mobile crisis response program arrived in Flagstaff. Additionally, the Guidance Center and Healthchoice Integrated Care have worked hard to add additional services in Flagstaff. To better explain the programs he introduced Dr. Jack Callahan from the Guidance Center, Shawn Nell, the Chief Operating Officer for Healthchoice Integrated Care, Dr. Dara Ramparsand, Senior Director for Terros and Sara Schol, Director of Strategic Initiatives for Crisis Response Network. Mr. Nell provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: HEALTHCHOICE CRISIS SYSTEM UPDATE ABOUT US REVISED FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL CRISIS SYSTEM Ms. Schol continued the presentation. CRISIS LINE OF HEALTHCHOICE INTEGRATED CARE WHO WE ARE. WHAT WE DO. CRISIS RESPONSE NETWORK STATISTICS CRISIS LINE OF NORTHERN ARIZONA IDENTIFYING WHEN TO CALL THE CRISIS LINE Dr. Ramparsand continued the presentation. TERROS FLAGSTAFF MOBILE CRISIS Mayor Nabours asked about the funding and if each agency is funded separately or if funds are divided from a lump sum allocation. Dr. Ramparsand stated that Healthchoice Integrated contracts with and provides the funding for Terros’ operations in Flagstaff. Mr. Nell explained that the funding is 100% through AHCCCS or State general funds; it is a largely state funded program. Dr. Callahan continued the presentation. He highlighted the partnership with Healthchoice. They are excited about the partnership with the Crisis Response Network and Terros. He introduced Medical Director for the Guidance Center Dr. McDaniel who continued the presentation. CRISIS ENTRY AND STABILIZATION UNIT Vice Mayor Barotz asked how the Crisis Response Network’s phone number is advertised in the community so people know it is available to them. Dr. McDaniel stated that the number is advertised through brochures and various stakeholders in the community. It is a relatively new service and as they go further more community knowledge is to be expected. Vice Mayor Barotz asked if this program reduces the Fire Department’s requests for response. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would assume that it does but he is not sure of the statistics on that claim. Councilmember Evans asked if the information could be placed on the City’s website. Mr. Nell explained that the number has not yet been heavily advertised yet as they were working through the new system. They are beginning the outreach process and would welcome ideas such as that to help get the word out. Councilmember Evans asked if they utilize volunteers. Mr. Nell stated that one of the Healthchoice partners is NARBHA which is a non-profit organization that helps provide volunteer services. Additionally, work has been done with other non-profit organizations to provide volunteer assistance to the program. Councilmember Brewster asked how patients and callers under 18 are handled and if an adult is required for care. Dr. McDaniel stated that clients aged 18 or under can call into the Crisis Line and the responders will assist them in getting access to the healthcare system such as Flagstaff Medical Center or the adolescent program. Additionally, arrangements can be made to assist with transport to those resources. Ms. Schol added that the Crisis Hotline is the rollover line for the Teen Lifeline and they answer all their after hour calls. They will always talk with adolescents and provide a thorough risk assessment and safety plan. As long as there are no safety issues with the parents they do their best to involve the parents into the safety plan. Councilmember Overton stated that he was surprised with the volume of response to the system without any advertising and he is encouraged with the services that are obviously needed in the community. He asked what the patient cap is for a day and at what point the system begins to not work or quality diminishes due to volume. Dr. McDaniel stated that the system is nowhere near capacity at this time but the program has been wildly successful thus far. There is excess capacity to grow and expand and they have the ability to get licensed for more chairs should they need to do that. Councilmember Overton stated that providing access to this program is positive for the community’s law enforcement agencies and it helps get people to the appropriate place for care. He thanked them for their work. Chief Treadway added that officers really look for options for people and now they have the ability to connect people to the most appropriate services. |
|||||||||||
8. | Presentation of Specific Plan Work Program for Comprehensive Planning. | ||||||||||
Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM RELATED TO SPECIFIC PLANS DIRECTION TO STAFF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PLANNING PROJECTS TIMELINE POTENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS POSSIBLE MILTON TIMELINE Councilmember Oravits stated that he appreciates the approach she is taking with this item. He stated that the 4th Street Corridor Study was a $250,000 study that turned out to be a complete disaster as far as what was spent in time and money and the return on investment; he asked how that outcome can be avoided in the future. Ms. Dechter offered that one of the ways is to heavily invest in public participation assistance. An RFP for Milton should have the top five public participation contractors in the state to bid on it. In order to do this the City needs to contribute the necessary funds to do so. Additionally, the City should look to the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) and ADOT to also help contribute heavily. Councilmember Evans stated that she feels that the City needs to be very clear in the RFP on what the expectation and end result should be. It will be very important for the Council to determine early on what they are willing to do and not do so that there is political will to move forward with the results of the study. Vice Mayor Barotz asked about the Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study that was referenced in the presentation. She stated that she did an internet search for the study and found nothing except one letter to the editor; she asked what happened to the information between the study and 2016. The City is implementing the plan that was developed from the results of the study but there appears to be no record of any meetings or outreach. Community Development Director Mark Landsiedel stated that the study was done back in 2003 and was funded by FMPO and ADOT. The study was never adopted by the City Council or by ADOT’s Board. It becomes an advisory study for ADOT’s planning purposes. There were no public hearings or Council vote on the results of the study. Vice Mayor Barotz stated that from a process standpoint it will be very important to communicate with the public on whatever ADOT decides to do. Mr. Landsiedel agreed and added that the process will be a difficult one. There will be questions of jurisdiction and route transfers. Ultimately, in order for the City to control what happens to Milton a route transfer will be necessary. The City must get jurisdictional control over Milton if it is going to spend its money on improvements. This may or may not be the will of the Council or ADOT. Ms. Dechter offered that one of the reasons the timeline was put together as a flux diagram is because she does not see a project this lengthy not coming before Council and the various Boards and Commissions multiple times to communicate and provide updates on where the project is at, the next steps forward and continued public participation. Mayor Nabours stated that some of the proposals are within the City’s control as opposed to another agency. The Milton corridor is one where the City does not have complete control; he would not want to spend $250,000 to get a study that would tell the City that Milton is a congested street that needs attention. He asked what she foresees with the specific plan and the study and how it is different than what the Regional Transportation Plan is already doing. Ms. Dechter offered that the specific plan would be different because one of the outcomes would be to work out a power sharing agreement with ADOT that would make sense or get control of the road. This is different from the Regional Transportation Plan because it only assumes the status quo in terms of the management of Milton. Mayor Nabours asked what could be done with Milton if the City owned it as opposed to the State. Mr. Landsiedel offered that what staff wants to see is a concrete study that shows where the curb and gutter is, where medians are going to be, where streets are going to intersect, etc. The intent would be to take the studies that the FMPO have been doing on Milton to the next level. Staff believes that local control has the greatest ability to carry out the vision of the study rather than ADOT’s Transportation Board down in Phoenix. Councilmember Oravits offered that it will be critical to have frequent updates at the Council level so more people will hear about it and get involved. Councilmember Evans stated that working with ADOT takes a long time and there are several roads that are overseen by ADOT that the City should consider taking control of. She suggested that the City has a comprehensive discussion with ADOT about the roads in town. Mr. Landsiedel stated that a number of years ago the City completed its Route Transfer Study and sat down with the County and ADOT to comprehensively look at every State route in the City and how they might be transferred to the City at some point. They also talked about what needs to be done to the roads to bring them up to City standard and the costs associated with taking them on. It is a great suggestion and staff can continue to have those conversations with ADOT moving forward. Mr. Overton offered that the cost to bring the state roads to City standard was approximately $60 million. He acknowledged that the route transfers would give the City local control but asked at what cost. He does not want to consider route transfer unless ADOT will bring the roads to standard first. Mr. Landsiedel stated that part of the Route Transfer Study suggested breaking down the transfers in segments. When the study was complete and the City began discussions with ADOT there was funding at the ADOT level to potentially use to bring those roads up to standard; that funding is now severely lacking. There is also significant cost associated with ongoing maintenance. Councilmember Overton stated that he is not interested in coming up with a bunch of solutions when the City cannot afford to own or maintain the roadway. Ms. Dechter offered that there is a new federal highway rule making process that could potentially provide alternatives to route transfers and provide an opportunity for a great partnership with ADOT to pilot the program. Ms. Dechter continued the presentation. POSSIBLE SOUTHSIDE TIMELINE Councilmember Evans asked what the other area plans underway now are. Ms. Dechter stated that there are not any others that are underway now; the reference in the presentation was that if multiple plans were being done concurrently more consultant time would be needed. It is staff’s recommendation that one plan is done at a time. Councilmember Evans indicated that appropriately funding and allocating resources is very important to the plans. There was a lot of money and time spent on a Southside plan in 2005 that was not formally adopted by Council; it has been determined that these plans are important and the appropriate resources and final adoption by Council is needed. Mayor Nabours added that it is something that the Council can really get behind and get done relatively quickly for future use. Mr. Landsiedel offered that staff has a certain capacity and feels they could get one of these plans done in a 12-18 month timeframe. If it is Council’s desire to do all three plans concurrently staff can analyze that through the budgeting process and come back to Council with some proposals on what it would take to get that accomplished. Ms. Dechter continued the presentation. POSSIBLE HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING TIMELINE Mayor Nabours stated that there has been an outside group working on this topic for months; they have provided a report and Council has enacted several of the recommendations. He asked what the difference would be for this topic. Ms. Dechter offered that staff would figure out the criteria and how it would impact property owners. There has also been discussion about wanting to include zoning code updates into the process, this would allow staff to pursue them concurrently with updates to the zoning code at the same time as an aspirational plan. Ms. Dechter continued the presentation. OPTION 1: STAFF RECOMMENDATION OPTION 2: FOCUS ON HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS FIRST OPTION 3: ACCELERATE MILTON ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN REMINDERS The following individuals addressed Council regarding the Specific Plan Work Program:
Mayor Nabours stated that he prefers the McMillan Mesa plan and the Southside Neighborhood Plan; both have some work already done and a good conclusion can be obtained without a lot of expense or time. He feels that the Milton corridor is a bigger issue than just looking at what can be done immediately. It is an issue of where the City is going to create alternative routes. There is a lot of planning being done right now and that will escalate in the next year and $250,000 would be better spent on a broader transportation plan. Councilmember Evans stated that she is interested in the high occupant housing and the neighborhood plans. She asked, in terms of the Milton project, if the City has to be the one to lead the conversation about route transfer or can they partner or contract with the FMPO to start that discussion with the state to better understand the costs associated with it now. She also requested information on what it would take to complete two of neighborhood plans each year. Councilmember Overton stated that high occupancy housing is an immediate need because it is something that is happening now. There are many that are currently in development and are entitled but it is something that there will likely be more of in the future. There is currently a lot of public attention on it as well which can help with the public participation piece. He feels that there will likely be some major amendments that come out of the plan and he encouraged Ms. Dechter to plan accordingly to allow her enough time in her work plan to give those amendments the time and attention they will need. He offered that he would only look at Milton if the City is looking to tie it to the transportation tax. He indicated that there is wisdom in getting those small pieces done but strongly cautioned that the City may go down a road with little return on its investment. The City must continue its support to NAIPTA and the things that can be done at a local level. Councilmember Brewster stated that she would like to see staff focus on the high occupancy housing. The City is in the middle of quite a few developments headed in that direction already. Milton is such a long range project and depending on other agencies will be an even longer range goal. Neighborhood plans would be her second choice after high occupancy housing. Vice Mayor Barotz indicated that she would like to be mindful of the people who took time to fill out the survey and offered that if the City puts these tools out they need to communicate with the public that they are being heard. She would support moving forward with high occupancy housing. She stated that there is one issue everyone talks about and that is traffic. She would support certain components of the Milton Road Corridor Plan such as talking to ADOT. Councilmember Oravits stated that he is supportive of the high occupancy housing project. He indicated that traffic is the number one thing he hears about from the community; understanding what is realistic versus promises that cannot be delivered is something that needs to be defined. He would like to see a discussion with ADOT to see what options there are and the mechanisms for the other affected roads within the City. Councilmember Brewster stated that she would like to hear more about what can be done on the Lone Tree corridor in conjunction with Milton. FMPO Manager Dave Wessel offered that the Regional Transportation Plan update is going on and there is a lot of analysis happening about alternate routes. They are in the budget season as well and are looking at the Transportation Improvement Program. One of the things they have not done for the last couple of years is program money for fiscal year 2019 or 2020. The reason they did that was because they are waiting for the Regional Transportation Plan to start pushing some of the priorities forward that could be accelerated with those monies. One of the weaknesses of the early process of the Urban Mobility Study was that the City was not at the table with the land use component. At the time there were very divergent ideas on what the land use along Milton should be; the FMPO ultimately pulled $2 million in funding for the design of the Milton corridor because of that level of uncertainty. It is important for the City to make those decisions on land use along Milton before moving forward. Mayor Nabours stated that the consensus is to focus on high occupancy housing right now and get to the other items as soon as possible. Also, as part of the budget process staff will provide information on what it would take to run concurrent projects. |
|||||||||||
9. | Discussion on the City of Flagstaff Sidewalk Maintenance and Repairs Program | ||||||||||
Public Works Section Director Michael O’Connor provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: CITY OF FLAGSTAFF SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 5-YR. HISTORY SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT – CODE SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT CATEGORIES SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM COSTS 2015 Mayor Nabours confirmed that there are about five sidewalk replacements per year that are due to age and deterioration. Mr. O’Connor agreed and offered that there are more instances of heaving sidewalk than there are of replacements for age and deterioration. Mayor Nabours also confirmed that the streets that are being repaved under the bond initiative are also having the sidewalks replaced to which Mr. O’Connor responded yes. John Viktora addressed Council in regards to developments that are supposed to have sidewalks but do not. Mayor Nabours offered that there is an arbitrary ordinance that requires people to repair sidewalks that are not damaged due to their own fault. He indicated that he is looking for an exception to the ordinance for repairs that are not the result of fault of the property owner. The instances are fairly minimal and will not cost the City much. Some sidewalks will be replaced through capital projects so it does not seem fair that others are not offered the same. Councilmember Oravits stated that he feels that it does seem inconsistent and would agree with changing the ordinance if it is not the fault of the property owner. Mayor Nabours stated that there were only three Councilmembers in favor of changing the ordinance so no further action will be taken at this time. |
|||||||||||
10. | Review of Draft Agenda Items for the February 2, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items will be taken at this time, at the discretion of the Mayor.
|
||||||||||
A. | CALL OUT: Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No.2016-03: A Resolution of the City of Flagstaff Urging the United States Congress to Pass Carbon Fee and Dividend Legislation. (REFER TO ITEM 15-A OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2016, DRAFT AGENDA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) | ||||||||||
Gabor Kovacs addressed Council in opposition of the Resolution. Public Works Director Erik Solberg stated that Sustainability Specialist Tamara Lawless is prepared with a presentation on the item. Mayor Nabours stated that the presentation can be given next week when there is more public in attendance and Council will be taking action. |
|||||||||||
Mayor Nabours stated that there will be an update on the legislative agenda next week and Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith has an update to present in preparation for the meeting next week. Ms. Smith stated that there are two hearings currently scheduled for the Veteran’s Home. HB2329, which is the $10 million appropriation for the building in Flagstaff, is scheduled for a hearing before the Veteran and Military Affairs Committee on Thursday February 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. Additionally, SB1114, which is the exact same bill in the Senate, is scheduled to go before committee on Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. There is also a hearing next week on HB2333 that was introduced on behalf of the City of Flagstaff. That bill proposes to modify the State statute pertaining to the registration requirements on non-structural and non-load bearing commercial improvements. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. |
|||||||||||
11. | Public Participation None |
||||||||||
12. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager; future agenda item requests. |
||||||||||
Councilmember Brewster requested an update on the GreenTree hotels out at the Airport. Councilmember Evans stated that she has heard from several residents in La Plaza Vieja that there are some new apartments on Tucson that are renting by the room. When she |
|||||||||||
asked about approved Conditional Use Permits for that area she was told that there were none. Mr. Copley stated that he will look into the issue and have staff prepare a response back to Council. Councilmember Evans also requested a FAIR item for a City resolution in support of Gosar and McCain’s efforts concerning the Downwinder Program. Mayor Nabours requested a CCR about the City’s water pipes, he would like to know if there are lead pipes in the system and if lead has ever been an issue in the water supply. Councilmember Oravits stated that he has heard from the public about the $4 surcharge when paying a water bill online; there is no charge to pay in person at City Hall and that seems backward. Mr. Copley indicated that staff has been working on the process more comprehensively and will get Council an update soon. |
|||||||||||
13. | Adjournment The Flagstaff City Council Work Session of January 26, 2016, adjourned at 9:02 p.m. |
||||||||||
|