Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/4/2000 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 4, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Goulet, Lieberman, Martinez, McAllister, and Samaniego. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. UPDATE ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Ms. Shirley Medler, North District Recreation Superintendent. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. David Davis with Design Workshop Inc.; Mr. Leon Younger with Leon Younger & PROS; and Mr. Chris Tatham with Leisure Vision, a division of ETC Institute. On July 6, 1999, Design Workshop Inc. discussed with the City Council information received from the focus groups, elected officials, and staff, which was used to develop a citizens' survey. The consultant was present to discuss the results of the citizens' survey, public forums, and the analysis of the parks and recreation system. The goal is to have a master plan document that will be a reflection of the opinions, needs, and wants of the citizens of Glendale. Key issues identified through the citizens' survey and public forums will be used to develop a comprehensive five-year action plan and ten-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Since this plan will drive the Department's policies, procedures, and general operation for the next ten years, it was imperative that the citizens of Glendale be an integral part of this development of the master plan. With that goal in mind, the consultants designed a process that began with data collection from citizens and stakeholders. This data collection was conducted through the use of focus groups, public forums, individual meetings with elected officials, City Management Team members and, most importantly, a statistically valid, comprehensive 1 citizen survey. The demographics and detailed results of the survey were shared with the Council. The survey components included overall ratings of the quality of recreational programs; how citizens found out about the Parks and Recreation programs; whether citizens visited a City park during the past year; overall ratings of City parks; the importance of various roles for the City's Parks and Recreation Department; the most important roles to perform; participation and interest in activities and programs; satisfaction with availability of facilities; most important types of facilities; the most important improvements that residents think should be made to existing facilities; where residents think the City should place the most emphasis over the next 10 years; the importance of improvements to facilities compared to other City priorities; the percentage of households that use programs and facilities provided by other organizations; and reasons that residents do not use the City's facilities. The results of the public forum analysis were also reviewed in-depth. The consultants conducted an analysis of the current status of Glendale parks by acreage, type (neighborhood, community, urban/regional), and service. This analysis resulted in the production of maps that display the equitable location of parks and their service areas in relation to population densities. This information allows the City to compare its current status to national standards, local standards, the results of the public participation process and population projections and to efficiently correct the deficiencies in park acreage and/or types over the next ten years. Along with parks, special use, cultural activity, community, aquatic and adult centers, as well as open space, corridors were analyzed to identify the City's current status and the projected needs over the next ten years. At its April 13, 1999 Council meeting, the City Council awarded a contract to Design Workshop Inc. to develop the ten-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan process and the citizen survey instrument were reviewed with the City Council at its July 6, 1999 Workshop session. The master plan public participation process was conducted with publicity in the City's local newspapers, the City's Web Page, fliers, mailings, etc. To date, the Parks and Recreation Department has shared the Inventory and Analysis Phase results with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Neighborhood Partnership Commission. The master plan is an approved budget item. This item was presented for information and review purposes. Councilmember Goulet asked if there was any differentiation between active and passive parks. Mr. Tatham explained that, from a survey perspective, the different types of parks were included in the questions relating to parks and recreation facilities. The results were indicative of the importance of both types of parks to the citizens. 2 Councilmember Samaniego asked if the citizens were asked about the level of participation in recreation programs. Mr. Tatham explained that the results of Glendale's survey indicate a much higher participation (32%) than the national average, which is 24%. The most common reason that people do not participate is that they are too busy. Mr. Tatham assured the Council that the City of Glendale has a very good market share of participation. He explained that the age group that sees the greatest participation (households with children under ten) would benefit by targeted program information. Councilmember Martinez commented that the City could make improvements in security at City parks and, in some areas, improvements to how citizens are informed of programming to increase participation. Mayor Scruggs inquired about where the program participation was coming from in terms of locality or area of the City. Mr. Tatham provided the breakdown in program participation: north of Bell Road - 30%; south of Bell Road and north of Olive Avenue - 33%; south of Olive Avenue and east of Grand Avenue - 32%; and west of Grand Avenue - 34%. Mayor Scruggs commented that one item included in the survey was totally off the mark, that being "residents in North Glendale who are members of the Arrowhead Country Club may reduce the demand for a community center". She asked that it be removed from the results because there are very limited organized activities in North Glendale, membership in the country club is limited and very costly, and activities are very limited. Mr. Smith concurred that North Glendale is lacking in terms of facilities, and this is an area that needs to be addressed. He agreed with Mayor Scruggs' assessment about the country club not reducing the demand for a community center. Mr. Tatham noted that the comment may have come from the public meetings, but the survey results concur with Mayor Scruggs' assessment. Councilmember Martinez added that there is no swimming pool in the area north of Bell Road. The country club does have a pool, but it is restricted to members only. The schools have no pools to accommodate their swimming teams. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the result indicating that 47% of the respondents are concerned about security in the parks. Mr. Tatham explained that the result is 4% to 5% higher than the national average, and the response is based on perception. He said that he did not feel the result was something to be greatly alarmed by. One of the ways to use the data is to address the perception and then periodically survey to assess the impact of improvements. Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired about the high percentage of respondents in one or two- person households and whether it would skew the results. Mr. Tatham indicated that this is not an unusual result. 3 Councilmember McAllister commented that neighborhoods have changed in recent years. The fact that neighbors do not know each other is another factor that contributes to the security perception. He suggested that patrols be expanded to address the concern. He stated that the City needs to do several things: offer a variety of park types to address all ages; ensure that patrons are safe as they travel to and from parks; make parks lighter and brighter; and entice adult use. He said he believed that Glendale was doing a good job relative to its parks and recreation services. Councilmember Samaniego commented that this was an excellent report. He said that he was very interested in the cost recovery aspect and asked for further elaboration. Mr. Younger explained that cost recovery would be discussed under the action strategies. He stated that organizations price their services based on level of benefit received against what the general taxpayer would receive in terms of benefit. The taxpayer tolerance is different for different activities, and he provided examples of strategies for pricing services based on the values of the community. In response to a question posed by Councilmember Lieberman relative to program funding, Mr. Younger explained that parks systems are funded in a myriad of ways, and options will be presented as part of the action planning. The approach that will be used will fit the values of the community and look at investment partners, i.e. the school system, to leverage the City's funding. Mr. Davis identified the key results of the public forum analysis, which validated what the consultants heard in the focus groups and through the citizens survey. In response to a question by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Mr. Smith explained that in one of the public forums, held in the western area, where the turnout was low, the citizens turned in 37 or 38 surveys from neighborhood residents after the meeting. Councilmember Martinez quoted from the findings: "the community felt the recreation facilities that are most needed in Glendale are teen-related facilities and multi- generational centers". He commented that the City needs to keep this in mind as it faces increasing costs in the future. He stated that, whenever possible, making facilities multi-use should be considered in any facility which is built in the future. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the consultants had toured Skunk Creek, with open space needs in mind. Mr. Davis concurred that Skunk Creek represents a great open space opportunity for the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs stated that she thought the City had committed to keeping Skunk Creek in its natural state and reserving it for pedestrian, bicycling and equestrian trails. Mr. Smith verified this statement, indicating that the only exception is the Foothills Park Recreational portion, which will be active and under construction in the near future. 4 Councilmember Lieberman said he felt that the City was possibly wasting a great amount of usable land by not planning to do something in the future with the bottomland. Mr. Davis continued with the presentation, highlighting the key findings from the needs assessment/equity mapping and analysis process. Councilmember Goulet asked about the conflict between the need for more park facilities and federal mandates to eliminate dust and particulate problems. Mr. Smith explained that multi-purpose trails are either concrete or asphalt. Equestrian trails are typically constructed with crushed granite. The City is not proposing any trails that would be in conflict with federal guidelines. Councilmember McAllister suggested that the City look at new school/park facilities as an opportunity to create multi-use facilities. Councilmember Lieberman noted the total lack of adequate park facilities in the southeastern part of the City. He stated that there is only one park in the entire area, Mary Silva Park. Mayor Scruggs requested and received confirmation that the City of Glendale has adopted the current service area radius guide in the previous master plan. The information is used to identify coverage for parks. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the City look at whether it was setting a standard that it would never be able to meet. Inasmuch as the City would like to have the facilities projected in the standard, those facilities require staffing and equipment, and whether the City can afford staffing and equipment is another matter. She requested that staff make a note to discuss this issue at some time. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the distribution of resources be addressed up front with the citizens to enable them to understand that there is equity in placing resources where the population growth is occurring. She noted the projected 400% population increase in Planning Area I and pointed out that the Parks and Facility Analysis indicated that this area was the most deficient in the City in terms of distribution of park land and facilities. Mr. Davis explained that he was not particularly concerned with any of the levels and said he felt that none of the levels were unacceptable. He did concur that Zone 1 had the highest ratio. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the analysis disproves the discussion in the community that Zone 1 is over-served, especially if one considers the population projections out to 2004. She said she felt that it was important to point this out in order to avoid a misinformation situation. Councilmember McAllister stated that each zone in Glendale is very different. He said he believed that it was important to approach them differently. He noted that the important thing to him was that, when the City is built out, there is not a park in the City that is not safe. Therefore, if the City provides facilities, it must make sure there is adequate security. He stated his belief that, as vehicle traffic increases, the City should 5 do everything possible to decrease vehicle usage by getting people outdoors. He reiterated the importance of the linkage between schools and parks. Mr. Younger provided an overview of the demographic analysis results. He noted that one city has yet to respond to the benchmarking survey and explained how this survey would be used in the development of the plan. He said that the next step in the process is to develop a vision for the next ten years. The consultants will work with staff to create recommendations and tactics to achieve the vision. Once that process is complete, they will meet again with the Council to present the document, including funding options, and ask for the Council's reaction to the strategies. He indicated that it is expected that this will take place in March of 2000. Mr. Davis stated that the team will share the recommendations with the public in an open forum. Mayor Scruggs commended the team for the outstanding presentation and noted the significance of some of the findings. She specifically noted that in Planning Area II, where the City has its oldest parks and its youngest children, there are not enough creative and exciting things for that population to do in the parks. She felt that the survey was very useful. Mr. Younger commented that the older parks were designed by a State standard that has now changed. Today, the State requires customized parks that meet the demographics of the area. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that the survey reinforces the fact that the City's Parks and Recreation Department is doing an excellent job. Councilmember Lieberman commended the team for their work and indicated his keen interest in the report that will be presented in March. Councilmember Goulet agreed that the more one looks at the data, the more one can draw out of it. He assured the team that the Council will carefully review the recommendations. He agreed with the comments on how difficult it is to retrofit a park and create an amenity without sufficient space. He said he was appreciative of the work done to date. 2. FEE SCHEDULE FOR GLENDALE MEMORIAL PARK CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Martin, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Mike Hoyt, Director of Field Operations. The recommended fee schedule includes new pricing for recently added products and services and adjusted prices and fees for the inflationary and competitive market factors, which have occurred since the last rate adjustment in 1995. Additional revenue generated from new services and rate adjustments for existing services will offset increased operating expenses and continue building a fund balance in the perpetual care fund. 6 This item was discussed with the City Council at its Workshop session held on April 20, 1999. At that time, the City Council expressed concern about the discount offered to Glendale residents (staff had proposed residential discounts ranging from 5% to 10%). The City Council asked staff if higher discounts could be offered to residents without seriously impacting the cemetery's operations. As a result, the City Council directed staff to modify the rate structure to reduce rates (increase the discount) for Glendale residents over previously proposed rates. Resident rates are reduced by 37.5% for the same services. Following adoption of rates, mortuaries and the general public will be notified of the new products, services and fees by letter and news releases. This item was presented for review and to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman commented that the new office is beautiful and the City has a first-class city cemetery, which is something to be very proud of. Councilmember Martinez asked how the rates compare to other cities. Mr. Martin stated that Exhibit B (Comparison with Westside Cemeteries), which was given to Council as a part of the council packet information on this item, shows a comparison with other west side cemeteries. Mr. Hoyt confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the cemetery has one oval area that is completely undeveloped. He noted that there are plans for that area to be a premium area, with upgraded landscaping, furniture, and upright tombstones.. The area is designed to help the perpetual care fund. Mayor Scruggs conveyed the consensus of the Council that the proposed rates are acceptable and directed that the item be brought forward to a regular Council meeting. 3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Paschke, Assistant to the Director of Intergovernmental Relations. A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale in various ways. Ms. Rudibaugh discussed the most significant bills and their current status. This was the first legislative update of the 2000 session. Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of City administration and were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to the Intergovernmental Relations staff contacts. 7 Ms. Rudibaugh introduced her new assistant, Ms. Dana Paschke. She gave the Mayor and Council an overview of Ms. Paschke's credentials. She noted that Ms. Paschke replaced her former assistant, Mr. Chris Thomas. Ms. Rudibaugh highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on the City of Glendale. She said that the session will begin on January 10, 2000 and the goal is a 75-day session. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that the House will have a voluntary five-bill limit and she explained how that would work. She said that the City of Glendale's priorities in the session will be to preserve local authority in land use planning; e-commerce; transportation needs; the Luke Air Force Base bill; group homes; random gunfire; and preserving state-shared revenues and local sales tax authority. Ms. Paschke outlined the provisions of two bills in detail: Senate Bill 1021, the public meeting bill, and House Bill 2047, a private property rights bill. She noted that the staff recommendation was that Senate Bill 1021 supports the legislation with two key amendments, those being a clarification of the language in relation to the context included in the agendas and amending the language so that the burden of proof to gain access is put upon the Attorney General or the State Attorney's Office. She said that the staff recommendation on House Bill 2047 was to oppose the bill. This item was presented for information purposes, discussion, and possible direction on legislative issues. Mayor Scruggs commented that the Legislature is exempt from open meeting laws and, consequently, much of the State's business is done out of the public's view. Ms. Rudibaugh confirmed that this bill would not change the legislative exemption. Mayor Scruggs cited examples of how House Bill 2047 would negatively impact neighborhoods and cities. Ms. Rudibaugh stated her belief that the sponsor of the bill does not completely understand the impact of the bill. Councilmember Lieberman asked about the status of a Growing Smarter special session. Ms. Rudibaugh said that she was unaware of any new information on this subject. Councilmember Lieberman stated his understanding that the Citizens Initiative would not be put on the ballot if there was agreement among the three sides. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 8