Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-2016 Study Session Minutestip: ti���` �: <.. < `��•.; <. +'.�:. t ., 9k MARANA 7 STUDY SESSION MINUTES 115 5 5 W. Civic Center Drive, Marana, .Arizona 8 5 6 5 3 Council Chambers October 11, 2016, at or after 6: oD PM Ed Honea, Mayor Jon Post, Vice Mayor David Bowen, Council Member Patti Comerford, Council Member Herb Kai, Council Member Carol McGorr ay, Council Member Roxanne Ziegler, Council Member STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Mayor Honea called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Town Clerk Bronson called roll. Vice Mayor Post and Council Member Kai were excused. There was a quorum present, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION/MOMENT OF SILENCE. Laed by Mayor Honea. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Motion by Council Member Bowen, second by Council MepmberR Ziegler to approve the agenda after moving} item D3 before item D2. Prise unanimously 5-0. CALL TO THE PUBLIC, There were no speaker cards presented. DISCUSSION /DIRECTION /POSSIBLE ACTION DI Presentation: Relating to Transportation; update regarding the Regional Transportation Authority plan (Jocelyn C. Bronson). Ms. Bronson introduced Mindy Blake, outreach coordinator for the Pima Association of Go vernments, who presented an o of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) board, citizen group and the funded projects over the past ten years. Included in her presentation was a video of the various projects completed to show how the RT.A has kept its promise to provide transportation projects through the voter- - approved '/Z cent sales tax in 2006. October 11, 2016 Study Session Minutes There are 35 special road projects in every community in Pinta County, and she described the public process for input into these projects. After the RTA board approved the plan, 200 presentations were taken to the community prior to the vote in May of 2006. She indicated that road maintenance is not included in the current RTA plan. The '/2 cent sales tax collected conies to about $18 per month per household and does not include tax on prescription drugs or groceries. During the first ten years of the plan, 755 projects were completed, including road expansion, new roads, expanded transit service, intersection improvements, drainage improvements, public art, enhanced safety features, new miles for bike lanes, sidewalks, bus pull -outs and signalized pedestrian crossings. Ms. Blake concluded her presentation with next steps. The effects of the 2008 recession are still being felt. Sales tax collections are below projects. But in some cases, project costs have been below estimates, and that has been good for the RTA cash flow. An example of that is the Sunset Road project which came in at $8.3M, 3 0 percent below the estimate. To date the RTA has invested more than $ I B across the region. The streetcar alone has generated $ I B in private and public sector investment. She indicated that public trust has increased for the RTA due to good management practices, transparency and oversight, and she urged citizens to attend any and all public meetings and open houses to stay informed on projects. The RTA is aware of a $15B funding gap over the next 30 years. Moving forward, a task force of community leaders and private citizens is looking at funding options. D2 Relating to Strategic Planning; discussion and direction regarding the fourth iteration of the Marana Strategic Plan, including options for different approaches to the development process. Gilbert Davidson presented this item and noted that the first Strategic Plan was crafted in 2008 and adopted in 2009. A major overhaul of the plan is anticipated to be every two to two and a half years. He outlined the major discussion points which are the Council working Group Process, Community outreach and a new software platform. The working Group will discuss each focus area, review past initiatives, discuss future goals, needs and strategies and then recommend new initiatives and modifications to ongoing initiatives. The Council Members would comprise the two working groups and their work will follow a timeline so that final Council review and approval would occur between February and March 2017. The current plan is to roll this out during the 2017 State of the Town event highlighting our plan for the future. Working Group Support Teams would be comprised of staff assigned to each of the focus areas. Community outreach would consist of gathering input from the Chamber of Commerce, the Marana Citizens' Forum, the Planning Commission and through an online survey generated through social media. The third major discussion point is the software component called Envisio. Envisio is a cloud - based strategy execution software with performance management and reporting features to align strategy and operations, unite teams, monitor progress and save time with automated reporting. Once we have a dashboard, this software program will be able to show progress on initiatives which we can publish online and in our monthly executive reports. Mr. Davidson believes this takes our Plan to the next level of evolution. The Envisio software is available on a tiered basis October 11, 2016 Study Session Minutes 2 depending on the number of users. The base price is about $5,000 for 20 users, which is sufficient access for this project. Council Mc -wxher Ziegler marle a notion to accept the presentation by the Town Manager as set forth for Strategic 1''lan IV. Seconclerl by Council Meniber Bowen. 1 assed unanimously 5 -0. D3 Relating to deal Estate; discussion and direction to staff~ regarding requests for use of public right -of way for telecommunications and radio frequency transport purposes, including pending requests by Mobilitie, LLC for a license to use public right-of-way for these purposes and for conditional use permits to install new utility poles and equipment associated with a small cell distributed antenna system. `rani{ Cassidy began by noting that currently there is no policy that addresses the application of Mobilitie. The question is to what extent we want to allow new antennae for telecommunication equipment in our public rights of way. Adam Brixius, Permitting Manager for Mobilitie Company, has a presentation to show you what these facilities look like and what they do. Currently, Mobilitie is installing equipment for Sprint across the country. Cynthia Doss is also here to answer questions about next steps. The two next steps mentioned in the item title are what would come back to you, which is a license, and assuming there is a willingness to allow this type of thing, conditional use permits for the individual antennas. Adam Brixius began with an overview of the Mobilitie organization and what they hope to accomplish. Mobilitie operates several wireless applications — small cells, mega event centers, traditional wireless communication facilities which could be palm trees, steel poles, wi -Fi systems, and underground fiber. Their customers are wireless providers and public safety venues. His presentation will focus on the utility application in Marana and Pima County. Mobilitie is a public utility in Arizona with access in 50 states and three territories. The biggest reason for this project is to minimize gaps in the coverage for communication ports, data, networks, fiber, wireless or a combination of both. I ie then gave descriptions of the poles and the six active site locations in Marana. Council Member Bowen asked how Mobilitie operates in conjunction with wireless service carriers. Mr. Brixius noted that Mobilitie doesn't own any license issued by the FCC. Their customers operate under FCC licenses. Mobilitie would provide the backbone infrastructure from their larger structures whether that be fiber networks or wireless transport. These .facilities are ready to be built as soon as they are permitted. They are being permitted successfully on air nationwide. Mr. Cassidy again noted that there is no policy for having the small cells. The desire, which has never been allowed up until now, is to go into the rights-of-way. This year the legislature added a statute that strongly recommends that municipalities at least allow the bind of unit, which are generally about 42 inches on top of an existing pole. in his opinion, the legislation does not require Council to allow a new pole, but where you have existing poles, and a pole owner willing to allow an attachment, it does seem to permit that sort of use of the right -of-way. Municipalities are required to allow a telecom such as cable through the right-of-way. we have that in several places, so that is not the policy question in front of Council tonight. we have never had a cable go to the antenna that is in the right -of way, and that is the new direction that is being presented by this. So the questions for Council are, in a desire for greater coverage throughout Marana, would you be okay with a standalone pole that Mobilitie puts in the right-of-way. He further October 11, 2016 Study Session Minutes 3 noted that the Town Engineer has informed Mobilitie that he wants only steel poles in the right- of-way, and would Council be okay with steel standalone poles in the existing right-of-way or would you not want any poles in the right-of-way and rather, have attachments to existing poles, or to not have any poles in the right-of-way. once you make the policy, you will have to treat all telecoms equally. Mobilitie is just the first one to ask. with the co- location requirements of federal law, once there is a pole there, if somebody else wants to co- locate on it, what starts out as a 75-foot pole could end up being more than that under the co- location requirements; and there is not much the town can do about that. Short of a policy, these requests will be conning individually to Council. Council Member Bowen asked if Council could impose restrictions on the number of poles in a given area as long as it applies to everyone equally. Mr. Cassidy responded that that could be done, ideally by ordinance. According to the consultant he spoke to, the other thing that can be done is that Council could allow new utility poles only in areas where there isn't a strong undergrounding situation. Council Member McGorray noted that it is very hard to work with poles and we should keep in mind, especially in residential areas, that poles often don't stay the way they start. Council Member Comerford expressed some concerns and thought it would be helpful to look further at municipalities who have gone through this and get their feedback.. She also asked about liability for the pole owner. Mr. Cassidy noted that in Los Angeles, the approach has been to attach to the existing poles for better cell coverage. If Council feels strongly tonight that they do not want any new poles, he would pull this item from next week's agenda because that license is for two locations where there currently aren't poles. Council Member Comerford indicated her support for technology, but with this legislation being so new, any place where you can add to an existing pole makes sense. Council Member Ziegler agreed with Council Member Comerford that using existing poles makes sense and should also be optically pleasing. without a policy is sounds like a conditional use permit (CUP) will be required for every potential new cell pole. Mr. Cassidy agreed and elaborated on the conditional use process. If Council goes in the direction of just attaching to existing poles, that will not require a CUP because that's more of a minor condition to existing verticality. Going back to the discussion of the ugly poles, one of the presentations that Mobilitie has made to staff is that moving to the use of more smaller poles is to get away from the gigantic carrier poles. Council Member Ziegler asked about the cost to the Town. Mr. Cassidy responded that the carrier has to pay for the costs associated with the poles. There is a provision in state law that allows us to charge for linear footage use of right -of way for telecom, although historically, we have not done that. If we were to adopt something like that, we would have to apply it everywhere. one of the things Mobilitie is talking about doing is not actually put the lines in the ground but rather having the connection fed back to the central hub of the communication through microwave. The trouble with that is as a general rule, the microwave is line of sight, so you need to stay away from trees and be a little higher than underground wiring. Mayor Honea noted that he didn't think this was allowed anywhere in Pima County right now. Mr. Cassidy noted that Mobilitie is already talking to the other communities, but they have not yet been approved. Pima County does have a few wireless facilities in the right -of -way. Mayor Honea expressed some concerns regarding what could be a proliferation of poles in the right-of- way. He would be less opposed to attaching to existing utility poles. He is also concerned about making a decision too quickly without further study. He suggested sending the item back to the town staff for additional research on the concerns raised tonight before establishing a policy. October 11, 2016 Study Session Minutes 4 Council Member Bowen asked Mr . Brixius if the extensions on the single poles with radios are dedicated to only one carrier or can they accommodate multiple carriers. Mr. Brixius stated that the poles can be structurally sound to accommodate two and adjusted to possibly three. Some of the poles are only 30 feet in height, so there would have to be an extension or a replacement pole if there was not to be an extension next to it. Council Member Ziegler asked under what circumstances the issue of poles could come back to Council. Mr. Brixius indicated that the CUP can dictate height, but a typical extension of the pole would be an administrative approval in most cases, done by the Planning Director. Mr. Cassidy also interjected that under federal law, municipalities would have difficulty turning down a co- locat pole. Discussion continued among Council and staff until Council Member Bowen made a motion to direct staff to take the input raised by Council t and come back with some recommendations for further discussion before approving a formal policy. Council Member Ziegler raised the question of whether staff provided input for tonight presentation and whether they should have. Mr. Cassidy indicated that he did not. Although at the time of the license, he would need to make a proposed motion, and at that point he would have to. Mayor Honea asked for a second to Council Member Bowen's motion, so that di scussion can continue. Council Member Come s the motion. Part of the reason for Mr. Cassidy not making a recommendation was that there could be construed a fine line between a recommendation and making policy, which is the point Council Member Ziegler indicated she was trying to make. Discussion continued. Mr. Cassidy said that he would not bring any further licenses forward until a policy was established by Council In fact, bringing this item back next week would be too soon. Mayor Honea asked for a vote on the motion. Motion passed 4--0 with Council Member Ziegler voting nay. Council Member Ziegler explained her position. D4 Relating to Commerce; discussion, direction and possible action regarding the proposed Ina Corridor Business Support Program, which is intended to aid businesses in several ways as the Ina /I - I o interchange is reconstructed. Tony Hunter presented a program that staff has been working on for the past few months in preparation of the IW I ollna Road construction. It is called the Ina Corridor Business Support Program. The program consists of outreach to the businesses using promotional signs, a mobile application, and a sign code revision. The town will collaborate with the Chamber of Commerce to visit businesses and provide information regarding the program. Also anticipated is a direct mail campaign with contact and project information. Mr. Hunter also introduced the promotion signage called "Ina Businesses Are Open. " Signage would be strategically placed along Ina/Thornydale and Ina /oldfather. Corridor signs will be 8 -9 feet high, one of which will project a cross- section of the completed Ina intersection. The other sign says "Eat, Shop, Play, Stay." The smaller signs are in the 5 - 6 foot range and placed in a cascading fashion to culminate at the larger monument signs. � Ie also showed a rendering of the mobile app which will list the Ina Corridor businesses, twitter -feed of Ina Road deals, sales and other specials, a reap of the Ina Corridor area, links to important resources and push notifications for important alerts. Council Member Comerford asked if print media for weekly maps could also be used to help those without access to mobile technology. Mr. Hunter indicated that he would definitely confer with the communications and marketing team on that. Ryan Mahoney discussed the sign code revision Since this is probably not the only construction project we will have on this scale, it seemed like a good time to make revisions to the sign code October 11, 2016 Study Session Minutes 5 which staff will be brin back to Council in November; it is scheduled for Plannin Commission at the end of this month. The revision will add a new component to the si code to allow temporar banner si to sta up on private propert for the duration of the construction pro A business would g et a si permit j ust so we know that the are out there. Staff is r workin with ADOT to delineate just where their ri are, and we expect some cooperation with them on si that we can place in their ri Allowed would be one si per 40 s feet of street fronta to maintain some reasonable visibilit Council Member Bowen brou up the fact that in re to Eat, Shop, Pla and Sta there are a lot of vehicle service businesses alon Ina. How will the be represented? Mr. Mahone indicated that he and Mr. Hunter have had that conversation, and staff is in the process of brainstormin another word to incorporate or conjure up a vehicle — somethin simple. He will default to the staff in communications on that. Council Member Comerford made a motion to approve the Ina Road Corridor Business Support Pro concept and direct staff to firin hack to Council action plans to create a construction zone temporar banner si pro Motion seconded b Council Member McGorra Passed unanimousl 5-0. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03, the Town Council ma vote to g o into executive session, which will not be open to the public, to discuss certain matters. El Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A)(3), Council ma ask for discussion or consultation for le advice with the Town Attorne concernin an matter listed on this a FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Notwithstandin the ma discretion re the items to be placed on the a if three or more Council members re that an item be placed on the a it must be placed on the a for the second re Town Council meetin after the date of the re pursuant to Marana Town Code Section 2-4-2(B). ADJOURNMENT. Motion to adjourn at 7:58 p.m. b Council Member Bowen, second 1) Council Member McGorra Y . Passed unanimousl 5-0. CERTIFICATION I hereb certif that the fore are the true and correct minutes of the stud session/presentation of the Marana Town Council meetin held on October 11, 2016. 1 further certif that a q uorum was present. 1111o�ll i ll'ol 1 0 ocel C, ronson, Town Clerk N tA 7 October 11, 2016 Stud Session Minutes 6