11.
City Council Work Session
- Meeting Date:
- 06/11/2013
- Submitted For:
- Kevin Burke, City Manager
- From:
- Jerene Watson, Deputy City Manager
- Department:
Co-Submitter:
TITLE:
Position on proposed 2014 resolutions for consideration by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
DESIRED OUTCOME:
Council to:
(1) Review and discuss requests received from other cities asking for support in signing onto their resolutions, providing staff direction on support;
(2) Review and discuss the one staff-proposed resolution, providing direction to staff on submission for League consideration; and,
(3) Provide any additional recommendations for resolutions on areas of need, concern or support that you would like to have the City propose for consideration by the League's Resolutions Committee.
(2) Review and discuss the one staff-proposed resolution, providing direction to staff on submission for League consideration; and,
(3) Provide any additional recommendations for resolutions on areas of need, concern or support that you would like to have the City propose for consideration by the League's Resolutions Committee.
| No. | Draft 2014 Proposed Cities & Towns Resolution Summaries | Sponsor | Co-Sponsor |
Flagstaff Staff Comment |
| 1 | Amend Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 (Criminal Code) to include criminal damage by graffiti and ensure that restitution for graffiti includes all costs of a victim associated with graffiti abatement. | City of Yuma |
SUPPORT: Graffiti is a growing problem here in Flagstaff; costs for abatement continue to increase. Additional penalties and sanctions, (especially restitution to victims for damages) for those responsible makes sense. – Kevin Treadway & Pat Bourque SUPPORT: Clearly defines sentencing guidelines; calls for restitution of some type by schools, government entities and other often overlooked victims, any discussion and possible action brings the high cost of graffiti abatement to the forefront. – Tom Boughner |
|
| 2 | Urges the Legislature to stop future sweeps of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) allocated to Arizona cities and towns, and to restore HURF funding to FY2008 levels. | City of Yuma | SUPPORT: May yield additional funding for the city’s street pavement management as state revenues rise. --Mike O’Connor & Pat Bourque | |
| 3 | Urges the Legislature to amend A.R.S. § 39-121.01 to place reasonable balances on the frequency of requests for public records and requests that are overbroad or abusive. Such limitations mainly include limiting the numbers of requests from individuals or groups that result in tying up personnel and resources at a significant cost, and which also result in citizens needing information having to wait extended periods of time behind these abusive requestors. | City of Yuma |
SUPPORT: The public records resolution is definitely “on point” and badly needed. The emphasis seems to be strongly on disclosure and making public records available; what would be most helpful is if public records law allowed agencies to charge for research time – that’s the big black hole for staff time and resources; less need to limit the number of requests someone can submit in a period time. – Susan Alden SUPPORT: Flagstaff PD has experienced the “shotgun” approach on public records requests described in this initiative; seeing an increase of requests from public defender’s office/other attorney’s offices—appears as a “fishing expedition” in an attempt to discredit the testimony or credibility of officers. Additionally, these types of requests on the rise from special interest groups who attempt to formulate a hypothesis on a topic only after receiving a large volume of records; activities are costly and time consuming for our employees. – Kevin Treadway SUPPORT with changes: allow cities to charge for time rather than limit the number of requests.— Kevin Burke (Call has been made to Yuma asking if this would be acceptable). |
|
| 4 | Urges the Legislature to partner with cities and towns for the operation and maintenance of Arizona State Parks (ASP) under long term leases, for a nominal amount, and to participate financially by providing for a dedicated funding mechanism to share a portion of the costs. | City of Yuma |
NEUTRAL: There are currently no state parks within the City that we provide operation or maintenance expenses for. Formerly we did provide maintenance at Riordan Mansion when it was operated by State Parks. – Steve Zimmerman |
|
| 5 | Request that A.R.S. 34-603 C1e, change state law to allow a final contract option which allows the use by procurement of final list until a contract for construction is entered into and that the Agent may pursue negotiations for pre-construction services with other persons on the list under these conditions: the agent shall not in that procurement re-commence negotiations or enter into a contract for the construction or professional services covered by the final list with any person or firm on the final list with whom the agent has terminated negotiations. | City of Sedona |
SUPPORT: alternate project delivery methods (final contract options). The Resolution essentially allows the procurement process to stay open until the GMP is agreed to. Currently, the procurement process is terminated when a pre-construction services agreement is entered into but then GMP negotiations can reach in impasse, resulting in a new procurement process. – Rick Barrett A huge benefit and value added proposition to be in a position to legally construct a project using the second lowest Proposer when you aren’t able to obtain a satisfactory GMP from the first ranked Proposer. This ultimately allows the project to successfully continue to the construction phase, especially when using the benefits of the Construction-Manager-at-Risk approach. On occasion, there are projects where the first ranked Proposer’s GMP is well above the engineer’s estimated GMP, while the second ranked Proposer’s GMP is more in line with the Engineer’s estimate; which allows a project to be completed successfully and sometimes, with the return of some unneeded funds to the owner. – Rick Compau |
|
| 6 |
Urges the authorization of expenditure and full appropriations to restore the Arizona State Park Heritage Funds through the reenactment of repealed ARS 41-501, 503 and 504. |
City of Sedona | SUPPORT: Heritage preservation through our state parks can recycle entire buildings, reducing reliance on new materials and re-using the embodied energy of existing buildings. It can promote architectural diversity and provide spaces for artists, artisans and other cultural groups to practice their crafts while sustaining our local cultural life. Can foster community revitalization, encourage tourism and creates jobs, adding to a strong sense of place for all ages, preserving and creating focal points for important community events. – Karl Eberhard | |
| 7 | Urges the State Legislature to support implementing a pilot program to restrict trucks to the two right-most lanes when traveling on Arizona highways in urban areas with three or more lanes in each direction. |
City of Apache Junction |
SUPPORT: one of most used stats at the CVB shows that 47% of our visitors originate from Arizona and California and more than 53% travel by personal vehicle. A safe travel for these visitors is of the utmost importance. – Heidi Hansen NEUTRAL: Flagstaff [city jurisdiction] does not have any roads with three or more lanes. All roads with three or more lanes in Flagstaff are ADOT jurisdiction. Therefore, we recommend staying neutral on this. – Rick Barrett No need to sign on because it is not relevant for any part of Flagstaff. – Kevin Burke |
|
| 8 |
Urges the Legislature to amend A.R.S. § 23-1022(D) to provide municipalities the option of providing worker’s compensation benefits to employees of another agency when working under the municipality’s control or jurisdiction through an intergovernmental agreement or contract, especially as it relates to public safety personnel. |
Town of Wickenburg | NEUTRAL: When used, which is infrequent, Flagstaff PD uses a "bill out" system to the agency we are assisting if the event is particular to that agency or jurisdiction and our officers remain under FPD policies and control. Most of the incidents where we help another agency is during a crisis or evolving crime, and in these situations, there typically isn’t any billing. The one exception is with NAU sporting events, where our officers sign up to work for NAU through NAU Human Resources and are paid at an NAU rate, (but again work as FPD officers, under our policies, in our uniform, etc.). MOUs may be difficult to develop for most of the other types of activities we are involved in. There may be resistance for outside agencies to accept Workman’s Comp obligations since our officers aren’t technically working for the other agency. – Kevin Treadway | |
| 9 |
Request and encourage the Arizona State Legislature to establish a mechanism enabling local government to establish renewable energy and conservation financing districts. In addition, encourage the Arizona State Legislature to identify and define energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation as a public benefit that enhances the public good and promotes the health, safety, prosperity, security, and general welfare of the community. |
City of Flagstaff | Tucson | PROPOSAL FROM NICOLE WOODMAN, SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER, working with Tucson: Renewable energy and conservation financing district authority enables local government to create a financing mechanism to provide up front funds to commercial property owners for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation improvements. This mechanism would give an option to commercial property owners to finance energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy installation, and water conservation improvements on their property and repay financing through a property assessment, removing a barrier that currently exists. With enabling legislation, local governments could voluntarily elect to establish an office to provide the service to create a more accessible funding mechanism for those commercial property owners who want to take advantage of such a program. |
| STAFF COMMENT: Paul Summerfelt recommends a tactical pause in terms of state legislation for now on Forest Health. Neither the Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council (local area) nor the AZ Fire Chiefs Association (State wide) expressed any interest in supporting last year’s resolution and no position change. The State Forest Health Council did express some interest last fall in picking it up and helping to move it forward in 2013, but that never materialized and there has only been silence since December indicating no strong interest (Council chaired by the State Forester). Even if such a resolution gained some legislative interest, it would not generate the interest or support of key and influential groups that would be necessary for passage and implementation. We have our hands full with the FWPP and other activities. In the meantime, we model, and advocate as appropriate, for what we'd like see happen state-wide, and be ready to step forward - with others- as the future situation unfolds. | ||||
INFORMATION:
Background
Each year the Arizona League of Cities and Towns conducts a Resolutions Process to determine what key issues cities would like the League to follow during the upcoming State Legislative Session (Attachment 1). A Resolutions Committee is seated during the summer to guide the process, with a culmination of the work voted upon at the annual conference, scheduled for the last week of August this year. The Mayor will represent the City on the Resolutions Committee at the annual conference and meet during the Tuesday afternoon of the conference to determine the final resolutions to be supported. These will shape the League’s 2014 legislative program.
Cities are asked to draft resolutions broadly enough to be applicable to all cities and towns across the state that advance common municipal goals. The League’s philosophy is that a focused, strategic policy agenda will yield more results for cities at the Legislature. It is common for the League to take the top five priority resolutions to focus the majority of their resources lobbying on behalf during the Session. As a result, they ask that cities only propose those resolutions they feel are of urgency or high need to make for a smoother process in determining the legislative agenda and increase the likelihood of passage. For issues that have more of a single-city impact, the League encourages cities to lobby for those issues uniquely with their own city resources.
Discussion
It takes two cities to support a resolution in order for it to be considered. The deadline for resolution submission this year is Friday, June 14th. We have been approached to support the resolutions of four other cities found in Attachment 2 which are summarized below:
CONCLUSION:
Staff will prepare any additional resolutions desired and will advise other cities of any Council-directed support, per your direction this evening.
Each year the Arizona League of Cities and Towns conducts a Resolutions Process to determine what key issues cities would like the League to follow during the upcoming State Legislative Session (Attachment 1). A Resolutions Committee is seated during the summer to guide the process, with a culmination of the work voted upon at the annual conference, scheduled for the last week of August this year. The Mayor will represent the City on the Resolutions Committee at the annual conference and meet during the Tuesday afternoon of the conference to determine the final resolutions to be supported. These will shape the League’s 2014 legislative program.
Cities are asked to draft resolutions broadly enough to be applicable to all cities and towns across the state that advance common municipal goals. The League’s philosophy is that a focused, strategic policy agenda will yield more results for cities at the Legislature. It is common for the League to take the top five priority resolutions to focus the majority of their resources lobbying on behalf during the Session. As a result, they ask that cities only propose those resolutions they feel are of urgency or high need to make for a smoother process in determining the legislative agenda and increase the likelihood of passage. For issues that have more of a single-city impact, the League encourages cities to lobby for those issues uniquely with their own city resources.
Discussion
It takes two cities to support a resolution in order for it to be considered. The deadline for resolution submission this year is Friday, June 14th. We have been approached to support the resolutions of four other cities found in Attachment 2 which are summarized below:
CONCLUSION:
Staff will prepare any additional resolutions desired and will advise other cities of any Council-directed support, per your direction this evening.