This report provides the Council with backup information regarding several proposed housekeeping changes to update the Phoenix City Code pertaining to elections. Staff recommends approval of the changes to make election code provisions consistent with state law where appropriate and to clarify necessary language.

THE ISSUE

The City Council most recently made comprehensive elections-related revisions to the city code in 2007. Staff is now proposing several election code updates to ensure consistency with state law, clarify or eliminate outdated language, and make general housekeeping changes.

OTHER INFORMATION

Nomination Requirements

Inconsistencies between state law and the city code regarding nomination requirements have created confusion and place the city at potential risk for legal challenges. Currently, circulators of city nomination petitions are not required to affirm that they have witnessed the signing of signatures on the petition sheets. Under state law, nomination petition circulators must affirm that petition signatures were signed in their presence. Recommended code changes would amend the city’s requirement and the nomination petition form. Another minor revision would alter to the nomination paper to require a notarized candidate’s signature, making these areas consistent with state law.

Ballot Measure Arguments

State law now requires anyone filing ballot measure arguments to provide a notarized signature and sets the deadline to file at 90 days before the election. A change is requested to implement these requirements in the city code. This would still provide at least 30 days for submission of arguments after approval of the form of the ballot. This revised timeframe reflects recent legislation requiring the mailing of a permanent early voting list notice by 120 days prior to the election.

Sample Ballot

A 2008 state law revision requires sample ballots to contain a phrase informing voters that the sample ballot cannot be used as an official ballot. However, other provisions in state law allow the use of sample ballots as an official ballot in cases of specific emergencies. This change would incorporate this phrase in the city code, with an additional provision clarifying that Election Officials may issue a sample ballot to voters if the official ballots are not available.

Permanent Early Voting List

In 2007, the state legislature created a permanent early voting list for all elections in the state. Voters on this list receive an early ballot for each election in which they are eligible to vote, unless they inform the election official that they do not want a ballot by mail. Staff recommends revisions to the city code that reflect the new state permanent early voting list process.

Also, the city code does not allow voters to submit requests for early ballots prior to 90 days before the election. However, since notices must be mailed to voters on the permanent early voting list not less than 120 days prior to the election, this recommended change would allow early ballot requests by eligible voters as early as 120 days before Election Day.

Political Committee Suspension

The state legislature in 2008 adopted a new procedure authorizing the Secretary of State to suspend political committees that fail to file three consecutive required campaign finance reports. Prior to this change, there was no provision for filing officers to stop mailing required notices to committees that had not filed required reports or updated addresses. The inability to suspend inactive committees requires repeatedly mailing unnecessary notices thereby imposing preventable cost burdens on the city. A requested change would clarify that the City Clerk has the same authority to suspend city committees. The suspension does not relieve the committees of any filing requirements. Rather, it prohibits the committee from operating in the city and relieves the city’s requirement to continue to mail certified notices to the committee.

Initiative and Referendum

In 2008, an amendment to state law extended the time for verification and certification of initiative and referendum petitions. The corresponding code update would extend the time for the City Clerk to verify and certify initiative and referendum petitions from 25 business days to 35 business days to reflect state law. Also, another requested revision would clarify that the requirement that the City Clerk verify all signatures on nomination, initiative, and recall petitions also applies to referendum petitions.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed updates to the City Code.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Alton Washington, Assistant City Manager David Cavazos, Deputy City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		October 15, 2008
FROM:	Jack Harris, Public Safety Manager Bob Khan, Fire Chief Charles Thompson, Chief Information Officer	ITEM:	61	PAGE :	70
SUBJECT:	REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE (RWC) – GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT

This report provides information to the Phoenix City Council regarding the status of creating a Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) to manage and operate radio communications for public safety and municipal personnel.

BACKGROUND

The City’s VHF radio system that was formerly used by Police and some municipal departments and is currently in use by Fire is based on 1950’s technology. This outdated technology has become unable to meet the operational needs of its users – particularly Public Safety. Radio frequency channels are overcrowded, do not support the required communications load and no new frequency channels are available to add to the City’s system. In addition, the FCC is reallocating the current operating frequencies, which will make the City’s VHF system more prone to interference.

After much study and with several consultants’ recommendations, the City selected the following course of action:

· Replace the existing system

· Install a digital, 800 MHz trunked radio system

· Base the new system on the Project 25 standard, an open system standard

2001 Bond Funds were approved by Phoenix citizens to pursue this course of action. Additionally, the city of Phoenix formed a partnership with the city of Mesa to jointly procure their respective radio systems, called Phoenix Regional Wireless Network (PRWN) for Phoenix’s portion. This partnership, in conjunction with open architecture standards, has provided valleywide coverage for both cities, as well as many of the Fire partners. Each city paid their respective cost for the project as well as ongoing operational support costs.

THE ISSUE

The implementation of the PRWN radio system infrastructure, as originally designed, is complete, having passed Final Acceptance in December 2005. Phoenix Police and all city of Phoenix municipal departments have transitioned onto PRWN. City staff is also working on the transition of the Fire Department and its partners onto PRWN. PRWN was intended to be a regional radio system supporting the city’s operations as well as Fire’s automatic aid partners. The network provides seamless interoperable public safety and public service radio communications for all participants. Initially, this included Phoenix Police, Fire and municipal users; Fire users from 13 other cities, as well as Mesa and their partner agencies.

Some of the benefits of a large regional radio system are:

· Wide area coverage beyond what individual cities could achieve individually

· Seamless interoperability

· Shared resources – people, equipment, sites

· Shared funding

· Increased ability to obtain grant support

In order to meet the needs of the expanding network and its many new partners, a Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) is being formed. This regional organization will oversee the administration, operation, management, maintenance and growth of a regional radio network and provide operational radio communications, seamless interoperability and the other aforementioned benefits, to all participating members.

Phoenix hired a consultant to recommend a number of governance models which could be used for the regional system. A city of Phoenix team consisting of Police, Fire, ITS, Law, Finance and others used the information from the consultant as well as knowledge of other governance models currently in use at the city to draft a governance document for the RWC. Phoenix staff worked collaboratively with all interested jurisdictions and fire districts in the valley to refine the governance document. The RWC is ready to move to the next phase of the project: finalize governance and commence valley-wide expansion and operation.

The underlying goal of the RWC is to provide seamless operable and interoperable communications for all of the members through a governance structure founded on the principle of cooperation for the mutual benefit of all members. The key points of the IGA are to determine the organization, voting rights, financial responsibilities, asset ownership, and liability.

The RWC is to be organized as shown in Attachment A. The Board of Directors will be the main governing body and be supported by an Executive Committee, an Executive Director and an Operating Committee. All Members of the RWC will have a seat on the Board. The Board will appoint the Executive Committee with membership representing Police, Fire, Municipal, Information Technology/Communications, and the Network Managing Members (Phoenix). Each Member may have up to three participants on the Operation Working Group; this is where the management of the day-to- day operations of the network will be handled. The Executive Director will be part of Phoenix’s staff, but must be approved by the Board of Directors. This individual will manage all the functions of the network at the direction of the Executive Committee and the Board.

RWC voting rights are based on consensus and majority rule, with each Member having one vote. However, due to the varying sizes of Members and their levels of investment, a weighted vote is established based on the number of radios each Member has on the system. Any Member may call for a weighted vote. However, for an initiative to pass, the weighted vote must agree with the simple majority vote. Thus no Member, or group of members, can force an initiative on the rest of the Members.

Financial responsibilities are shared by all Members based on their relative size, as measured by the number of radios on the network. The Board approves the allocation of all financial responsibilities based on the annual budget and five-year plan submitted and updated annually by the Executive Director. Fees assessed will cover all operations, maintenance, supporting contracts, supporting licenses, rental costs, staff costs, insurance, emergencies, contingencies, infrastructure replacement and enhancements.

All personal property will be jointly shared by all Members in proportion to their interest in the network as determined by the number of radios on the network. All real property and facilities remain the property of the individual city, town or agency that holds the property. For the protection of the RWC, Members may not sell or release any real property that is jointly used by the RWC without approval of the Board. In some cases, the RWC may procure real property on behalf of the Members, and in this case, the Administrative Managing Member will hold the title to such property on behalf of the RWC.

All Members generally share liability since all Members are working together and jointly determine the actions of the RWC. However, there are cases where a Member is clearly individually responsible for its actions and must bear individual responsibility for the action. Members are required to maintain insurance (or self-insurance) for all real property each Member may own. With respect to the jointly owned real property, the RWC will determine if insurance or self-insurance shall be used. If the Board elects to purchase insurance, the Administrative Managing Member will perform the purchase on behalf of the RWC.

OTHER INFORMATION

Several events have demonstrated the advantages of a large regional network. PRWN (now RWC) provided the regional backbone to permit federal, state and local agencies work together during the Bowl Championship Series football games, TOPOFF 4 exercise, Fiesta Bowls and the Super Bowl. PRWN has often acted as a common infrastructure to link all the valley dispatch center operators and provide links between the various agencies’ radio systems. Multiple jurisdictions and fire districts are eager about joining the RWC to provide seamless interoperability in support of public safety.

RECOMMENDATION

City staff recommends acceptance of the current RWC governance language and asks that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement to form and operate the RWC. The Public Safety and Veterans’ Subcommittee unanimously recommended such action at its September 16, 2008 meeting.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Council Members	AGENDA DATE:	October 15, 2008
FROM:	Phil Gordon Mayor			PAGE:	1
SUBJECT:	BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:	Lisa Takata Executive Assistant To The City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		October 15, 2008
FROM:	Mario Paniagua City Clerk	ITEM:	27	PAGE:	39
SUBJECT:	AMENDMENTS TO ELECTIONS PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE

Official Web Site of the City of Phoenix