Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-16 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16,2004 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction. Arizona.was held on November 16,2004,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Coleman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Sippel gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Milkey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Coleman Vice Mayor Eck Councilmember Insalaco Councilmember Milkey Councilmember Sippel Councilmember Waldron Staff Present: (Councilmember Dietz was absent.) City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern City Engineer Ron Grittman Library Director Pam Loui Finance Director Keith Lewis Public Works Director Doug Dobson Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 1 OF 36 Others Present: Community Relations Manager Patrick Brenner Assistant to the City Manager Amy Malloy Assistant Planner Noel Griemsmann CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson Grants Specialist Roger Hacker Multi -Media Producer Matt McNulty Police Commander Terry McDonald District Water Superintendent Brian Hall Associate Planner Steve Abraham Associate Planner Charles Beck Public Works Manager Shane Kiesow ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ITEM NUMBER 4 BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MOVED TO FOLLOW THE CITY MANAGER REPORT.AND THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED;AND THAT RESOLUTION NO.04-29,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA.AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR STATE HOUSING FUNDS CERTIFYING THAT SAID APPLICATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS;AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS; AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT AND COMPLETE THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS;AND CONFIRMATION THAT CITY SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS,BE APPROVED. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. CALL TO THE PUBLIC REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 2 OF 36 Mr.John Enright,6556 E.Hacienda la Colorada Drive,Gold Canyon,addressed the council regarding a petition for Gold Canyon to vote on the issue of incorporation.He stated he had brought a petition with 280 signatures from residents of Gold Canyon wishing to have an incorporation vote.They would like this to be placed on a future agenda.He stated they have waited 8 years and i t is time for a solution.He believes that this could be worked out between the two communities.He stated he understands that the city wants to secure land for future growth and has concerns about the south and east borders with Mesa;they are willing to support the city on its issues with Mesa and the Flood Control District.While Mesa poses a threat to Apache Junction,he feels that Apache Junction's growth poses a threat to Gold Canyon.They would like to work with Apache Junction on the growth plan to the south and west,that the city look out for the needs and desires of Gold Canyon,and that they be included in regional issues as a sister community.He requested the city give Gold Canyon residents a right to vote. Apache Junction residents have never been asked if they wanted to vote on something.He commented the Gold Canyon residents should be allowed to vote because they are neighbors,and where he grew up neighbors take care of each other and do things not because of an expected reward but because i t is the right thing to do.He requested the city do the right thing and allow Gold Canyon the right to vote. Mrs.Anne Marie Surra,195 E.Superstition.Apache Junction,addressed the council representing the Volunteer Center from Pinal County.She stated city employee Melinda Larson was with her along with Pete Johnson from Salt River Project.Pete and Melinda were co -team leaders of the volunteers who spent November 13 painting an Apache Junction home as part of the Rock -N -Roll Paint-A-Thon.Rebuilding Together and Homebuilders Care launched this inaugural event bringing together volunteers from all over the valley to paint one hundred homes owned and occupied by seniors or disabled owners who cannot do the work themselves.The city coordinated with the volunteer center and engaged Salt River Project as a corporate partner to paint a home in the city selected by Rebuilding Together who provided the paint,supplies, t -shirts and volunteers'insurance coverage.The 26 -member Apache Junction community volunteer team had a good time rocking and rolling the paint.She mentioned other volunteers who assisted.Salt River Project also provided lunch and additional supplies needed.The Volunteer Center thanked the city for taking the role of coordinating the event and the terrific participation from Salt River Project. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 3 OF 36 CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson presented the mayor and each member of the council with a commemorative First Annual Rock -N -Roll Paint-A- Thon tee shirt. Mr.Joe Severs,1184 N.Starr,Apache Junction,addressed the council regarding the citywide clean-up.He wished to present an alternative to the program.He researched some connections with waste companies,but he needs someone from the city who can give him estimates of the current program cost. Currently,when the clean-up time gets close,they see piles of garbage next to the road which is very unattractive.Nonresidents do not know there is a clean-up program going on.The new program would have 40 -yard roll off dumpsters.There would be 2 dropped off every Thursday at any location in the city that the residents choose.The residents would call public works, who then calls the company to reserve i t for Thursday:i t is picked up on Monday.There would be 2 each week anywhere the city wants.It would cost approximately $28,000 per year:he believes the current program costs the city $80,000.The company has agreed to give the dumpsters to the city on those weeks when no one has called in.They could be used for volunteer clean-ups in the desert or clean up a lot that is very bad and needs to be cleaned up.The company has agreed to 2 extra dumpsters at Christmas time for Christmas trees.They would add the city on as an additional insured and take care of their own insurance liability.He thinks this would do the city a lot of good:they have agreed to a six-month trial basis to see if it works.He would like to see this on a future agenda. Ms.Susan Miramontes,9056 E.Shasta Drive,Gold Canyon,addressed the council in support of John Enright's comments on incorporation.She is a new resident in Gold Canyon.She has only been here one year and she has seen a diverse community with Apache Junction and Gold Canyon together.She finds that many Gold Canyon residents are helpful and willing to work with others in Apache Junction and their own community.She would like to see Gold Canyon become a city in itself.She is a member of the Gold Canyon Business Association and they believe Gold Canyon can meet the challenges of tomorrow and that they can assist one another as neighbors.She believes,with the city's agreement and understanding,that the residents of Gold Canyon can pull this together,be strong neighbors,and help the communities around them. Vice Mayor Eck requested staff establish meetings with groups representing a cross section of Gold Canyon residents,and that staff communicate to the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 4 OF 36 mayor to insure that some members of the council are available for these meetings. Mayor Coleman stated if they wanted to say no to Gold Canyon they would have already done so.He knows that 8 years is a long time,but the city has been waiting on an annexation request down south for a long time.The question is the timing.In the 1950s.when they needed some municipal services out here. the fire district was created.In the 1970s the school district was created. In 1978 Apache Junction was created.At that time,everything east of Power Road was considered Apache Junction and the properties were given Apache Junction addresses.I t never bothered him until some of the adult shops went in that had Apache Junction addresses that never would be in Apache Junction because Mesa strip -annexed 10'of land on both sides of Apache Trail to the county line and then went north and south when they heard Apache Junction was looking at expanding to the west.He looks at things that would have been part of this community,places where our citizens pay their sales taxes and we get very little back.They get state -shared revenues which is supposed to pay a portion of the tax that the city loses by residents crossing the county line to shop.In his opinion,he welcomes working together and they will always be neighbors.However,they do not know how much of the land south of the city can be developed.There are 19.000 acres that currently cannot be developed,and they are trying to change that,but they do not know how much will be left.They have been told that an easement of about 7,000 acres is all that is required for the Maricopa County Flood Control District.There are structures down there where something must happen.They are making movement,and there is more movement now in the discussions with Mesa.They are making progress in some understandings.Until that land is in the city limits of Apache Junction,he does not want to see Apache Junction get hemmed in.The city can still take advantage of the economic scale by growing.He sees that they have scaled back on their map,but if there was a way they could bind future mayors and councils to keep the map looking like that,he would not be in total opposition,but they would want to talk about those 4 sections.His problem is that even if they could come to an agreement with Mesa on their not coming into the county,he is aware they are interested in the land down by Williams Gateway Airport.Mesa wants to make sure that Apache Junction does not put high rise buildings or high density residential in overflight areas.The city would like to come to an agreement with Mesa that they will be included in the planning of that area,just as the residents of Gold Canyon could help with that area.They would like to work together on that,but future mayors and councils cannot be bound by these talks.He stated that until the land is in the city limits,he does not feel REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 5 OF 36 that he would fulfilling his responsibility as a representative of the city's 41,000 residents.They have a sewage treatment plant that they need to put a 1,000'buffer around.There are issues that need to be worked out.He repeated that if they wanted to say no,they would have already done so.If they could say yes without jeopardizing the city's future,they would have already done so.Municipal services to the area need to be determined:and he is not ready to make that decision.He appreciates the efforts showing there is support to hold a vote.He asked the city attorney if they have to give a direct answer as the request has been made formally. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t is not on the agenda:they can comment back on criticism,but legal advice should be discussed at a different time. Mayor Coleman asked the city attorney to look into the matter.. Councilmember Sippel requested the public works director to work with Mr. Severs on the citywide clean-up figures. Councilmember Waldron requested the council be provided with those numbers. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO.4 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ONE NEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBER ) )Vice Mayor Eck commented he pulled this from the consent agenda as i t is just read by default by the vice mayor.He did not want to take advantage of that by putting whoever he felt first.He wanted to open i t up.There were 4 very qualified candidates and he does not feel they could go wrong with any of them. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no one else wishing to speak and called for a motion. Councilmember Sippel MOVED THAT JANEEN MANDELL BE APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 30,2006. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16.2004 PAGE 6 OF 36 Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ROBIN BARKER BE APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 30,2006. Mayor Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they would vote on the first one nominated first. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated this would be a vote on Janeen Mandell. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Vice Mayor Eck commented he made the second motion because he wanted the qualified candidates to realize that he wanted them to come back.He believed Robin was a very qualified candidate. There was general discussion about all of the candidates being very qualified. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated they could continue to choose from that pool of applicants in the future. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PREMISES ON THE LIQUOR LICENSE OF CAPTAIN'S FOR NOVEMBER 20-21,2004 FOR A . CHARITY GOLF WEEKEND )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.They are located at 200W.Apache Trail. This is an event they inaugurated last year.The positive comments from city staff are in the packet:no recommendation has been received from the fire district.The applicant was advised to be present this evening. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 7 OF 36 Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Ms.Mary LeDoux,1040 E.Estevan, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She and her husband own the business.She was there to answer any questions. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion.There being no discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PREMISES ON THE LIQUOR LICENSE OF CAPTAIN'S FOR NOVEMBER 20 AND 21.2004,BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. APPLICATION FOR A NEW LICENSE,CLUB. SERIES 14 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR LAWRENCE C.. GARRETT VFW #7968 )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.She stated they are relocating from one part of Superstition Plaza to another.Comments have been included in the packet from city staff and the fire district.All are positive.The applicant has been advised to be present this evening. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Mr.Joe Durbala stated they are applying for a new liquor license because the state .statutes say that . although they are in the same complex.a new license must be applied for . since their physical address is changing.He announced the bar manager,Joe REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 8 OF 36 Phelan,was also present to answer any questions.They have a staff of approximately 50 people and they have all attended the liquor school. Mayor Coleman commented one of the reasons they have always asked applicants to attend these hearings is because Mr.Durbala always insisted on asking the liquor school question. Councilmember Sippel asked when they would be moving. Mr.Joe Durbala stated they do not have a set date as they are remodeling.They are hoping for late December or early January. knows that area very well. do a lot of plumbing work in there. to.also. Councilmember Sippel commented he Mr.Joe Durbala stated they had to Councilmember Sippel stated he had Mr.Joe Durbala stated they would like to invite the council to attend the grand opening.They will send a notice once i t becomes official. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion.There being no further discussion,he called for a motion. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW LICENSE,CLUB,SERIES 14 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR LAWRENCE C. GARRETT VFW #7968 SUBMITTED BY ELMER JOSEPH DURBALA BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 9 OF 36 The motion carried. FISCAL YEAR 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REGIONAL ACCOUNT AND STATE SPECIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL PROJECT RESEARCH )CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson briefed the council on the item.She stated staff was directed at the October 5,2004,meeting to do research on a short list of projects for possible Community Development Block Grant Regional Account and State Special Projects Fiscal Year 2005 applications.The regional account is for a project that will be completed in 2 years:the fund is for $300,000 and is a guaranteed grant.The special projects grant must be for a project that will be completed in 1 year and i t is a competitive grant:i t is also for $300,000 but i t is not guaranteed.The short list of projects were the expansion of the teen center at the library,800 megahertz communications system for the police department,a water detention basin on the north side of 4th Avenue between Pinal and Cedar,street,curb and gutter on Cedar between Broadway to south of 16th Avenue,and emergency housing rehab assistance.The details of the research are included in the packets.Staff is requesting direction to prepare applications for the selected projects and which prbject will be submitted for each grant.Council also has the option of directing staff to do further research. Councilmember Milkey asked if there are police development fees to make up the additional monies needed if the communications system project is recommended for both grant applications and is in excess of $600,000. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated there are additional monies of about $500,000 in police development fees. Vice Mayor Eck commented that i f only one of the two were approved,they could still do it. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated it depends on the cost of the actual project.Whatever the total amount ends up being for the project,only half of the total amount could actually be used:if the project costs $800,000,than $400,000 could be used. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 10 OF 36 Councilmember Sippel stated if we get the $600,000,and the total project cost is $800,000,they can use the development fees for the rest. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Eck reiterated they could use $400,000 of the $800,000 project. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated they could use up to $400.000:they would not have to use all of the amount.The maximum is half of the project. Mayor Coleman asked if they could use half of what they have in development fees. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated they can use half of what the total project cost will be. If they can attribute it will be necessitated by future growth.that is what the impact fees are for. Mayor Coleman commented they have $1,000,000 in development fees for the library.He asked if they could pay up to $500,000 if the project was $300.000,and then realized it goes by the total cost of the project so they could only use $150,000. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated the city has approximately $1,000,000 in library development fees at this time.They are currently negotiating with the potential architect for the expansion of the library.One of their first tasks is to find out what the program will be.The idea for the teen center as a potential candidate made sense because i t is on the east side which is the newer side that may not need as much expansion.It would be completely separate.If that project is not funded,the teen center will compete against all different divisions from a community perspective of adult services.It may not be the number one ranked project.Pam advised him that they had over 1,000 people come in over the last weekend and only a few were teens.The emphasis may not be the teen center:it may have a difficult time getting to be one of the top projects when they program the expansion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16.2004 PAGE 11 OF 36 Mayor Coleman commented they have no development fees for water retention. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented he thought they had some development fees for street,sidewalk,curb and gutter. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated they do.They are attributed to future growth.When they get into the maintenance mode of curb,gutter.and sidewalk going back,those funds could not be used.They are not a potential revenue source. Vice Mayor Eck asked if development fees can be used citywide or only in growth areas.He asked if development fees could be used in an older neighborhood. Assistant City Manager they could not unless i t is for capacity building issues.If they add capacity to i t because of the growth.then they could be used. Vice Mayor Eck commented they are trying to do a separate issue here that the Community Development Block Grant is all about with the area chosen. Councilmember Waldron asked if they were seeking out any other funds for the 800 megahertz system. Police Commander Terry McDonald stated he is sure they are. Councilmember Waldron asked i f those funds are on a competitive basis.He wanted to know if they can count on that money. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated there are two competitive applications right now.One is a grant to the Homeland Security where the city partnered with the City of Phoenix and the City of Mesa.He is not involved with that so he is not sure of its status.The other application recently submitted was to the Law Enforcement REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 12 OF 36 Terrorism Prevention Program for $800.000.The city will know by the end of this year if they have received those funds. Councilmember Sippel asked if they would know in a month. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated he was told they would know by December 31. Councilmember Sippel asked when he would have to start moving on these applications. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated one is due June 1 and one is due May 1. Councilmember Sippel asked what would happen if they do not get the earlier grants. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated his philosophy is to assume that they will not get the funds. Councilmember Sippel asked if they would still have enough time for them if they do not get the earlier grants. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated there is. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. Vice Mayor Eck commented he believes the 800 megahertz communications system is a priority.He thinks that should be their first choice.He does not believe the storm water issue is feasible and that the teen center is questionable for the library.He believes they have a lot of development fee funding available to where they can do the expansion.His second choice would be the improvements on Cedar Avenue south of 16th Avenue. Mayor Coleman asked which was more doable between the storm water project and the street improvement project. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 13 OF 36 City Engineer Ron Grittman stated the detention basin at the dog track is estimated at $2.7 million.They are looking at several years out due to the negotiations that are needed.The Cedar Avenue project will have its design completed by the end of this year: it will sit on the shelf waiting to be funded.The Cedar project would be ready and waiting to go. Mayor Coleman asked if staff needs direction this evening. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated he would like direction this evening if the council is satisfied with the research staff has done.They would like their indication as to which project they would like for each application.They have enough time to do further research if needed and come back to them at a December meeting. Councilmember Waldron commented i t is nice that they will know about the 800 megahertz money before the deadline.There are a couple of other projects;he still supports the library project.The one on Cedar Avenue is also needed.He would like to know what the results are regarding the money from the state.They are handing out approximately $27 million for homeland security. Vice Mayor Eck asked if he was okay if they keep it the way i t is with all 4 projects,or if he needed specific direction tonight. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated they do not need specifics tonight,but they will need them before too long so that they can start the application.It would be the council's pleasure to wait until they could find out. change it. stated they could. Mayor Coleman asked if they could Grants Specialist Roger Hacker Mayor Coleman stated he would like to use the regional account for the 800 megahertz system and the special account for the street improvements on Cedar. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 14 OF 36 CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson stated they need to understand that the environmental review assessment which would have to be done with a street project,water, detention basin,and any construction such as the library,has to be complete and accompany the application for the state special projects.This process took six months with the Food Bank.If they are looking at a project that has to have a full environmental review assessment,she suggested they go on the regional account with that particular project. swap those two projects. Melinda Larson stated that is correct. , need an environmental assessment. Mayor Coleman stated they should CDBG Administrative Assistant Vice Mayor Eck asked if they would Councilmember Milkey stated he thinks they would like to go for the 800 megahertz communications system for the police department for both grants.If they are able to get some of the money before the end of the year.they could then convert the regional account application to another project. Mayor Coleman asked what the chances are for getting both grants for the communications system. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker stated as long as they can show that there will be quantifiable results from each application,they have a good chance.They can show that there will be a benefit to the residents by the regional account grant,and they can show that another phase of the program funded by the state special projects has quantifiable results to the community.As a grant writer he believes the library and the megahertz communications system are much more compelling and much easier to write because they can talk about public safety,safety of the officers,the literacy of children and the youth,and things like that. Those kinds of projects help insure more points when they are graded. There was general discussion on the projects needing the environmental assessment. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 15 OF 36 CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson stated she checked with the Arizona Department of Housing and all three of those projects would need the full environmental review assessment. Councilmember Sippel commented they should put the communications system in for both grants,and if they get the other grant it would be extra money. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Milkey MOVED THAT STAFF BE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION REGARDING FISCAL YEAR 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REGIONAL ACCOUNT AND STATE SPECIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL PROJECT RESEARCH:THAT STAFF PURSUE AN APPLICATION THAT GARNERS SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM UPGRADE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,INCLUDING AN 800 MEGAHERTZ COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. Councilmember Sippel SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Waldron asked if they would have enough time for an environmental review for one of the other projects by the June deadline,such as the library,if the money comes through for the 800 megahertz by the end of the year. CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson stated they may be cutting it close.If things go smoothly, it could be done in 3 months.Hopefully,they would probably have enough time.They have to send out letters to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Native American tribes for the entire area. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Mayor Coleman called for a ten minute break. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 16 OF 36 Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting. GPA-1-03.WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN MAJOR AMENDMENT )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.He stated this is a major text amendment to add a water resources element.I t is required by the Arizona state legislature Growing Smarter Plus legislation,adopted in 2000.I t requires cities of a certain size to have development issues in their general plans. There are 13 primary points to the required element:the city's legally and physically known available surface water,groundwater and effluent supplies: the demand for water that will result from future growth;analysis of how the demand for water that will result from future growth projected in the general plan will be served by the water supplies identified previously;a plan to obtain additional water supply;the quality of the water;who has the legal rights to the water:if there are sufficient water resources available to provide an assured water supply for the projected build out population of the city:the status of the current water distribution system;timing of the expansion of the water distribution system;the potential cost of the future improvements of the water supply,storage and distribution systems and how these improvements will be funded;how future water service will be provided within the city and what are the options and issues related to the provision; whether there are water quality issues that will effect the cost or availability of the water and what measures are necessary to protect the quality of the water;what role should groundwater recharge or water recycling play in the future;and what city policies and actions are needed to insure an adequate water supply and distribution system and accomplish those goals.Staff has been working on this element for about a year and a half.The public participation portion of the analysis started on March 23, 2004,when the planning and zoning commission reviewed the draft outline. All hearings were open to the public to make general public comment on the proposal.A technical memorandum was distributed on April 27.2004,which talks about the goals and objectives and was discussed on May 25,2004.On June 27,2004,staff and commissions made annotation-s.The formal recommendation from the planning and zoning commission will occur next Tuesday.Neighborhood meetings were held on August 4,2004,and October 13. 2004.Public participation has been primarily crafting the goals,objectives and policies.He thanked the commission for their expert review and consideration of the objectives.Many of the changes are from their analysis and input.The lined out items and additions were the changes the commission REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 17 OF 36 requested staff to go back to the consultant with.Most of them are format related.The most substantial item is that the study area currently goes down to the Ray Road alignment:the commission would like a statement or disclaimer of sorts stating that depending on what happens with the State Trust land to the south,many of the numbers may have to be re-evaluated in the future.The numbers are contingent on that development.What occurs down south will have a definite impact on the numbers of today.The hydrologic report,the element,city participation and an outline of the citizen participation is in their packets and is available for citizen review at the development services department.There is a timeline for adoption on the website.This is a public hearing only and this should come back for council review on December 7,2004,for potential adoption. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and moved on to the next item. GPA-4-04,GENERAL PLAN MAJOR GRAPHIC AMENDMENT TO REDESIGNATE PLUS OR MINUS 145 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, POTENTIAL PARK SITES AND TRAILS/ LANDSCAPING TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL,LAND BOUNDED BY BASELINE ON THE NORTH,RAY ON THE SOUTH,MERIDIAN ON THE WEST AND TOMAHAWK ON THE EAST )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.He stated this addresses the sewer odor easements surrounding the sewer process and treatment plant located just south of the Guadalupe Road alignment and Ironwood Drive.The odor easement is required because of an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality mandate that any of these sewer treatment facilities have a 1,000'buffer around them for any odor issues or possible negative externalities experienced by such an operating facility.This amendment will aid the sewer district in purchasing the odor easement which is inextricably linked by the State Land Department to the designation of that property on our current general plan.The State Land Department is currently assessing the value of the current designation which is placing it out of reach of the sewer district and their budgetary capacity.Staff has come up with a number of alternatives.Alternative one represents the redesignation of the sewer odor easement only.This alternative is essentially negated due to the northern tier owned by Central REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 18 OF 36 Arizona Project and is currently their right-of-way.He has attempted to contact them to see if they have ever sold right-of-way to a developer.He has not received a reply and has no knowledge of that occurring in the recent past.The commission has been reviewing and considering alternatives three and five.Alternative three is a redesignation of the northern tier and eastern tier to public/institutional.Alternative five is a redesignation of the northern tier and eastern tier,except for the open space trail is relocated around the outside edge of the easement.Staff has attempted to analyze what could be the negative points of the alternatives.Those would be designating this area as high density as alternative four would establish a bizarre land use pattern being that the development site would be bordered by power lines on the south,against the Central Arizona Project canal,and being somewhat off the major arterial roadway of Ironwood.Staff asked that the commission consider some of the land uses that generally occur at the intersections of mid -section line roads and arterials.Staff has not made a formal recommendation to the commission.Because of the elimination of some of the other alternatives,i t appears alternatives three or fi've would be the proper way to pursue.The public/institutional area would serve as an odor. easement buffer and it could be the place to put a future public .service facility campus for use by the fire district or .the public works department. be an ideal use with that 1,000'easement. stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Eck commented that would Associate Planner Steve Abraham Vice Mayor Eck commented they would not be able to put residential in that 1,000'buffer area. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the odor easement is already a given.Staff was looking at the surrounding areas and what to change those designations to that would be appropriate to the land use development plan that is in the area now and also reflect the future goals for the area.Heading east on the mid -section line alignment there is open space,a possible fire district training facility, and the public works yard.On the south there would be high density residential,moving to a more medium density product.The area to the north with the Central Arizona Project canal would service the trails feature through the area.The multi -family use in the area may be incompatible. Public input has been centered around on where the amendment is taking place. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 19 OF 36 All publications have shown where the amendment is taking place.There has been no public input as to the preference of an alternative.This amendment will go to the planning and zoning commission for formal recommendation next Tuesday.It will be reviewed again by the council on December 7,2004. Mayor Coleman asked if they could ask questions about the roads or just the easement. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they can ask anything they want about the map as i t is part of the presentation. Mayor Coleman commented they had talked about a highway running from Apache Junction to Coolidge.He believed it was to be Idaho Road because State Route 88 going north is Idaho Road;he thought they would extend that going south and make it State Route 88 to Coolidge.On the map there is a bend and the road splits and goes over to Ironwood and Tomahawk.The Idaho Road alignment makes a lot of sense.I f i t is too close to Meridian.it may affect the ability to put commercial down further south by the airport.He believes they want to have that commercial. He believes this is something they should look at. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the 1999 General Plan was done a while before the Small Area Transportation Plan that shows the highway going down.A future general plan amendment could include that Small Area Transportation Plan and realign that highway.It would make even more sense for this area to be switched to public/institutional. Mayor Coleman commented if they wait it would have to be voted on separately. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t would be a new amendment if they want the map changed to show the roads. That is not the particular issue on this item but it does involve the map. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated he and Ron Grittman are presently participating in 3 different committees sponsored by the Arizona Department of Transportation to study future Pinal County corridor alignments.It is a technical advisory committee.He is participating on the US 60 bypass corridor siting study: REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 20 OF 36 Ron is participating in the Apache Junction -Coolidge highway and the Williams Gateway highway study.The work of the group will be completed in about a year;they started 2 months ago.They hope to incorporate our Small Area Transportation Study into the transportation element of the general plan this year.Once they have a better knowledge of where those future corridors will go,they will want to put those into the plan as well.There is a lot of study and recommendations going on right now. Councilmember Insalaco agreed that the alignment through Idaho would make more sense than going closer to Meridian.He asked how close it would be to that 1000 feet. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated it would still be east of there.He showed them on the map where it would be. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and moved on to the next item. GPA-3-04,GENERAL PLAN MAJOR GRAPHIC AMENDMENT EXPANDING THE FUTURE PLANNING AREA OF THE 1999 CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO ENCOMPASS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS OR MINUS 40 SQUARE MILES BOUNDED BY MERIDIAN ON THE WEST, GERMANN ON THE SOUTH,AND US 60 ON THE EAST )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.He stated this amendment does not propose any detailed land planning of the expansion area.I t is proposed to be identified as future planning area.It has followed a similar public hearing path as the previous amendment.Public input has primarily come from Gold Canyon residents expressing a desire to have an area reserved for future Gold Canyon growth.This item will be before the planning and zoning commission next Tuesday and before the city council for additional review on December 7, 2004.A neighborhood meeting was held on this item on October 14,2004,at which no additional public input was received. Mayor Coleman commented that this also does not show the proposed US 60 bypass for Gold Canyon. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 21 OF 36 There were no other comments from any other council members.Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the bypass is on the Small Area Transportation Plan. There being no further comments, Mayor Coleman closed the item and moved on to the next item. GPA-6-04,PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT )Associate Planner Charles Beck briefed the council on the item.The state legislature has mandated that all municipalities and counties implement a system called Early Public Review To the Development Process within their community.Staff,the city council and the planning and zoning commission have put together a public participation process for all items that go through the public hearing process,including variances,general plans and planned development.This brings the applicant more into the process:there is more interaction.There is a pre -application meeting wherein staff does a complete review of the process with team members.The applicant receives information on what needs to be presented for submittal.The applicant develops a strategy to be presented to staff: upon approval by staff,the applicant then presents the information at a neighborhood meeting,where issues that are brought to them then need to be addressed in a report which becomes part of the public process staff report. The report must address the issues and how they will be resolved.This process should prevent the public from hearing issues no more than 15 days prior to action being taken:they should hopefully hear about them months in advance.This allows for more access and input.The city has added some things that are not in some of the other processes throughout the county and state:as part of the implementation,the applicant has to notify all property owners within 300'plus the nearest school district.This brings the school district impact into the process.The applicant must also post the site within 20 days prior to the public hearing:i t is normally 15 days. The pre -submittal process is also new and i t has now been codified and is now a requirement. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 22 OF 36 Mrs.Anne Marie Surra,1150 E. Estevan,Apache Junction,addressed the council.She stated she has seen 2 separate things that were being developed in her neighborhood that the council had requested through planning and zoning to have meetings with the developer in order to allay any fears or concerns.It resulted in projects that were much more readily acceptable and compatible to the neighborhood. This should be a regular part of the process;she thinks it will be beneficial to any neighborhood that has development near them.She is for the amendment.She encouraged some big planning with the school district. Any residential development impacts the school district,their ability to accommodate the population and where they place their schools.The city had tried to address that earlier through development impact fees but the state did not see fit to do that.She can see that building that into this portion is their way of addressing that:they may be able to have access to some land or other amenities from the developers. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak and moved on to the next item. GPA-2-04,DEFINITION OF MAJOR AND MINOR AMENDMENTS )Associate Planner Charles Beck briefed the council on the item.He stated this is pursuant to Growing Smarter legislation.Cities are required to define major and minor amendments to the general plan.The city can define its own criteria.The definition within the statutes is that "an amendment is a substantial alteration of the municipality's land use mixture or balance as established within the municipality's existing general plan land use element".Council decisions must define a major amendment,define a minor amendment,and establish a deadline for major amendment proposal submittals.Major amendments can only be seen once a year and must be adopted within that one year process.Basically all major amendments go to the council once a year at the same time.A minor amendment has been defined as an amendment to the City of Apache Junction 1999 General Plan which,by default,is anything that is not a major amendment.A major amendment is where the elements get involved.The proposal represents a substantial alteration to the city land use mixture or balance.Staff is recommending that that these be taken to the planning and zoning commission and to the public for their review of the land use balance matrix.Some of the items are low density residential definition and the proposals for what that would mean if a particular project would come in,such as GR,R-143,the loss of 5 to 20 acres of that REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 23 OF 36 particular land use mixture or balance within the community would be a minor amendment.A loss of more than 20 acres would be a major amendment. Whenever the mixture or balance changes within the community for any land use category that is being rezoned to another category,the community must decide which land use is important for that particular community.Staff recommends, and the planning and zoning commission concurs,that all applications will be collected until May 15;after that a new process year will begin.From May 15 to some time in July,staff will develop an analysis and make a report on those major amendments.At that time two planning and zoning commission hearings will be held.After a 60 day public review period,they go to the city council for action. Vice Mayor Eck stated as an example there is a 10 acre parcel that at a later date the owner wants to change to medium density residential from general rural.I t has a low density overlay. He asked if that is a general plan amendment. Associate Planner Charles Beck stated the question the council has to decide is if the -minor amendment definition will declare it maximum size for a minor amendment to be 5 acres, 10 acres or 20 acres.They have their balance and their thresholds,they need to determine how far they will go.They also have to consider that the acreages add up.They may only use 3 acres at one rezoning,but at later rezonings they could lose 40 to 50 acres for the year.I t could be a possibility,yet none of them may be major amendments. Vice Mayor Eck asked if it would be a major amendment going from low density to medium density. Associate Planner Charles Beck stated it would be in most cases,unless i t is already in the plan or on the map.He gave an example on what would happen when 5 acres of general rural zoned land gets rezoned to R-110 to subdivide for 20 homes.The general plan calls for medium density.It has a conflict with the general plan policies, so a major amendment would be required.Another example would be general rural zoned property with the applicant wanting to build an indoor storage facility.The general plan calls for employment/retail.I t needs to be rezoned to C-3/PD to bring the parcel into compliance with the general plan. This requires a minor amendment. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 24 OF 36 Vice Mayor Eck asked if they are planning on doing a major amendment and i t is June,would they have to wait until May to apply for it. Associate Planner Charles Beck stated i f i t is determined through the criteria to be a major amendment,i t will have to wait until that one time of the year.It is a state statute;i t will happen every where in the state. Vice Mayor Eck commented the control they have is on the definition. Associate Planner Charles Beck stated the control they have is on the mixture and balance within the community. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated if they have 10 acres zoned general rural in an area designated low density,and someone wants to rezone that to medium density, the way that the matrix is written out states that basically a loss of 5 to 20 acres would be a minor amendment.That 10 acres would not trigger a major general plan amendment.That is the way i t is proposed but those numbers can change.A loss of more than 20 acres or more would be a major amendment. Staff is asking the planning and zoning commission and council if they are comfortable with losing 5 to 20 acres in a low density area to a medium density rezoning.or do they want to lower or raise that number. Vice Mayor Eck commented he was trying to bring up an example of something that seems to appear in front of them realistically. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated Charles brought up a good point.There could be a whole series of one acre rezonings that would not individually trigger general plan amendments.Someone clever and patient enough could rezone a bunch of parcels one at a time and end up with a medium density area. Mayor Coleman commented they would still have to change the zoning. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 25 OF 36 Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Eck commented it would then go to a public vote. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated the major amendments go to a public vote,the minor amendments would not. Vice Mayor Eck commented they would probably not want a major amendment on a one acre parcel.He would not like to see a lot split go to a public vote if they can control that. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented they had talked about voter involvement.After looking at the matrix,she wanted them to be aware that if someone came in between September and October,it would be too late for the September or November election. The soonest election i t could be on is March. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on this item. Mrs.Anne Marie Surra,1150 E. Estevan,Apache Junction.addressed the council.She stated this is one of the most confusing issues that the general public has.I t is hard to ask for their input when they are not clear about definitions,where i t is coming from and how it will impact them.She agreed with Rudy that someone very patient and astute could manipulate anything that is done.She thinks i f they want to have more control yet take less things to the ballot box,the people should not be concerned about voting on every little rezoning.They need to have some of the definitions give the power back to the planning and zoning commission and the council.This means some of the definitions would have to put things under the minor amendments to forego the public vote.She does not understand half of this,but knows it will take more study on their part and a lot more consideration on their part.She, asked them to be careful on where they set the definitions to make a major amendment.Keep more things under the city's control;do not give the state more control. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 26 OF 36 Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated they could bring this or all of the amendments back to the council for another work session/discussion on December 6,2004. There was general discussion by the council.The consensus was to bring only this one item back on December 6, 2004. Ms.Shelly Jensen,1265 N.Warner, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She asked if this would increase the applications going to the planning and zoning commission and if it would increase or decrease the council workload.She also asked how it was called to staff's attention. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated the city is required by Growing Smarter legislation to incorporate or to include into our general plan a definition of what a major amendment is and what a minor amendment is.They are trying to define what those are given the needs of the community.In Phoenix,200 acres triggers a major amendment:here i t is a good chunk of the city.There are huge differences between Phoenix and Apache Junction.We need to find out what numbers work for us.Their workload will increase either way. Mayor Coleman commented a major amendment,according to the Growing Smarter legislation.has to go to the ballot box to be voted on by the community.They need to determine the threshold for that to occur.This amendment itself has to be voted on by the public.Whatever threshold they put,the community has to either back i t up or tell them to go back to the drawing board. City Attorney Joel Stern stated this may be a text amendment to the general plan of 1999.He is not sure the definitions will have to go to the voters.He will .have a definite answer on December 6,2004. Ms.Shelly Jensen agreed with Mrs. Surra so far as the state trying to govern where the city spends money and what they do in each city.She thinks there has to be a way to monitor it. such as increasing the acreage or a certain parcel or section,or how many splits or zoning changes i t has been through in a certain amount of time. She asked if that would be another way to monitor it.An example was given REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 27 OF 36 of someone being sneaky and breaking down a parcel to go to medium density. She asked if they could monitor i t by checking how many zoning changes i t had gone through,and how recent. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that is another alternative definition.The staff report has several examples of what other cities do.Tempe talks about major and minor amendments in terms of percentage of land.A specific plan that decreased any land use category within the area by one percent would be a major amendment.However.Tempe is landlocked and has different needs.Any difference in their land use mixture could have a major impact on the community. Ms.Shelly Jensen asked if that was a percentage within the city limits. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct.Apache Junction also has percentages when the land use is broken down.They could do a calculation as to how much the city is of each land use designation.Instead of talking about acreages and units lost or gained,they could say that the moment anything exceeds 1%or 5% of the existing land use mixture,it would require a major amendment. Ms.Shelly Jensen asked if they monitored applicants coming in to change the zonings,such as from CB -1 to CB -2 or CB -3,and are turned away,leave,or are never heard from again. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated they do keep public records.He asked if she was asking i f they monitor the land use mixture as a whole. Ms.Shelly Jensen stated she was talking about the activity,such as someone applying for a rezoning and then not getting what they wanted,so they leave.She asked if that is monitored. Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated i t is not. Vice Mayor Eck stated each case is handled individually. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 28 OF 36 Associate Planner Charles Beck commented he is available Monday through Friday if anyone wants to come down and discuss this item in more detail. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak and moved on to the next item. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUATION OF THE LOCAL ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION -HOME RULE OPTION )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.She stated the voters approved an initiative in 1980 for the Local Alternative Expenditure Limitation.Apache Junction is under this and it means that the city can only spend a certain amount of money unless the city voters every 4 years give their approval to exceed that limit.This went to the voters in 2001 and they approved exceeding that limit.They are now back in 2005 to seek approval for the next 4 years:it will be on the primary election ballot.The legislation also required two public hearings on the matter.This is the first public hearing;the second will be on December 7,2004.The legislation states that immediately after the second public hearing a special meeting has to be convened to vote on placing the issue in front of the voters.There will be a regular meeting,convened to a special meeting,and then they will go back to the regular meeting on December 7,2004.The form of what is sent to the voters will be the resolution;contained in the resolution will be the ballot language.She added that Pat Brenner was here to speak about the figures. Community Relations Manager Pat Brenner stated this is commonly known as home rule.I t is the option under which the city council makes budget decisions for the city at home rather than using a state imposed limitation formula.It does not authorize the city to levy new taxes or give any additional powers to itself.The election takes place every 4 years;the next will be March 8,2005.He stated in the summer of 1980 the state legislature referred to voters a constitutional amendment designed to limit the annual expenditures of all Arizona cities and towns by a formula.To determine the expenditure limitation,the state established the years 1979 and 1980 as a base year to make calculations. Adjustments for population and inflation are added to this base year.The base year is critical because i t is the foundation upon which all future budget adjustments are made.Apache Junction is unique in that its base year was the city's first complete fiscal year.It is not typical for most cities REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 29 OF 36 in Arizona.Since this was the city's first year,i t had a very small budget and population.There were approximately 4,000 people in the community.The 1979-1980 budget did not have a budget for library services.Therefore,the state limitation for library services today would allow zero dollars to be adjusted for inflation and growth.If the voters renew home rule again,as they have done in every election since 1985,it will not affect balancing the budget.The city is already required by state law to have a balanced budget. It allows the city to spend the general fund monies that have been accrued for programs and services that citizens feel are essential today,such as police,parks,library services and other expenditures.If the voters reject the home rule option,it would mean that the city must set its annual budget under a state imposed formula.The formula penalizes growth in fast-growing cities such as Apache Junction and Gilbert,where inflation and population figures do not reflect current needs and demands for services.Its failure would necessitate a cut of approximately one-third of the general fund budget over the next 4 years,amounting to $7,590,000 in 2005/2006.The city could not spend that amount even though i t is available.The dollars pile up throughout the 4 years,with a cumulative effect of non -passage of the home rule option being $33,803,000.These funds could not be spent on police, parks,library services and other programs. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Mrs.Anne Surra,1150 E.Estevan, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She asked if there was a way they could get around having to vote every 4 years on this and still have the right to spend the money that has been paid in taxes on all of these services.She encouraged them to look at any option that would allow them to do this.She thought this had been talked about 4 years ago and is surprised that they are doing it again.She believes the majority of the people who understand what this means will be supportive of the city being allowed to spend the money that is collected in sales tax dollars in order to provide the needed services.They need to get out enough education to the public before the election.She commented she had thought it was at the general election in May,not the primary in March.She stated as many of the population need to be educated about this as possible so that they will understand how terrible it would be to have money in the pot and not be able to spend it.It would be terrible if that ever came to pass.She again encouraged them to explore the possibility of not having to do this every 4 years. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 30 OF 36 Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. Vice Mayor Eck asked if there is legislation that could change this. City Manager George Hoffman stated he believes they have the ability under law to go to the voters to ask for a permanent change. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct,but it would still be an election.The -question would be different as it would be permanent. City Manager George Hoffman asked i f it would establish a new base. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t would not.It would be a permanent change:they would not have to go through it every 4 years. City Manager George Hoffman commented he thought there was some type of numerical value attached to it. commented she was not sure. is not a numerical base. 2004 figures. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t Vice Mayor Eck asked if they use City Attorney Joel Stern stated they would basically exempt themselves out.They would get authorization from the voters to do that. Vice Mayor Eck asked if that would be permanent. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 31 OF 36 would. should go ahead and do that. his recollection is different from that. look into it without giving any direction. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t Councilmember Sippel commented they City Manager George Hoffman stated Mayor Coleman agreed. Vice Mayor Eck asked if they could City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated i t is too late for this next set.There are some pros and cons to doing it: there are formulas,and certain uses have to be identified.The question is if they have a 4 year voter approval,can they insert another one in mid- cycle,and which one is used. There was general discussion on looking into the matter and regarding another community that had done i t 2 years ago. Vice Mayor Eck commented he was concerned about someone going to the polls to vote no on another issue and this could be following i t and be in jeopardy. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no further comments and moved on to the next item. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED AGENDA ITEMS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 32 OF 36 None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON OTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS DISCUSSION ON SALT RIVER PROJECT'S PROPOSED ROUTE AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO SALT RIVER PROJECT FOR PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT )Mayor Coleman commented this had been discussed at the work session last night. City Manager George Hoffman stated i t is for the westernmost line,the one that goes up the Central Arizona Project canal.They also showed an eastern one. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated Salt River Project has to show 2 or 3 different alternatives. constraints,threats and opportunities to the line siting committee by law. Staff would support a recommendation to do the western alignment. Mayor Coleman commented they want to word this that i t is for the Apache Junction area only and that it does not reflect on approving the area down by Casa Grande.They do not want to speak for Casa Grande because he is aware they have some concerns. City Manager George Hoffman stated it would be the proposed planning area down to Germann. Assistant'City Manager Bryant Powell commented it would be stated that way if that is their desire. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT STAFF BE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION REGARDING PROVIDING A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO SALT RIVER PROJECT FOR THEIR PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT:THAT WE PROVIDE THAT LETTER BUT SPECIFY THAT IT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 33 OF 36 IS FOR OUR AREA AND OUR FUTURE PLANNING AREA ONLY ALONG THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT CANAL. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS,AND PURPOSES Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.AND WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.BE HELD ON MONDAY,DECEMBER 6,2004,IN THE CITY CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.RESPECTIVELY:AND THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,DECEMBER 7,2004,IN THE CITY CONFERENCE ROOM. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Councilmember Waldron thanked the parks and recreation department for setting up the gazebo,the public works department for putting out all of the barricades,the police department for their traffic control and color guard for leading the parade at a very successful Veterans'Day Parade.They had a fly over of F -16s,but only 3 of the 4 showed up.He appreciated everyone's attendance and participation. Vice Mayor Eck complimented Councilmember Waldron for being the individual responsible for the entire event.He did a great job. Councilmember Waldron also thanked Councilmember Insalaco for announcing the parade. ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 34 OF 36 )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of Agenda. 2.Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 2,2004. 3.Consideration of Resolution No.04-29,Authorization for the Mayor to execute all required documents in furtherance of the City's 2005-2006 "HOME"submittal process. 4.Appointment of new member to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a term to expire June 30,2006. ACCEPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER ,2004,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER ,2004. DOUGLAS COyEMAN Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 35 OF 36 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,held on the 16th day of November,2004.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 30th day of November,2004. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2004 PAGE 36 OF 36