Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2010 Study Session Minutes~~~ ~A~N~fi ~ii~ ~R MARANA TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11555 W. Civic Center Drive, Marana, Arizona 85653 Date: July 27, 2010 Time: 6:00 p.m. Ed Honea ,Mayor Herb Kai, Vice Mayor Russell Clanagan, Council Member Patti Comerford, Council Member Carol McGorray, Council Member Jon Post, Council Member Roxanne Ziegler, Council Member A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Honea called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Council Member Clanagan was excused. Council Member Post arrived at the dais at 6:05 p.m. There was a quorum present. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Let by Mayor Honea. He noted that he had visited Ora Mae Harn in the afternoon. She is not able to speak, and asked that the audience keep her in their prayers. C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve moved by Council Member McGorray, second by Dice Mayor Kai. Motion carried S-0. D. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION/POSSIBLE ACTION 1. Presentation• Relating to Parks and Recreation; presentation regarding the Town of Marana's 2010 Star Spangled Spectacular Tom Ellis noted that this was another good event for the town, although he thought attendance was down a little from last year. While talking to business owners in the area, they are very happy about holding the event in the Cortaro business district. The fireworks location allowed more people to see the show. He also thanked Red Point Development for the use of Pines II subdivision for the fireworks launch. He noted that there was a little issue with traffic routing for about 15 minutes. Council Member McGorray asked that this be looked into again when planning next year's events. Mayor Honea said that it was a wonderful event and got a lot of good publicity. 2. Presentation• Relating to Parks and Recreation; presentation regarding the planning for the 2011 Founders' Day event(s) Tom Ellis referred to the budget process for 2011 and the discussion about shifting Founders' Day to save about $15,000 and reinvent the event and possibly spread it over several days per talking to people in the community. He has set up some preliminary meetings in August to talk to community and business leaders to coordinate several events in the second or third week of October 2011. This would also be within the time frame to become part of Marana's Arizona celebration which will occur in 2012. He will keep Council informed of the plans as the meetings move forward. He also asked for community participation. 3. Presentation• Relatin~~to Parks and Recreation; presentation and discussion on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Tom Ellis referred to a 300-page document that has been in progress since 2008. He gave a PowerPoint presentation and an overview of the executive summary and give an idea of where they've been, where they are now, and where they anticipate being. The purpose of the plan was to update the 2000 Parks Trails and Open Space Plan that was adopted, and give an overview of recreation programming and facilities -not just for the town but regionally. The plan's primary purpose is to set department direction through 2020 and toward 2030 with five-year updates. The changes now are relative to the Council's adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2009. Council Member Comerford thanked Mr. Ellis and the members of the Parks & Recreation Citizen Advisory Commission, noting that several members were in the audience. Motion moved by Council Member Comerford to direct staff to finalize the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2010, based on the direction provided tonight and to return with a final document for Council adoption, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously, 6-0. 4. Presentation• Relating to Development; discussion and direction to town staff concerning the First Amendment to Marana Spectrum Development Agreement Frank Cassidy went through the provisions as they appeared in the original agreement. He noted that the development agreement was adopted in December 2007. At the time the developer, Kimco Barclay, was a large national shopping center developer financing the project. Since 2007, Kimco has now taken over the project, and negotiations have been directly with them. They have tried to minimize the amendments as much as possible. He then showed a table on the screen that summarizes the major changes. Since December 2007 the economy has changed significantly, which has resulted in the amendments to the DA. He organized the table in order of the way the provisions appear in the original DA. The point of this was to try to create a little flexibility in the scheduling of the development because of the economy and still get the town's contribution for the TI. Originally, the contribution was to be made within 60 days after the TI opened but then the developer would have to start development. Since that's not going to happen, the fear the town had was that the developer was going to forfeit the sales tax reimbursement by not beginning development and also not contributing to the TI, but everything else stays in place. The amendment tries to take all that into account to work out the best for both parties. The timing came about because of the completion of the TI. He then went through the items for Council and the modifications considering the marketplace. The developer now is giving the town $4M interest free until they open up. They expect to recoup the sales tax within a reasonable period of time after they open, but they don't want to take that kind of risk when they are giving the town interest-free money. The list of public improvements has been cleaned up, and probably the most important thing is that now that we've done the construction project, we know the costs. The proposal is to bring this back for formal adoption on August 17 pending any feedback from Council. Council Member Ziegler commended staff and the developer for bringing this back with adjustments due to the economy. Council Member Post asked if there was any revenue-sharing on the sales tax or does it all go back to the developer. Mr. Cassidy replied that that part of the original agreement stays the same -they get 45% of the town's portion of the retail sales tax. They don't get construction sales tax. Council Member Post asked if there were other construction sales tax sources in that area (like Acacia Hills or Cascada) to help make up for the lost revenue. Keith Brann stated that the Cascada development is also in discussion with town staff to dedicate a certain amount of money -but nowhere on the order of this development. The Cascada development does pay the south transportation impact fee, which is wholly attributable to this interchange. That is a different pot of money, however, from the sales tax. But the town is getting a substantial amount of money from Cascada that does go toward the interchange through impact fees. Mr. Davidson noted that he believes once this project is able to move forward, you will see other types of projects looking at this new infrastructure, and many new areas will be opening up because of location. Discussion ensued regarding developer contributions toward the TI which Mr. Cassidy elaborated on going back to 2007 when it wasn't assured that the TI would come to fruition. Vice Mayor Kai also gave some historical background and justification for the $30M which is anot-to-exceed number per Mr. Davidson. Time and interest-free use of money are really the only changes to the original agreement. Motion moved by Council Member Ziegler to direct staff that this item be placed on the August 17`h Council agenda for consideration and possible adoption„ second by Council Member Posh Motion carried unanimously. 5. Presentation• Relating to Development; discussion and feedback on developer's proposed draft Marana Regional Landfill Development Agreement Vice Mayor Kai excused himself and left the dais due to a conflict of interest at 7:05 p.m. Frank Cassidy presented this as a first opportunity for staff to discuss the draft agreement with Council. Michael Racy and Larry Henck are in the audience to answer questions. He created a chart to highlight the larger points provision by provision. He'll then make notes for comments for purposes of negotiation. The agreement as proposed is with the developer and the landowner. Landfill development cannot go forward except under the terms of the DA if approved. Right now, the developer doesn't own the land. If for some reason they didn't finalize the deal, they wouldn't want to have a rezone without a DA. Council Member McGorray asked for clarification. The DA runs with the land for any landfill development on that location. It only applies if it does go forward for a landfill. He then went over the CPI numbers for host fees, energy and vehicle flat fee. The host fee starts at $1.20 per ton (excluding the free programs) and $10 per vehicle for a flat fee and is adjusted annually. All of the adjustments in the agreement will occur on July 1 for budgeting reasons, and we'll always use the May CPI numbers, and that is reflected throughout the agreement. The effective date of the agreement is upon purchase and final entitlements -the zoning entitlements and the permits from the various agencies. Once that process is complete, then the agreement will be effective. The term extends for the life of the landfill - a very long term for a DA. Because the nature of a landfill operation, this protects the town as much as it protects the developer. There is a provision in the DA that corresponds to a provision in the rezoning if approved which relates to a reversion of the zoning. Staff will recommend a provision that says if they are not going forward after five years, the zoning can come back to the Council and Council can revert to RD-180, which is what it is right now, or just remove the landfill provision. The reversion provision proposed with the fifth anniversary reversion option the developer also wanted to say -what happens if I'm in these permit processes with state agencies during that time - so we negotiated back and forth up to 10 years if they are in process, but it is not expected to take that long. Elevation for the landfill is 165 feet maximum, with an average 135 feet. There is a provision prohibiting hazardous materials. There is a provision about litter control stating that the town can clean up at the developer's expense. Council Member McGorray asked if a fine had ever been proposed rather than getting the developer to pay for the clean-up. Mr. Cassidy replied that that could be discussed. Mr. Racy indicated that the developer agreed to the concept of a fine. They will enforce in addition to whatever the town does. Kevin Kish also stated that there is an ordinance in place for enforcement if loads are uncovered. Mr. Cassidy continued to elaborate. There are provisions for reviews for compliance under paragraph 12. These are for bigger areas of compliance. Throughout the life of the operation there are reporting requirements and periodic reviews for compliance. The developer has to dedicate Brawley Wash upon the town's request at any time during the life of the landfill. Whether it's dedicated or not, the developer must maintain the 500-year floodplain improvements for the Brawley Wash. Mr. Cassidy then discussed adjustments for the host fees. Council Member Post asked for an explanation of "third" party. Mr. Racy explained that this is what is charged to commercial haulers. The cap is based on what is being charged third parties because an affiliated party maybe coming in and dumping at a reduced rate and this is a protection for the town and is pretty standard. Council Member Post asked if there was a provision that talks about hazardous waste under applicable laws that is restrictive. Mr. Racy responded that they are committing in perpetuity that it will never be permitted for anything other than a municipal solid waste facility. It is tied back to the state and federal laws and meets their regulations. He used the example of latex paint. It doesn't go in because it's a liquid waste, not because it's a hazardous waste. It's not classified as hazardous but it still has to be solidified. The design accepts that there can be someone who throws out some paint thinner, but that's not what we're talking about here. We cannot take hazardous waste as prescribed by ADEQ. Council Member Post continued that there are ways to get around that regulation. Mr. Racy said he understood Council Member Post's inference; however, he's concerned about the suggestion of "getting around." As long as it's appropriately prepared and the landfill is following the law....Mr. Racy responded yes. Council Member McGorray asked what counts as tonnage which made her wonder about recyclables. Are they paying for the tonnage with recyclables? Mr. Racy responded that it was his understanding that things that come through the gate and go into the landfill - if we have a separate reuse section -stuff that's going back out or a recycling center which is part of this - I don't believe those are included in tonnage because those are not being deposited in the landfill. Mr. Cassidy responded that tonnage is included as part of the host fee which has an audit provision. Staff felt that if they were supposed to pay host fees and they're short, they should pay for the auditor's fees. Paragraph 19 allows free public access for Marana citizens and an additional mapped area. That is two days ayear -one Saturday in March and one in October. Paragraph 20 -the customer vehicle flat fee - is $10 based on the CPI. Another free program is the neighborhood container program - up to four containers once per quarter. There is a town voucher program of 30 vouchers for up to three tons which can be handed out. The town does not get paid for tonnage for the free programs. There is a provision for groundwater well monitoring. There are no proposed changes. The perimeter fence must stay 100 feet ahead of the operation. The whole property is going to be fenced with field fencing, but in the operational part it must be six-foot chain link. Council Member Ziegler asked about the town voucher program and the distribution. Who would receive those? Mr. Cassidy responded that it would be up to the town. Mr. Racy responded that this is a fairly standard provision and it would be for families who may have had a fire or disaster on the property and has considerable cleanup to be done. It's for the unexpected, this either for the town or residents. Mr. Cassidy continued with a provision that requires the developer to pay for an d construct all access improvement that are determined at the access on Avra Valley. The most discussion was the Avra Valley Road improvements. The direction that town staff is moving is to say that we know we need the Sandario turn lanes, but put in the traffic signal when the town determines that it's warranted. The town also wants a turn lane on westbound Avra at Sanders, and an asphalt overlay on Avra Valley Road. Fernando Prol's feeling is that the road needs an overlay to the interchange. Normally, when an improvement of that type is needed, we have a concurrency provision. There are complications with doing the overlay in the county and with the state. This still requires Council feedback. Council Member Post asked what kind of traffic signal would there be. Mr. Prol responded that at Sandario there will be a traffic signal when warranted. Mr. Racy noted that on transportation issues, the developer recognizes there are existing deficiencies on Avra Valley Road. The traffic generated from this facility will only add about 10 percent. Other than the entrance add-ons, some of the existing deficiencies are not necessitated in our traffic impact report or the project per se. The right turn onto Sanders and the two right turns on Sandario, the signal when its warranted, and the overlay we felt made sense to go town limit on the west about one-half mile past the entrance and town limit on the east about three-quarters of the distance on Avra Valley Road. If staff feels there needs to be concurrency, we understand that, but it's a mess and Avra Valley and I-10 is a mess and needs to be cleaned up right away. His recommendation is not to do something that creates a disincentive for the county and the state to improve that area right away. Ultimately, the developer may have to do it, or they maybe able to convince the county or the state to do it, but the landfill could not open until it is done -all the way to the signal -there's two miles not included. Six and a half miles have been agreed to. He does not want to formally say on the record that they're going to do it, because the county or the state will then say they're not going to do it. The purpose of the concurrence is to say that the developer can't do their land use -they can't open -but maximum pressure should be on the county or the state to do it during the two to three-year process it will take to open (the landfill). ADOT is already doing design work on the interchange, so you don't want to give them an excuse not to do it. This is a couple of a million dollars of improvements on Avra Valley Road that have no funding stream, plus the host fee which is going to be another $600K-$750K a year for road work or whatever the town wants. Mr. Racy responded to a question by Council Member Post regarding the type of overlay which could be used. There are significant portions of Avra Valley Road that are expected to be constructed, but there will be a significant pavement restoration. Council Member Ziegler asked about the concurrency issue and whether that's being done now, such as Cortaro to Hartman and then into the county. Does the town typically ask the developer to do this? Mr. Brann responded that the Cortaro Road project was a CIP program and not built by the developer even though there was a developer contribution. The town has dealt with development agreements, especially along Marana Road, with the concurrency provision. The spirit of cooperation has changed over the years with the passage of the RTA. We are working on having long, arterial projects with a concurrence provision. Mayor Honea called for a recess at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Cassidy continued. The next provision is the Brawley Bridge improvement. This is supposed to have an 80,000 pound capacity and what improvements it's going to need. The agreement contains a provision that the developer will make whatever improvements are needed to meet this capacity before the landfill is opened. Paragraph 29 deals with environmental insurance, providing $20M aggregate, $ l OM per incident and $12M self-insured. He hasn't gotten feedback from the risk pool on this yet. The last provision is the seller consent. A landfill can't be done with a DA in place. He asked if there was any feedback or direction from Council. Council Member McGorray asked for clarification of the Fox easement in relationship to where it cuts across the northeast corner of the Brawley Wash. Mr. Racy responded that everything that is owned is being turned over to the town, which is in the northeast corner. The Fox easement is the entry road and not along the east branch of the Brawley. That was at the request of the State Land Deparhnent for access. She also asked for clarification of the money for the school district and if it's based on tonnage. He responded that there is a separate agreement with the school district. The town gets $1.20. and under a separate MOU with the school district, they get $.30 per ton. Council Member Comerford asked if someone else buys this, does the development agreement transfer to the new owner. Mr. Racy replied that it runs with the land and binds the land as does the zoning and the. other provisions. If anyone goes in for a landfill use, they are bound by everything in this agreement. He noted requests from the county and from the town to put in the reversion provision so that if they can't get the permit they don't want it sitting in title for 15 years without knowing what it is. The developer put in 10 years, but the town wants it to be five. It's possible with permitting procedures it could spill over a little. It is drop dead at 10 years in any event. There's a specific statute on reversion which he went on to summarize which gives the town flexibility. Council Member Ziegler asked for clarification on the meaning of closure and post-closure financial assurances in Paragraph 14. Mr. Racy noted a state statute on the bond that a private landfill operator has to post. A public landfill operator doesn't have to post or report other than some permit reports. By just receiving small amounts of waste, closure could be pushed out to 30 years. Private operators can't do that. When they get the original permit, there's an entire closure plan and that has some of the envirorunental things which were removed, although they are part of the plan, which get adopted by a permit which contains a bond that is reviewed annually by ADEQ. If there is a permit, the bond is in place for closure and is increased every year and is always an amount running ahead. An escalating rather than receding bond, so you never get into the position you would with a public facility. He referred back to Paragraph 12 for compliance reviews. On the designated truck route, the town gets to accept the designation of the truck route. All the trucks come in on Avra Valley, and the town and the landfill operator can enforce that. There's also a provision that there can be no rail haul waste because a rail spur can come into the site or accept waste that started as rail haul, as noted in Paragraph 5. The developer also has the initial report from the structural engineers on the Brawley Bridge. It was originally designed for 80,000 but the current recommendation is that the superstructure won't support that, but the sub-structure looks fine. The developer will be responsible for whatever is necessary to cure deficiencies. The environmental insurance is not a statutory requirement and is above and beyond. There's no history of claims for a municipal solid waste facility in the wet areas much less in the dry areas. But because of the series of monitoring wells, everything is protected quickly and can be mediated for a relatively small cost. It is just an additional surety to the town and the community areas that there will be a source of compensation for that. An executive session was called upon motion by Council Member Post, second by Council Member McGorray at 8:22 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Motion moved by Council Member Comerford, second by Council Member Post, that the landfill development agreement will be brought back before Council on August 10, 2010 with revisions consistent with Council direction. Motion carried unanimously. Executive Session -pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), Council may ask for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town Attorney concerning any matter listed on this agenda. E. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn moved by Council Member Post, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing are the true and correct minutes of the Marana Town Council special meeting held on July 27, 2010. I further certify that a quorum was present. J elyn C ronson, Town Clerk