HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/6/2004 * 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
July 6, 2004
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
and H. Phillip Lieberman.
ABSENT: Councilmember Manuel D. Martinez
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City
Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna,
City Clerk
Mr. Beasley read a statement concerning fires within the community that could effect
the transmission of power. He said APS has informed the city that, as a result of their
efforts to conserve power, the city hall building could loose power later this afternoon.
Mr. Paladini said, should the power outage occur, he recommends the executive and
public sessions be adjourned and rescheduled to a future date. He explained the
Council could agree to either reconvene at a specific date and time or choose to
reconvene at a future date and post a notice of the meeting 24 hours prior to
reconvening.
1. NEW RIVER/AGUA FRIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE PROJECT
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager and Mr.
Stephen Rot, Environmental Program Manager
This is a request for the City Council to review and consider Glendale's participation in
the New River/Agua Fria Underground Storage Project (NAUSP). Participation in the
NAUSP will allow the city to meet the statutory requirements that, by 2025, every gallon
of groundwater pumped must be either naturally or artificially replenished.
The NAUSP is a regional water recharge facility that will be owned by the participants,
which include the Salt River Project, and the cities of Avondale, Chandler, and
Glendale, and operated by the Salt River Project.
Effluent is a significant part of the city's plan to ensure that it has sustainable water
resources to meet current and future water demand.
The city's participation in the NAUSP facility will allow Glendale to artificially recharge
and store the additional effluent that will be generated from the expansion of the West
Area Water Reclamation Facility.
1
The expansion of Glendale's West Area Water Reclamation Facility from a capacity of
4.3 million gallons per day (4,817 acre-feet per year) to 10 million gallons per day
(11,201 acre-feet per year) has necessitated the city to secure additional water storage
capacity.
The NAUSP will operate under an intergovernmental agreement among the partners.
The NAUSP was originally projected to have an ultimate annual storage capacity of
100,000 acre-feet per year, in which Glendale considered a 20 percent (20,000 acre-
feet of annual storage capacity) ownership of the facility.
The NAUSP is currently projected to have an ultimate annual storage capacity of
75,000 acre-feet.
Project construction will be completed in two phases. The first phase of construction is
expected to be complete by mid-year 2005.
The Utilities Department and Black & Veatch Consultants presented the City's
Comprehensive Water System Master Plan to the Council at four workshop sessions
during October through December 2003. The plan contained a recommendation to
increase the city's recharge capacity to accommodate the additional effluent flow from
the expanded West Area Water Reclamation Facility.
The NAUSP has been in the Glendale Capital Improvement Plan since 2002.
Glendale's participation in the NAUSP will allow the city to recharge 100 percent of the
effluent generated at the West Area Water Reclamation Facility. The water storage
credits earned as a result of recharging the effluent can be used to meet the city's
statutory requirements by offsetting Glendale's groundwater use.
Maximizing the use of Glendale's available effluent supplies through recharge activities
will assist the city in maintaining its designation of assured water supply, which is
necessary for continued growth and development within the city's water service area.
Glendale has a capital improvement budget for this project of $3,737,247. over fiscal
years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. These funds are available in the New River/Agua
Fria Underground Storage Project C.I.P Account No. 83-9280.
Federal Grant funds were awarded for the project by the Department of Interior.
Glendale's share of the available grant funds, based upon twenty percent ownership in
the project, is $40,000.
The projected capital cost to Glendale, based upon twenty percent ownership in the
project and subtracting Glendale's share of the available Federal grant funding, is
2
$2,699,576. Based upon the currently projected storage capacity, this will provide
Glendale with 15,000 acre-feet of recharge capacity per year.
The projected first year operating cost to Glendale, based upon twenty percent
ownership in the project, is $66,000. These annual operating costs will be covered by
the Utilities Fund 50.
Staff evaluated the option of expanding the city's existing West Area Aquifer recharge
facility, but this was determined to be limited due to recharge impacts associated with
the previously permitted NAUSP, and on the immediately adjacent Glendale Landfill
and gravel mining operations.
Staff considered building and operating a new groundwater recharge facility solely
owned by the City, but it was determined to be a more expensive option.
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the whether City Council wants the city to
become a partner in the NAUSP facility.
Councilmember Goulet asked how a city's percentage of use affects their cost. Mr.
Reedy explained 40 percent of the facility would be owned by SRP, 20 percent by
Glendale, 30 percent by Chandler and 10 percent by Avondale. He said the water a
community withdraws would be in their community and the goal is to recharge to the
aquifer. He said the Department of Water Resources allows cities to reclaim water
through any of its existing wells so the demand on the system would be based on how
much was contributed to the facility for recharge. Councilmember Goulet asked if a
community has to be able to put in an amount equal to the percentage they use. Mr.
Reedy said a community could choose not to fully utilize the facility, at which point any
remaining water would be made available to other communities through a lease
agreement.
Councilmember Clark asked if the facility would have any impact on the city's landfill or
gravel mining operation. Mr. Reedy said the possibility exists since underground water
in the area would probably flow northwest toward the landfill. He said their goal is to
keep the water under the bottom of the landfill. Councilmember Clark asked why the
current facility cannot be expanded if the NAUSP is expected to have an impact on the
landfill and gravel mining operation as well. She also asked about the costs involved in
the current facility and the NAUSP facility. Mr. Reedy explained there are a variety of .
costs involved in developing this type of project, including engineering costs associated
with permitting the project, extensive testing and modeling, and technical reports. He
said, in the case of the NAUSP, those costs will be shared by four entities. He stated
the current facility cost approximately $5 million to construct and provides about 5
million gallons per day storage. He said for a cost to Glendale of approximately $3
million, the NAUSP facility would provide 15 to 17 million gallons per day storage.
Councilmember Clark said she is concerned about both facilities' close proximity to the
city's landfill and gravel mining operations. Mr. Reedy assured Councilmember Clark
staff would monitor the situation and verify current operations of the landfill and mining
operation are not negatively impacted.
Councilmember Clark asked if Chandler would physically store water at the new facility.
Mr. Reedy explained Chandler has SRP water delivered to them through the Granite
Reef aqueduct and canal systems and, by being a partner, the water at the new facility
3
can be delivered to Chandler using the same means. Councilmember Clark asked
about the time constraint referenced in the staff report.
Mr. Reedy explained they have been working on the project with SRP for five years,
stating they now have to proceed so they can get on with the business of storing water.
He stated they have been given the option by the permitting agency to continue using
the city's facility for about one year. Councilmember Clark asked how they get across
the Agua Fria. Mr. Reedy explained a pipe to deliver sewer flow from 99th Avenue and
Camelback to the facility and a 24-inch pipe under the river to deliver treated effluent
back across the river was constructed several years ago.
In response to Councilmember Lieberman's questions, Mr. Reedy pointed out the
location of the reclamation facility and pipe under the Agua Fria River. He explained
the pipe under the river would be connected as part of the expansion project currently
underway.
Councilmember Clark asked when the water treatment plant would have a 10 million
gallon capacity. Mr. Reedy said approximately February or March 2005.
Councilmember Goulet asked if there is a likelihood that the land for Phase II will be
sold and that Phase II will not be able to be developed. Mr. Reedy said a provision in
the intergovernmental agreement with SRP allows Phase Ito ultimately be unused and
reclaimed, allowing the property to be sold. He stated a number of other properties
down stream will have very little value to the property owner and could become future
sites for reclamation recharge facilities.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if a timeline has been identified for meeting the
statutory requirements by 2025. Mr. Reedy said their goal is to do as much recharge as
possible over the next few years to build up credits. Councilmember Lieberman asked
what other cities that are not part of the compact are going to do. Mr. Reedy said there
are a number of other solutions and projects currently underway. Mr. Rot noted the City
of Phoenix is looking at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project as having
sufficient capacity to meet their needs. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the
previous compact between Glendale and an Indian tribe is still in existence. Mr. Reedy
stated they are awaiting answers to a number of legal issues. Councilmember
Lieberman clarified the compact with the Indian tribe will in no way impact the NAUSP
partnership.
Councilmember Goulet asked if Glendale is the first city to consider the partnership.
Mr. Reedy reported Avondale approved the project on June 21 and Chandler will soon
have the issue on their agenda for approval as well.
Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Reedy if he anticipates some of the compacts to
merge together as 2025 draws closer. Mr. Reedy questioned whether legally the
compacts could merge. He said, however, SRP has been a catalyst for bringing these
types of projects together.
Councilmember Frate asked why the facility's capacity had to be reduced. Mr. Reedy
said the original site was larger. Councilmember Frate asked what the city intends to
do with the $1 million cost savings over the budgeted amount. Mr. Reedy stated one of
their goals is to acquire additional capacity if it becomes available. He said, should
additional capacity not be available, the money will go back into the water fund and be
used on other projects.
4
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Reedy stated the Arrowhead
Water Reclamation Facility has several wells used for recharge purposes. He said the
NAUSP facility is slightly different, in that they flood the bottom of the basin and the
water soaks into the ground very rapidly. He stated the well recharge project works
better in an area where there is not a lot of available surface land. Vice Mayor
Eggleston commented on other cities that end up with large ponds that attract ducks
and other birds. Mr. Reedy said the NAUSP facility will have little to no surface water,
noting the reduction in alfalfa will actually reduce the number of birds attracted to the
area. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the water couldn't just be sent down the river.
Mr. Reedy said, first of all, they do not have a discharge permit. He explained,
however, even if they had a discharge permit, it would not necessarily benefit the
groundwater.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the operation and capital costs have been built into the rate
analysis. Mr. Reedy responded yes.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if Glendale owns the land. Mr. Reedy explained SRP
purchased the land about one month ago.
It as the consensus of the City Council to have staff proceed.
2. FOLLOW-UP REPORTS ON APRIL 6TH COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL
INTEREST
This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction regarding reports on
the following items:
A. Go Peds
B. Noise Ordinance related to mobile vendors
C. Mobile Vendors - Licensing
D. Vehicular Cruising Ordinance
E. Newspaper Stands
Council "Items of Special Interest" are discussed quarterly in workshop according to a
Council procedural guideline approved in the Fall of 2002. The memorandums
submitted to the Council provide an initial assessment of topics identified during the
April 6, 2004 Council workshop. The reports address issues related to the Council's
priorities of enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents and ensuring public
safety.
At the April 6, 2004 Council workshop, the following "items of special interest" were
identified by the Mayor and Council to receive an initial assessment by staff related to
costs associated with their study and implementation:
o Go Peds — Councilmember Goulet
o Noise Ordinance related to mobile vendors — Councilmember Goulet
o Mobile Vendors — Licensing — Councilmembers Goulet and Lieberman
o Vehicular Cruising Ordinance — Councilmember Goulet
o Newspaper Stands — Councilmember Frate
5
Should the Council decide to pursue further action on any of these topics, various
stakeholders, interested parties, and the public-at-large will be notified of policy
changes and/or future opportunities to provide input.
Each of the five memorandums includes an initial assessment and/or possible budget
impacts and costs.
The recommendation was to review and provide staff direction on each of the five items
of special interest.
A. Go Peds
City Staff: Assistant Police Chief Andrew Kirkland and Lieutenant Matt Lt. Lively
Councilmember Goulet asked if the ordinance would cover new types of vehicles that
could come out in the future. Lt. Lively said the state legislature is currently exploring
whether or not they should legislate the new mini-motorcycle vehicles. He stated the
city's new ordinance is fairly strong in terms of the vehicles to which it applies, however,
he is not certain new vehicles will fall under the regulation. Councilmember Goulet
asked if other cities have changed ordinances that previously permitted go peds so that
they are now outlawed. Lt. Lively said Tucson recently enacted an ordinance and
Gilbert recently addressed this issue. He explained Tucson has put a ban on go peds,
but he is not sure if the ban applies to the mini-motorcycles as well.
Mayor Scruggs stated Gilbert basically copied Glendale's ordinance except they allow
children to start riding at 13 years of age and a notarized statement from a child's
parent is not required. She stated she was part of an extensive discussion on electric
vehicles that children as young as three can drive, asking if the ordinance would cover
those types of vehicles. Assistant Chief Kirkland responded no.
Councilmember Frate asked what liability the city has if a person is killed on a go ped
under the city's current ordinance. He commented, while the issue used to be the noise
the motors generate, the new quiet motors cause their own problems because people
are not aware they are approaching. He asked if miniature golf carts are regulated. Lt.
Lively said golf carts are currently regulated by state statute. He pointed out golf carts
as well as three and four wheel ATV's can be licensed if they meet certain
requirements, making them lawful for operation on city. streets. He noted some of the
mini-motorcycles, which are known as pocket bikes, could achieve speeds of up to 50
miles per hour. Councilmember Frate asked if the stores inform people that the mini-
golf carts have to be licensed. Lt. Lively said one of the problems is that cities regulate
go-peds and mini-vehicles differently. He clarified the mini-golf carts to which
Councilmember Frate referred are actually mini-dune buggies, which are not regulated
by the state and not permitted to operate on city roadways.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the little girl that was recently hit while riding an
electric skateboard was nine years old and not wearing a helmet. He questioned why
6
her parents would have allowed her to ride, stating it emphasizes the need to educate
parents on the city's ordinance. He said many of the products do not have serial
numbers and, therefore, cannot be registered. He expressed his opinion the ordinance
is neither strict nor inclusive enough, stating it should include all types of vehicles.
Councilmember Goulet said he has always opposed allowing motorized skateboards to
be on the road, explaining regardless of how smart the child might be, who is riding the
vehicle, they cannot compete with the traffic on city roads. He stated manufacturer's
will always produce products that get around the city's ordinance, therefore, the city
either has to decide to allow the vehicles and deal with the consequences, or make a
very strong ordinance that clearly states the vehicles will not be allowed on the roads at
any time, regardless of the age of the driver. He said parents are ultimately responsible
for the decision to allow their children to drive the vehicles, but he believes the city will
fail if it does not find a way to effectively inform parents so that the right decision can be
made.
Councilmember Lieberman stated the city informs people of numerous things and
requires residents to adhere to certain guidelines and restrictions. He said there is no
reason why the city's ordinance on this issue cannot be as strong as ordinances in all
other aspects of the city. He said, unfortunately, the city cannot enforce its noise
ordinance in terms of the vehicles, because the city does not own a decibel meter and
its Lt.s have not be trained in using the decibel A-Scale or B-Scale. He stated they
could merely encourage the child to run quieter, if possible. He said the city has to put
out clear information explaining the city's rules.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the Police Department addresses complaints about
noise from the vehicles. Lt. Lively admitted noise is the single greatest complaint the
department receives about the vehicles. He said the current ordinance prohibits
unnecessary or obnoxious noise, stating the difficulty comes when attempting to define
what is, in fact, unnecessary or obnoxious. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Police
Department could do anything to address vehicles that have been modified to create
even more noise. Lt. Lively said, because there are a number of manufacturers and
designs, it is difficult to determine whether a vehicle has been modified from its original
version. He said the judgment is basically left to the discretion of the Lt..
Vice Mayor Eggleston commented that, while motorcycles are often very loud but they
do not travel around the block numerous times. Lt. Lively said to some extent
motorcycles are regulated by state law; however, even those laws are becoming more
difficult to enforce because it is hard to determine if a muffler is a stock muffler.
Councilmember Frate asked if electric go peds are covered under the city's ordinance.
Lt. Lively responded yes.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out the ordinance makes reference to "motorized skateboards,"
stating, otherwise, it would refer to the little electric cars as well.
7
Councilmember Lieberman noted there are seven or more major custom cycle builders
in Arizona, including one in Glendale, whose bikes are all noisy by nature.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there is consensus for strengthening the city's existing
ordinance or increasing enforcement. Councilmembers Goulet, Frate and Lieberman
expressed their opinion the ordinance regarding motorized skateboards should be
strengthened. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to work on strengthening the city's
ordinance. Councilmember Lieberman asked that the scope of vehicles covered by the
ordinance also be expanded.
Councilmember Goulet suggested the ordinance also address cruising or driving in
repetitive patterns. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the original intent of the noise aspect of
the ordinance was to eliminate repetitive driving patterns.
Mayor Scruggs asked if citizen input would be solicited before or after drafting of the
ordinance. Assistant Chief Kirkland expressed his opinion it is important to solicit input
prior to drafting the ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs noted the kids she met with from several schools knew the city's
ordinance on go peds. Lt. Lively said the city did several shows on the subject on the
city's cable channel, as well as water bill mailings and articles in the Connection.
Councilmember Frate stated the city also produced and distributed a video to all
elementary schools.
B. Noise Ordinance Related to Mobile Vendors
City Staff: Mr. Andrew Kirkland, Assistant Police Chief and Lt. Matt Lt. Lively
Councilmember Goulet explained he brought this issue forward as a result of
complaints he received from residents. He said music and announcements from the
vendors should be done at such a level that they can only be heard by those within a
one-block proximity to the vendor.
Councilmember Lieberman questioned how the city could enforce any noise ordinance
without having a decibel meter. He stated the city's ordinance currently prohibits any
noise that is not reasonable or proper, which is up to the discretion of the Lt. responding
to a complaint. He suggested they first explore whether the city has an ordinance that
covers mid-street vendors. Lt. Lively said the city's existing ordinances primarily refer to
noise and prolonged parking in front of a house.
Councilmember Clark said, while the city has an ordinance regarding noise, it is an
impossible issue to address without clear definitions of what constitutes excessive
noise. She suggested the issue be addressed in a manner similar to the city's barking
dog ordinance, wherein three neighbors have to complain and show proof that a dog is
making excessive or unreasonable noise. Assistant Chief Kirkland stated the
8
complaints are not typically about ice-cream vendors, but vendors who play their
stereos extremely loud through the neighborhoods.
Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the whole discussion is pitiful, stating she used
to wait with great anticipation for the sound of the ice cream truck when she was a child.
She stated she would not support doing anything to further regulate the noise from ice
cream trucks. She said, with regard to vendors who play their stereos too loudly, she
pointed out the city has not been successful in its past efforts to stop people from
playing their stereos too loudly.
Councilmember Goulet explained that, while the ice cream truck never used to be an
issue, the cumulative total of all of the vendors who now travel through neighborhoods
has created the problem.
Councilmember Clark pointed out ice cream trucks used to ring a bell, while they now
blare music to attract children. She said she agrees with Councilmember Goulet that,
as people move in closer proximity to each other, they need to be more respectful of
their neighbors.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there is consensus to strengthen the ordinance.
Councilmembers Goulet and Clark voiced their support, however, there was no
consensus.
Mobile Vendors — Licensing
City Staff: Mr. Robert Drake, Revenue Administrator
Councilmember Goulet said residents have raised concerns about the health and
quality of the merchandise being sold by mobile vendors. He said, additionally,
licensed vendors have made complaints about unlicensed vendors who sell products
out of ice chests, shopping carts and bicycle racks.
Councilmember Lieberman said he too is concerned about the cleanliness and
licensing of mobile vendors. He stated each mobile unit is required to have a fully
operational hand sink with hot and cold running water and be supplied with soap and a
disposable hand towel. He said it is apparent that requirement is not met by many of
the vendors. He asked if the city has the resources to police vendors to ensure they
meet the requirements or if enforcement is the state's responsibility. Mr. Drake
explained Maricopa County handles sanitary inspections and food handling certificates
of all vendors. He said, prior to being licensed by the city, vendors are required to
obtain a certificate for their cart or vehicle. He said the city further requires a certificate
of insurance if operating in parks, a contract with a property owner if operating on
private property, and a list of any employees. Councilmember Lieberman reiterated his
concern about cleanliness, stating he does not believe all of the vendors have the ability
to wash their hands.
9
Mayor Scruggs pointed out there are 40 double-sided pages of city and county laws
and regulations a vendor has to meet to obtain a license. She questioned what more
the city or county could do in terms of ensuring cleanliness. Mr. Drake said the
problems arise from vendors who are not licensed. He stated police and code
enforcement Lt.s are able to verify a vehicle or pushcart has the appropriate license,
noting one city actually requires vendors to display a sticker indicating they are licensed
for the year. Mayor Scruggs commented the county does a very good job in terms of
health inspections.
Councilmember Frate asked if the Police Department has enough Lt.s to adequately
enforce licensing requirements. Mr. Drake said enforcement is a problem in all cities
because the vendors are mobile. Councilmember Frate asked what citizens could do to
help Code Enforcement or the Police Department. Mr. Drake said the Police
Department would likely have to be contacted if a complaint was filed in order to get to
the vendor before they moved to a different location. He said, in situations where a
vendor has been spotted at a specific location on numerous occasions, an inspector
would be stationed there to wait for the vendor to return.
Councilmember Goulet said he has been asked why the city allows people who
obviously do not have health clearances or permits to repeatedly come into its
neighborhoods. He said the vendors who attend city sanctioned events and hold the
necessary licenses are not the problem, explaining it is the unlicensed vendor who
randomly shows up and is, therefore, unreachable if someone gets sick after
purchasing their product.
Mayor Scruggs suggested Assistant Chief Kirkland send Lt.s out to meet with the
residents who have raised concerns about the mobile vendors, stating the complaints
seem to come from specific areas. Assistant Chief Kirkland agreed one of their CAT
teams could meet with the residents. Mayor Scruggs questioned what more the city
could or would want to do. She asked if there is a consensus for staff to research
additional licensing and cleanliness procedures.
Councilmember Clark asked if vendors pay the city a fee. Mr. Drake responded yes.
Councilmember Clark asked if Glendale issues a sticker that indicates they have paid
the fee. Mr. Drake said they issue a business license, but no sticker. Councilmember
Clark suggested a sticker would help identify unlicensed vendors and assist with
enforcement.
Mr. Drake confirmed the vendors have to renew their licenses annually.
Councilmember Clark further suggested the stickers include a vendor specific number
citizens can reference when filing a complaint.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out Mr. Drake has set forth the cost involved in
issuing stickers. He asked if the amount collected in fees would defray the cost of
issuing the stickers. Mr. Drake said the $80 peddler's license fee is used to cover
10
administrative costs involved in issuing the license, but should also be able to cover the
cost of the stickers. Councilmember Lieberman said he strongly supports issuing
stickers.
It was the consensus of City Council to have staff proceed with a plan to issue stickers.
C. Vehicular Cruising Ordinance
City Staff: Mr. Andrew Kirkland, Assistant Police Chief and Lt. Matt Lt. Lively
Councilmember Goulet explained he asked that the Cruising ordinance be updated to
address issues that may come up in the future with regard to the arena and stadium.
Councilmember Frate asked if cruising is a concern on Bell Road. Lt. Lively explained
speed and impromptu races are of more concern on Bell Road than cruising. He said
cruising typically occurs along entertainment corridors. He said the city could designate
certain areas or specific times as "no cruising" areas or times. Councilmember Frate
asked if cruising is a problem in the Arrowhead area. Lt. Lively said not at this time.
Councilmember Lieberman stated he does not support a vehicular cruising ordinance.
Councilmember Goulet said, while there may not be any problems right now, he
supports establishing an ordinance to deal with possible problems in the future.
Mayor Scruggs said, while she is generally opposed to adding more laws, she believes
the ordinance is necessary. She commented on the impact cruising could have on
residents who live near the sports arena and stadium, stating it could make residents
fear leaving or unable to access their homes. She said, however, she does not want an
ordinance that strictly addresses cruising in the area of the sports facilities.
Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed.
It was the consensus of City Council to have staff draft a Vehicular Cruising Ordinance.
D. Newspaper Stands
City Staff: Mr. Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney
Councilmember Frate explained numerous newspaper stands are empty, damaged or
abandoned. He said many are not located in appropriate locations and are not easily
accessible. He expressed his opinion an ordinance will improve the aesthetics of the
community and result in less litter.
Mr. Paladini explained the city is permitted to regulate the location of a newsstand if it
interferes with traffic. He said, however, the city is not able to regulate the content of
newsstands. He noted Coral Gables Florida imposed a regulation on news racks
requiring certain makes and models; stating, their decision was tater upheld by the 11`h
Circuit Court of Appeals. He said, however, Arizona is in the 9` Circuit and a different
11
outcome could result and, even assuming the 9th Circuit would uphold such a decision,
enforceability may not be practical in a city the size of Glendale. He said staff could
certainly research the practicality of such an ordinance and what would be involved in
retrofitting all of the existing newsstands to meet the new requirements.
Councilmember Frate explained he is mainly concerned about empty and abandoned
newsstands. Mr. Paladini noted other cities have imposed spacing requirements. He
explained the key to imposing such an ordinance would be that it not be discretionary.
Councilmember Frate asked who at the city tracks the newsstands. Mr. Paladini was
unable to answer, noting, however, the city has the ability to remove any newsstand
that impedes traffic or results in an unsafe condition.
Mr. Paladini confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that a person does not need permission to
install a newsstand placed in the city's right-of-way. He pointed out sidewalks are
considered a limited public forum for the distribution of printed media. Mayor Scruggs
asked how the city would proceed if they want to follow Corral Gables lead. Mr.
Paladini explained the Council would have to adopt an ordinance, which would be
imposed on all publications, requiring compliance within a certain time period. Mayor
Scruggs questioned how they could impose the ordinance when permission is not
necessary to install a newsstand. Mr. Paladini said the city would have to educate
publishers on the requirements and, after what would probably have to be a significant
grace period, cite those who fail to meet the requirements. He reiterated enforcement
would be very difficult given the size of the city.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about newsstands that strictly sell commercial advertising
publications. Mr. Paladini noted the Corral Gables ordinance prohibited cardholders or
advertisements to be attached to newsstands. He said Glendale could also prohibit
cardholders and advertisements as long as it was done on a non-discretionary basis
and as long as it was not based on content. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if a
newsstand that is presumed abandoned could be removed. Mr. Paladini explained,
while the city could remove the newsstand, it could have a liability issue if a person later
makes a claim to the newsstand.
Councilmember Goulet said Corral Gables' ordinance was created in an attempt to
control the number of racks and he would support Glendale trying to gain such control
as well.
There was no consensus to proceed with an ordinance.
3. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ed Beasley, City Manager presented this
item.
This is the quarterly opportunity for City Councilmembers to identify topics of interest
they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future
workshop agenda.
In the Fall of 2002, the Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of
special interest to be identified quarterly.
The initial assessment of each item requires staff time.
12
The recommendation was to identify items of special interest that Council wants the
City Manager to assess.
Mayor Scruggs asked staff to begin a study to determine what will be needed for
Council to consider changing the dates of their elections from the Spring cycle to the
Fall cycle.
Council Comments and Suggestions
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the discussion concerning payment of defense lawyers
for public officials and employees should be held in public session rather than
Executive Session. Mr. Paladini explained Item 2B on the Executive Session agenda is
intended to provide Council with a summary of the legal opinion provided by outside
counsel and to discuss the issue of government payment of criminal defense counsel
legal fees. He clarified the legal opinion clearly states the decision as to whether or not
to pay for the attorneys fees is one for the Council to make and that any decision would
have to be made by vote at a regularly scheduled public meeting. He said it is
customary for Council to discuss legal issues in Executive Session prior to bringing
them to a public meeting; although Council is entitled to discuss the topic in public. He
stated, while an item agendized for a public session can be discussed by majority vote
in an Executive Session, he does not know if an item agendized for Executive Session
can be discussed during a public session without first being agendized.
Councilmember Lieberman commented the building is closing at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Beasley
explained, for the next 30 days, employees will be told to leave at 4:00 p.m. to conserve
electricity, but this building will remain open.
Mr. Paladini clarified, upon further research, Council is permitted to discuss Executive
Session items in public session after the Executive Session is over.
Mayor Scruggs said there appears to be an expectation that a statement will be made
about paying defense attorney fees. She asked Mr. Paladini to explain Item 2B on the
Executive Session agenda. Mr. Paladini stated Item 2B is to discuss the legal opinion
provided by outside counsel regarding the payment of criminal defense attorney's fees
by the city and to answer any questions Council might have. He reiterated any
decision, action or direction will have to be done at a public meeting.
Councilmember Clark asked if conflict of interest statements have to be completed
before the issue can be discussed in public session. Mr. Paladini said statements have
been filed by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Councilmember Frate and Councilmember Goulet,
stating they acknowledge their conflict of interest, but under 38-508(b), they choose to
participate in the discussion.
Mr. Paladini confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that Council could choose to skip
the item in Executive Session and to schedule it for open session at a later date.
Mayor Scruggs recommended Council recess into Executive Session and return to
adjourn the workshop session.
The meeting recessed at 4:15 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:10 p.m.
13
Mr. Paladini said, after review of the topic, he would advise against discussing the issue
of payment of attorney's fees in open session until it has been properly agendized. He
reiterated, however, should the issue be discussed in Executive Session, the discussion
will be limited to the attorney's providing legal advice to Council and that no action can
be taken until the item is property agenized for a regularly scheduled meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
14