On October 22, 2008, the Abandonment Hearing Officer considered the request of Kalapaki Trust to abandon excess Red Rock Drive right-of-way adjacent to 4839 East Grandview Lane and 4836 East Red Rock Drive. The request originated from a desire by the owner of 4839 E. Grandview to construct a home and provide vehicular access from Grandview Lane/Red Rock Drive. According to the applicants, it was not possible (due to the steep topography) to construct a driveway to City standards without also constructing a retaining wall within the right-of-way for Grandview Lane/Red Rock Drive. Retaining walls cannot be permitted within public right-of-way. Therefore, based upon information provided by various City departments and private utility companies, the Abandonment Hearing Office approved the request to abandon the excess right-of-way.

The Arcadia-Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association (ACMNA) has appealed the decision of the Abandonment Hearing Officer, arguing that the abandonment would give the owner(s) larger lots, allowing them to construct larger buildings than what is currently allowed. In addition, the ACMNA states that the Planning Department had recommended denial of the abandonment, citing the need for a comprehensive review of right-of-way in the larger area.

OTHER INFORMATION

Street Transportation staff made a field visit to identify the limits of excess right-of-way, which was defined as those areas unusable for road construction due to the topography. The Hearing Officer approved the abandonment request with the stipulation that no right-of-way be abandoned other than what Street Transportation approved in the field.

DSD staff have calculated that 4836 E. Red Rock Drive would gain approximately 987 square feet in buildable area (in addition to the 11,224 square feet currently permitted), while 4839 E. Grandview Lane would gain approximately 1024 square feet in buildable area (in addition to the 10,356 square feet (sf) currently permitted). The previous calculations were based on data provided by both the applicant and Street Transportation, as shown in the following table:

Address

Area (existing)

Current permitted lot coverage

(25%)

Current permitted gradable area (35%)

New total area of each lot

New allowed lot coverage

Difference in allowed lot coverage

New allowed gradable area

Difference in allowed gradable area

4839 E. Grandview

41,421 sf

10,356 sf

14,497 sf

45,518 sf

11,380 sf

+ 1024 sf

15,931 sf

+ 1434 sf

4836 E. Red Rock

44,894 sf

11,224 sf

15,713 sf

48,843 sf

12,211 sf

+ 987 sf

17,095 sf

+ 1382 sf

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Abandonment Hearing Officer’s recommendation of approval be upheld. If Council upholds the Hearing Officer’s decision, the abandonment would be subject to the following stipulations:

1. The entire right-of-way shall be retained as a public utilities easement or as may be modified by the affected utilities with 24 hour vehicle maintenance access subject to the following standard stipulation:

No structure of any kind shall be constructed or placed within the easement except removable-type fencing and/or paving. No planting except grass within the easement. It shall be further understood that the affected utility company shall not be required to replace any obstructions, paving or planting that must be removed during the course of required maintenance, reconstruction and/or construction.

OR … the alternative is stipulation number 2.

2. All utilities shall be relocated to locations approved by the affected utility company. All work is to be done by the affected utility company at no expense to the affected utility company.

AND

3. An appropriate performance agreement, in an approved form and cost amount, must be posted with the Development Services Department to guarantee the improvements above.

4. Water Services: The applicant/property owners shall relocate all affected water and sewer utilities into an alternate easement or right of way prior to the Resolution of Abandonment in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Development Services Department, or as otherwise approved by the Water Services Department. All work is to be done by a licensed contractor at no expense to the City of Phoenix.

5. Streets: The applicant shall provide the City of Phoenix an ALTA survey showing the existing property lines, existing pavement, street signs, utility valves, fire hydrants and all power poles. Final limits of the abandonment shall be based off this survey.

6. DSD Civil Engineer: A full drainage study/report is required from a State Registered and Licensed Civil Reviewer. Remediation of any drainage improvements determined by the study shall be completed as determined by the Development Services Department.

7. Consideration which provides a public benefit to the City is required in accordance with City code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64. Cost for commercial property is $.20 per square foot. Cost for residential property is $.10 per square foot. The applicant shall submit calculation and fee to the Development Services Department.

The above stipulations must be completed within one year from the Abandonment Hearing Officer’s decision dated October 22, 2008.

If the Council moves to deny the Abandonment Hearing Officer’s decision, the excess right-of-way will remain.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Ed Zuercher Deputy City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		December 17, 2008
FROM:	Lionel D. Lyons Equal Opportunity Director	ITEM:	26	PAGE:	60
SUBJECT:	DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY

This report provides information regarding a recommendation from the Phoenix Human Relations Commission in support of the creation of a City of Phoenix domestic partner registry.

THE ISSUE

The Phoenix Human Relations Commission We’re All On The Same Team (WAOTST) Subcommittee researched domestic partner registries in other jurisdictions around the country, and considered the applicability of such a registry for the City of Phoenix. The Subcommittee’s research indicated as of the 2006 U. S. Census, there were 133,604 unmarried partner households in Arizona, with 34,547 of these being in Phoenix. As a result of the research findings, the Subcommittee presented a recommendation to the Human Relations Commission for the support of an ordinance creating a domestic partner registry in the City of Phoenix. The Human Relations Commission ratified the recommendation on February 25, 2008. Since that time, staff has been studying how to implement such a registry.

The Human Relations Commission considers the creation of a domestic partner registry to be consistent with the City’s policy of promoting diversity, respect, and understanding among all people in the community. Moreover, the Commission supports the recognition of all relationships, marital and non-marital, and believes the creation of a domestic partnership registry would further demonstrate the City of Phoenix as an inclusive and progressive city in which to live and work.

OTHER INFORMATION

If created, the City’s domestic partner registry would be the second in Arizona, with the first registry being enacted by the City of Tucson on December 1, 2003. Phoenix would join more than 70 cities and counties around the country that have implemented a domestic partner registry for their constituents. Comparable cities with registries include New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia.

The recommendation of the Human Relations Commission would amend Chapter 18 of the Phoenix City Code to include a new Article authorizing the creation of a domestic partner registry. The ordinance sets forth the process by which partners file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the City. The process affirms that both partners meet the established requirements for inclusion in the registry, including local residency, being an unmarried individual, being in a committed relationship with a partner with whom a residence is shared, and being 18 years of age or older.

The sole right granted to domestic partners under the ordinance is partner visitation rights in all health care facilities operating within the City of Phoenix, unless no visitors are allowed, or the patient expresses a desire that the visitation of the domestic partner be restricted. The ordinance does not limit the right of health care facilities to establish visiting hours, rules of conduct, or to regulate access to its patients generally. The ordinance creating the registry in no way alters or contravenes county, state, or federal laws. The registration issued by the City could be used to demonstrate a domestic partnership to government agencies, employers, businesses, and other third parties, subject to the acceptance of all such parties.

The Phoenix City Clerk Department would have the administrative responsibility for administering the registration process, and will maintain all records related to the domestic partner registry. An administrative fee of $50 will be charged all persons filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership. No fee will be charged to process the paperwork necessary to record the termination of a domestic partnership previously filed with the City.

Implementation of the domestic partner registry will begin on February 9, 2009, which provides time to properly coordinate the scheduling of staff and other resources. This will also help to ensure the public is sufficiently informed of the registry and its requirements.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

A 0.3 FTE position will be funded from the fees to cover the administrative duties of managing such a registry. Temporary staffing for the initial six months will also be covered.

The financial impact associated with administering the domestic partnership registry will be covered through the collection of the registration fee from participants.

RECOMMENDATION

This report provides information on the Human Relations Commission recommendation to create a Domestic Partnership Registry in the City of Phoenix.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Rick Naimark Deputy City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		December 17, 2008
FROM:	Carolyn F. Bristo Acting Public Works Director	ITEM:	27	PAGE:	60
SUBJECT:	SOLID WASTE FEE RECOMMENDATION

This report provides back-up information for Formal Agenda Item 26 and discusses the solid waste operating budget, CIP, and current fund forecast. Four options have been developed regarding the monthly residential solid waste fee, large commercial load fee, and service reductions for City Council discussion and action.

THE ISSUE

Since July 1980, funding for solid waste programs has been obtained through a fee-for-service enterprise fund. Revenues for solid waste programs are generated by the monthly fee charged for residential household service, disposal fees charged at the transfer stations, and the sale of recycled materials.

Over the last four years, solid waste collection services have consistently ranked among the highest in the Community Attitude Survey, placing second only to the Fire Department. The operating budget funds the following solid waste services:

Residential weekly solid waste collection Recycling program

Quarterly bulk trash Illegal dumping crews

Transfer station and disposal costs Free weekend disposal

Household hazardous waste (HHW) events Education activities

Customer service Inspections and enforcement

Long haul costs Appliance and electronics diversion

Container management /inventory

On October 16, 2008, Public Works provided an overview to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the solid waste fund and services the department provides. The Subcommittee asked staff to return with options for reductions in solid waste services as an alternative to a solid waste fee increase. As a result, staff developed options for reductions as well as opportunities to generate additional revenue which were presented to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on December 2, 2008.

OTHER INFORMATION

Based on the continuing economic downturn and resulting impact on solid waste operations, staff has taken the following actions and developed options for City Council consideration:

1) Reduced operating and capital expenditures for the current fiscal year and next fiscal year, 2) identified additional ongoing reductions to overall service delivery, 3) identified potential revenue sources, and 4) identified minimal fee increases.

Public Works reduced the operating budget by approximately $5.5 million for this fiscal year and next. These cuts were made in the areas of recycling education and outreach, facilities renovation, and contractual expenses associated with the economic downturn. Additionally, the department eliminated planned service enhancement projects.

Additional ongoing operational reductions have also been identified. Depending on the severity of the reduction required, this could include closing the transfer stations on holidays and weekends, reducing HHW events from ten to four times per year, eliminating daytime security staff, eliminating weekend clean-up support and reducing bulk trash collection from four times per year to three. Staff also looked at additional revenue sources including a container maintenance fee, charging non-profit organizations a nominal disposal fee, and tapping funds earmarked for solid waste end use.

Lastly, the solid waste capital improvement program was reviewed. The majority of solid waste capital is associated with landfill cell excavation, lining, and environmental compliance, equipment, and infrastructure improvements. Staff projected that $111.7 million in capital financing will be required for these purposes over the next five years. In an effort to reduce capital expenditures over the next five years, non-essential projects will be deferred for future years. The changes will reduce the amount of debt payments over the next five years by $9.8 million.

OPTIONS

Per City policy, a minimum solid waste fund balance of 7% of expenditures is maintained. To provide continued services and maintain a minimum operating fund balance, an annual fee increase is planned. This fee increase generally covers the cost of inflation and provides for modest service level increases. Four options have been developed regarding the monthly residential solid waste fee, large commercial load fee, service reductions and additional revenues sources.

A) A 3.9%, or $ 1.00, increase effective February 2009. This would raise the residential fee from $25.45 to $26.45 and assumes a $1.00 increase in future years. Also, the large commercial load fee would increase by $2.00 from $36.25 to $38.25. In addition to the fee increase, minimal additional service reductions (see attachment) would need to be implemented.

B) A 2.16%, or $.55, increase effective February 2009. This would raise the residential fee from $25.45 to $26.00 and assumes a $1.00 increase in future years. Also, the large commercial load fee would increase by $2.00 from $36.25 to $38.25. In addition to the fee increase, substantial additional service reductions (see attachment) would need to be implemented.

C) A .98%, or $.25, increase effective February 2009. This would raise the residential fee from $25.45 to $25.70 and assumes a $1.00 increase in future years. Also, the large commercial load fee would increase by $2.00 from $36.25 to $38.25. In addition to the fee increase, extreme additional service reductions (see attachment) would need to be implemented.

D) A 0%, or $0.00, increase in the residential solid waste fee this year with a $1.25 increase the next two years and then returning to $1.00 each year after. Also, the large commercial load fee would increase by $2.00 from $36.25 to $38.25. This option would require the same level extreme additional service reductions as Option C, but assumes a $1.25 increase for two years as opposed to $1.00 increase in Options A, B, and C.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends a 2.16% or $.55 increase in the monthly residential fee, a 5.52% or $2.00 increase in the large commercial load fee, and the implementation of substantial service reductions effective February, 2009. This would raise the monthly residential fee from $25.45 to $26.00, and increase the large commercial load fee from $36.25 to $38.25. Additionally, staff recommends implementing a $20 container maintenance fee and increasing the disposal fee charged for non-profits to $10 per ton. Associated service reductions would be made in conjunction with the regular budget process.

Minimal Level Service Cuts (Option A)

Capital Reductions		Amount
Defer CIP Projects		$9.9M
Reduce Capital Equipment		$1M
Operational Ongoing Reductions	Positions	Amount
Hold Bulk Trash Vacancies	6	$594,000
Eliminate daytime security guards	2	$106,000

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Council Members	AGENDA DATE:	December 17, 2008
FROM:	Phil Gordon Mayor			PAGE:	1
SUBJECT:	BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	David Cavazos Deputy City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		December 17, 2008
FROM:	Mark Leonard, Interim Director Development Services Department	ITEM:	23	PAGE:	54
SUBJECT:	APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ABANDONMENT HEARING OFFICER - V080033A

Official Web Site of the City of Phoenix