Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/5/2008 *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 FEBRUARY 5, 2008 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, Yvonne J. Knaack, and H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager This is the quarterly opportunity for the City Council 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 by the Council on a quarterly basis for follow-up by the City Manager. Staff was previously requested to obtain information on the following items and return at a later date. • Commercial Recycling Mr. Stuart Kent, Field Operations Director responded to Council questions. • Shredding for the Public Ms. Pamela Hanna, City Clerk responded to Council questions, with the assistance of Darcie McCracken, Deputy City Clerk and Mr. Stuart Ken, Field Operations Director. • Motorcycle Safety Mr. Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Director responded to Council questions. 1 • Tattoo Parlors Mr. Jon Froke, AICP, Interim Deputy City Manager responded to Council questions. Staff requests the Council to identify items of interest for follow-up by staff during the next quarter. Mayor Scruggs recognized the members of the Mayors Youth Advisory Commission attending the meeting today for Student Government Day. They have been spending the day shadowing various staff members. Mayor Scruggs called for Council items of special interest. Mr. Ed Beasley introduced the first item, Commercial Recycling which had been requested by Councilmember Knaack. Councilmember Knaack commented she had expected to see more information on this item. She read a quote from the 2005 minutes from Mr. Ken Reedy. He stated the landfill currently has an anticipated life span of 43 years and the recycling component would benefit the city, since the recycling facility operates more efficiently with more material. Councilmember Knaack stated that with that said, commercial recycling needs to be pursued further with additional information. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Stuart Kent to address the matter. She also commented on the fact that very little information had been given to know whether to pursue this item. Mr. Kent stated that the city had been in the commercial recycling business for about ten years. He said in 1998 they provided a variety of services to small businesses such as dentist offices, to large businesses such as Banner Hospital. He said they realized that after five years they were unable to recover all of their collection cost. In 2003, the small businesses were weaned off and their focus became large businesses that generated larger amounts of recyclables. He said they currently do business with six large establishments. The businesses are charged a base collection fee and the value of the material comes back to the city. He commented that Mr. Reedy was correct in stating that ultimately, there is a point where the capacity of the facility needs to be used as it was designed. He pointed out that you do not want to add additional staff, if you were just over that threshold of capacity, unless you were able to bring a lot more in. He added that the purpose of the memo was to only provide general information; however if Council requests a more extensive evaluation of commercial recycling, he would be happy to look deeper into the matter. Councilmember Knaack stated it has been five years since this item had been reevaluated and with the current growth around the city, such as Westgate and the arena, there is a great opportunity to do a lot more commercial recycling. Mr. Kent said they were still evaluating those opportunities as they came up. He stated that with regard to Westgate, the issue became the site and where the cardboard bins are 2 placed. He added that as that area develops there might be additional opportunities to incorporate recycling because at the moment that area was out of space. He noted the Renaissance Hotel was able to incorporate the recycle bins. He said where there were strategic opportunities that made sense, they have been actively pursing them. In addition, there are a number of other commercial recycling companies that also offer the same service. Councilmember Knaack asked if they were being proactive in attracting and contacting area businesses. She suggested car dealerships. Mr. Kent explained they are proactive where it made sense. He said as far as the car dealerships, they have had some negative experiences. He said the challenge for them was providing the bin with a reduced rate then having the load come in contaminated. The load would have to be thrown out, hauled out and buried. He provided an example that happened at the NFL Experience. He said the recycle bins had been contaminated and the owners had to be charged the full rate. He said for this to work properly, the business owners have to make the commitment and make sure the load is sorted and their staff trained. Councilmember Knaack asked again if they were being proactive in asking businesses around the city about recycling. Mr. Kent stated that each business was assessed on a case-to-case basis. He also explained the issues and challenges pertaining to restaurant businesses. Councilmember Goulet followed up with a question for Mr. Kent asking if it would ever be possible or feasible to recycle glass. Mr. Kent stated that the market had not changed dramatically in the last ten years. He stated that glass was a major contaminate issue compared to paper. Paper products were 50 to 60 percent of everything handled, with newspaper valued at about $100 dollars per ton. Glass products are valued at $30 or $40 per ton. In addition, glass also creates safety issues regarding breakage. He added that if the glass becomes imbedded in the paper, they would have to trash the paper and charge the owner to landfill it. He noted that glass had also become a small portion of the waste stream. He provided examples such as the changes in condiment bottles and added that for the shipping companies, it had become a weight issue. Glass weighs more than plastic, therefore the change. He stated that they do offer glass service to businesses that bring it to the plant. Vice Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Kent if the shops on 59th and Utopia had been looked at as a possibility for recycling. Mr. Kent stated that he was not familiar with that development, however reiterated that each business was looked at individually. He explained that having multiple businesses on a site usually means that no one will keep track of what goes in the bins. He said it was easier to keep track with large businesses. Vice Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Kent if small businesses had any recourse if they wanted to start recycling. Mr. Kent explained that they could certainly bring their recyclables to the plant or contact the many companies providing the service. He said they could also see if it was feasible for the city to become involved. He said they did 3 not want to inter-mingle residential and commercial recycling. He stated that so far, the commercial aspect of recycling has worked well. Vice Mayor Martinez thanked Mr. Kent and commented that the information provided did support further examination on possibly expanding commercial recycling. Councilmember Frate commented on big business having the incentive to recycle because of it being environmentally safe, as well as profitable. He stated that the volume of the big companies was what saved the landfills. He explained that the big companies do like to recycle especially, Xerox paper. Mr. Kent agreed with Councilmember Frate that most facilities do recycle paper and they do provide the service. Councilmember Frate commented on the stadium also having small containers for plastic and glass. He related an example of the glass recycling challenges in which he was involved in about 35 years ago in another state. Councilmember Clark said the market demand for commercial recycling was not evident. She added that as Mr. Kent mentioned, big commercial businesses had already made the commitment to go green and have dealt with that issue internally. She added if there were to be a demand, it would only be on the small business side. She said she was a little concerned with the city's reluctance to offer a 90 gallon bin because of the possibility of mixing residential and commercial trucks and bins. She stated she would like to find an efficient and cost effective way to accommodate businesses who wanted to take part in recycling. Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification on the last paragraph in the report provided regarding fees paid. Mr. Kent corrected the statement and stated that the reference was to the cost that companies charge to service the recycling bin. Mayor Scruggs asked for further clarification on what the last two sentences meant in regards to the recycling rates of providers. Mr. Kent stated it referenced that the provider offers a six yard bin for paper services and charged $60 dollars a month with no reference to sharing revenue from the sale of material. He said what the provider was trying to communicate, was that there was really no difference in the two different providers of recycling bins. Mayor Scruggs asked if these were the businesses that would compete with the city, should they decide to participate. She commented that essentially the providers were charging $15 dollars a week for service. Mr. Kent stated that she was correct. He added that he did not know at this time what the cost would be should the city decide to go that route, however he just wanted to make the Council aware of the value of the service in the open market. Mayor Scruggs commented that should the Council decide to move forward with this item, there would have to be an in-depth analysis because she believes this could lead to increased cost in the sanitation department. She stated that at $15 dollars a week, it would be very hard for the city to compete. She added that she would like to first see how much revenue would have to be generated to justify additional trucks and drivers. Mayor Scruggs noted that in past years, there had been concerns from the private sector that the city was getting involved in the collection business so much so that they had taken their concerns to state legislators. She asked if those same private companies still had the same concerns with municipalities being involved in 4 commercial recycling business. Mr. Kent stated he had not had any conversation with those companies; therefore he was not aware of their current view on this item. Mayor Scruggs noted that as it stood, two Council members would like to move forward and request additional information. The majority supports leaving this issue as is and allowing staff to determine the appropriate time to expand field operations. She asked staff to continue to target the large companies and would like staff to report back with any new opportunities. Mr. Kent agreed. Councilmember Frate asked Mr. Kent should small businesses request a 90 gallon container, would the city pick them up. Mr. Kent said at the moment, the answer would have to be no because there was no specific route for that type of venture. Mayor Scruggs interjected saying that because of the cost of just running out to one location at a time; it was just not cost effective or feasible at the moment. Mr. Kent added that those companies always had the choice to contract with another provider. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the City of Phoenix had commercial recycling. Mr. Kent stated they had a very limited commercial program. The City of Phoenix primarily focuses on residential services and does not provide service to multi-family complexes, unlike Glendale. Considering the size of the two cities, Glendale's commercial program was larger than Phoenix. Councilmember Knaack commented that she wants the city to continue to be proactive and had wanted this item reviewed since it had not come up in five years. She said as a business owner, she could easily fill a 90 gallon container and at the moment does not have that opportunity. She added she would like to keep the environmental aspect of recycling in the forefront for the city. She also thanked staff for the great job the city does in recycling. She mentioned a program on recycling that she had hosted on Glendale Today and encouraged everyone to view it. Mayor Scruggs commented that she had watched the program and learned a lot. She reiterated that she hopes to see a service that was both cost effective and feasible to the city in the future. Mayor Scruggs called for the next item, Shredding for the Public. Ms. Pam Hanna came forward to answer questions on this item. Councilmember Clark stated that a city shredding day was a good idea. She stated that a large amount of material was brought in by the public for shredding events and noted this has become very popular in surrounding cities such as Scottsdale. She noted however, she wasn't sure if it was cost effective. She said the estimated cost given to start this project was under $3,000. Ms. Hanna outlined the components basic cost and items needed for this project. She said the cost included the use of two city trucks. Staffing wasn't included in the cost a police officer for security, and city staff to assist the public would be needed. She explained this would be a community day, which could possibly include other city services. She said this type of project had been done in the past in other cities as well but by the police department. She stated she had no idea how popular this project would be and would like to start with a half day then assess the situation. Councilmember Clark asked if she had contacted Rick De Burhl on Channel 12. She said Channel 12 has a shredding day that was extremely popular. Ms. Hanna responded that she had not been in contact with them. 5 Councilmember Clark commented that the cost provided had been very conservative and would like to know actual numbers. She stated since this was possibly the lowest, what would be the highest number, if it proved to be really successful. Ms. Hanna stated that to be able to answer that question, she would need to know if this project was only open to Glendale residents or anyone wishing to participate. She added if only Glendale residents were allowed, they would have to bring identification such as at the landfill. Councilmember Clark asked if it was known how Scottsdale handled this issue. Ms. Hanna stated she was not aware how that issue was handled. Councilmember Clark stated she would like to know that information. Ms. Hanna continued and stated that Scottsdale's recycling projects had been done in conjunction with major department stores. The city only provided security and the store incurred other costs. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Hanna how she was able to come up with the cost. Ms. Hanna stated she had compiled the costs for two trucks and the shredding equipment. She said it was a very preliminary estimate. Councilmember Clark stated it was an unrealistic figure with what they were trying to accomplish. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they could use a large garbage container from the city and not incur those costs. Mayor Scruggs asked if the trucks were owned by the city. Ms. Hanna asked Ms. Darcie McCracken to come forward to answer questions. Ms. McCracken stated yes, the Field Operations Department charges the city department when these services are requested. Ms. McCracken stated she had called the department and was quoted the price of the dumpster, which would be used for shredded documents. Councilmember Lieberman inquired as to free dumpsters in his area being used for paper recycling. Mr. Kent stated that in conjunction with a neighborhood focus group program, they furnished this service but it was not free. Councilmember Lieberman commented that this was a great program and would not mind spending money on it. This program benefits the local community and the environment. He would like to see it done once or twice a year. He added he would be willing to contribute $2000 from his own budget and hopes others would also to take the initiative on this worthwhile cause. Councilmember Knaack commented that she also thinks this is a good idea. She said the city already provided many wonderful services that were not usually cost effective, however were good for the city. She noted that this service is needed by the citizens with all the identity theft which has become a very real threat to all. She supports this project and would like further information. Councilmember Frate stated this was an admirable thing to do and would like to look into it further. However, he rather likes the idea of partnering with a big company much better, because it creates more interest. He noted that to be successful on this project, a lot of homework still needed to be done. He would like to see a trial run first. Mayor Scruggs commented that this was a nice service, however as Council goes into budget meetings, this is probably not the time to start new programs. She said there were still a lot of things the Council had projected to do. In addition, they still were unaware how much this program would really cost, as well as the time spent by staff on a massive day of shredding. She would rather the city partner with schools, businesses and churches. She suggested possibly acquiring shredders and placing them in public facilities for public use such as the Foothills Recreational Center. She sees this as an alternative instead of having staff work overtime and being diverted from their regular jobs. She said she would like to see this thought out more and information presented in 6 terms of resources diverted, as well as cost before moving forward. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated this was a major undertaking and would also prefer to partner with other establishments or find other ways to handle this issue. He said he would not support moving forward with it now. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that he would like more information on this issue before making a decision. He stated that as far as the idea of public shredders made by Mayor Scruggs, he would like information on that. Mayor Scruggs commented that a lot more information was needed. She said many questions would have to be answered before they could move forward, such as dealing with the shredded paper. It would have to be brought to the landfill because it could no longer be recycled. Councilmember Frate commented that all agreed this was a problem for some; people do accumulate a lot of paper and the service was needed. He said he liked the idea of partnering rather than doing it alone. He discussed the issue of identify theft. He noted that he could support this item if they had additional information. Mayor Scruggs called for the next item, Motorcycle Safety. Mr. Jamsheed Mehta came forward to answer questions. Councilmember Lieberman commented on Mr. Mehta's report. He stated that the report was very accurate in citing the fatality rate and the causes. He discussed a study done in 1987 and 1988 citing 73% of motorcycle fatalities were caused by the vehicle driver. He stated that 27% of total fatalities rates occur at an intersection were people make a left turn in front of a motorcycle. He stated that in conjunction with motorcycle experts, he had created an initiative to see Glendale become the leader in a sign campaign to alert vehicle drivers about motorcycles on the road. He said should this item be recommended to move forward, they would ask for funding from the Governor's office. He reiterated that he would personally like to see Glendale be the leader on this project. He thanked Mr. Paul Price for his support on this issue. He commented on his active role on motorcycles and the importance of safety on the road. He noted he would like to discuss this issue in budget discussions. He presented 71 letters from motorcyclists in the area in support of this project. He asked for the Council's support. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with some of the issues stated on the report and believes most could be done with very little cost. He said he believes this to be a good program. He asked for clarification on the rate of motorcycle fatalities. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the report noted the fatality rate in vehicles were down, as opposed to the motorcycle fatalities which were going up. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested a helmet law, however knows that this was a very sensitive subject with motorcycle drivers. Councilmember Clark commented that this was another great idea; however had no real information on the actual cost to launch an educational safety campaign. She stated that to have this program come before the budget meetings, it would need the appropriate cost information. Mayor Scruggs stated she agreed with Councilmember Clark's comments. More information was needed for this item to move forward. She questioned where the signs would be placed, as well as the amount of signs. She reiterated that more information was needed and as far as funding, this program could qualify for CTOC funding 7 because it dealt with street, safety, education and transportation. She noted all these issues still needed to be addressed and believes this should be forwarded to CTOC. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mayor Scruggs' comments. He thanked Mr. Mehta for his work on this item. He commented that the main issue was safety in regards to the signs. However some groups have also requested similar signs and therefore, he does not see an end to it and would not like to pick and choose who receives preference. He added that others do not like motorcycles at all and think they are dangerous. He stated he does agree with creating higher safety awareness, but would like to see further information on this issue. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that they do need further analysis on this issue; however does not like to compare this issue with the prior two items. He stated that this item dealt with safety, which had always been a Council priority and should be looked at very seriously. Councilmember Knaack commented that she would like to see bicycles and pedestrians included in this program. She stated she sees this as an educational issue more than a signage issue. Councilmember Frate stated he supports moving this item to CTOC. He commented that he does see a need for further awareness on this issue. He said more people were riding motorcycles and most of the accidents occur with the driver of the vehicles not noticing the motorcycle. Mr. Mehta stated the signage would have to be extremely minimal should Council decide to move forward because of sign clutter. He noted that with sign clutter, signs lose their effectiveness as a result. This campaign would also need to be supported by other means, such as the media. He discussed the CTOC aspect regarding this program and how to incorporate it. Mayor Scruggs asked if CTOC had a program for bicycle safety. Mr. Mehta said they do have a program and it includes hosting Glendale's family Bike Ride which is in April. Mayor Scruggs stated that the comments on this item were that more information was needed in terms of cost and the concept needs to be more fully developed. She said the direction was that this should go to CTOC for them to decide if this would fit into their plans. She added it had also been suggested that other forms of transportation required signage as well. She asked for all this to be looked at in depth before moving forward. Councilmember Lieberman commented that CTOC had the funding for this program. He noted he liked the idea of working with CTOC to make this project a reality. Mayor Scruggs called for the last item in the agenda, Tattoo Parlors. Mr. Jon Froke came forward to answer questions. Councilmember Frate stated he would start off the discussion on this item. He reminded the Council about the person who had addressed them about two months ago with his concerns about the growth of these types of establishments. He stated that through his research, he had discovered the parlors were growing in number in the city of Mesa which was about twice Glendale's size with 100 parlor sites. He said they were growing because people do frequent them. He explained that in the follow-up report, it was stated that Senator Kyle was bringing forth a bill to regulate these establishments and address safety concerns. He also noted that the City Code Review 8 Committee was also looking at this problem and asked Mr. Froke to explain further. Mr. Froke explained that preliminary research was done on this issue and stated that the city did not have any land use regulations relative to tattoo parlors. He said that the zoning ordinance allows them in Cl, C2 and C3 zoning districts, which is commercial zoning. He noted there were approximately 22 parlors located in various parts of the city. He reviewed Scottsdale and Gilbert regulatory spacing requirements for tattoo parlors in between similar land uses. He noted that at the moment, the issue was being address by various entities. Councilmember Clark commented that as a member of the Council's sub-committee, it was her understanding that they were interested in looking at some kind of spacing requirements which will be brought forward once it was completed. She added that she believes spacing requirements were appropriate in this case. Vice Mayor Martinez asked for the spacing requirements for Scottsdale and Gilbert. Mr. Froke stated that the City of Scottsdale was 1000 feet and in the Town of Gilbert it was 500 feet. He added that those were primarily limited to the downtown area in terms of that regulation. Mayor Scruggs asked what was done outside the downtown limits. Mr. Froke stated that Scottsdale's focus was for the downtown area, while the Town of Gilbert was citywide with close attention to distances to churches and schools. Mayor Scruggs inquired as to what purpose and cause would allow the city to regulate this industry. She understood that the business would have to be harming the health, safety or welfare of the public. She asked how the spacing requirements were justified. Mr. Craig Tindall commented he did not have a specific answer but would review the land issues further. Councilmember Goulet commented that when this item was first brought forth, he believed because of competition in the area. He stated Council's role was not to interfere in the marketplace. He stated that should the legislators fail to bring a piece of legislation to aid in the health inspection aspect, Council could look into it if it poses a health risk to the community. In the meantime, they should just monitor the situation and if nothing happens in the legislature, they could look into the spacing requirements. Mr. Tindall stated that the health issue did not fall under their jurisdiction, but rather the county's. Councilmember Lieberman stated he had visited two tattoo parlors specifically to learn some information first hand. He found that they actually would like an ordinance such as the one used to regulate check cashing establishments which limits businesses to a A of a mile of each other. He stated that the '/ mile ordinance would eliminate a concentration of parlors in an area without having anything to do with the total number of them or the health issue. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Froke if they were still using Cl, C2 and C3. Mr. Froke stated that on new commercial development, they were directing developers and zoning attorneys to the new state of the art districts that had been established a few years ago such as the NSC (Neighborhood Shopping Center) and CSC (Community Shopping Center) zoning districts. He added that Glendale still had a large portfolio of Cl, C2 and C3 zone properties elsewhere in the city. Mayor Scruggs asked if tattoo parlors were prohibited under the NSC and CSC. Mr. Froke stated they were not unless the landlord prohibited them as a tenant. 9 Councilmember Knaack commented that she would dispute the fact that there were only 22 parlors in Glendale. She stated that on the graph it shows that there were only six parlors between 43rd Avenue and 67th Avenue; howevgr she had driven that route and had counted ten, and six between 54th Avenue and 59w Avenue. Mr. Froke stated that he would certainly verify that fact, but believes some of those establishments may not have a license. Councilmember Knaack stated he may be correct. Mayor Scruggs stated that further research was needed as well as additional information gathered by the City Code Review Committee; however the first order of business should be to determine if there was any legal authority given to regulate this type of establishment. She said they could not single out businesses unless they meet certain criteria or presented certain hazards to the land use regulation. Mr. Tindall stated that staff would work with the City Code Review Committee to determine that issue and its impact and work from there. Mayor Scruggs commented that they would wait until the Code Review Committee completes its work and discover if there can be any regulation imposed Mayor Scruggs asked Council for new items of interest. Councilmember Goulet asked for staff to look into the signage issues in the downtown area. He said issues had been raised as to new signs being precluded either in size or altogether because of other signs in the area. He also commented on business owners not being able to sign their businesses as effectively as they wish they could. He said he would also like to investigate if a code amendment can be issued for home solicitation. He explained that citizens were concerned with unwanted material piling up when they were out of town. Councilmember Lieberman stated he would like the shredding issue to come back with additional information. Councilmember Clark said she did not have an item of interest; however since they did not have a night meeting, she wanted to express her thanks to staff for the superb job in managing the activities associated with the Super Bowl. She stated there had been many accolades given in print and on television on the tremendous job done in Glendale and its ability to host the Super Bowl. She said a survey had been done at the airport rating the City of Glendale with ten being the highest and some had rated it a 12. She said she could not thank staff enough for their handling of all the activities associated with this huge event. She stated the whole Council feels the same way and appreciate all their efforts. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in full agreement. Mayor Scruggs asked a question regarding the signage issue in the Center City Master Plan area per Councilmember Goulet's item. She asked if this would fall under the overall new objectives set at the retreat in November to enhance that whole area. Mr. Beasley responded, yes. Mayor Scruggs stated since the whole area will be looked at per the direction given at the retreat, Councilmember Goulet's item of interest would be taken off the Council items of interest and moved to be addressed in conjunction with the CCMP downtown enhancement project. Mayor Scruggs asked for Council comments and suggestions. 10 Councilmember Knaack stated that the whole Super Bowl event was a fabulous experience. She said she heard nothing but positive things about everything. She stated that a fabulous impression had been left on the world that Glendale is the best. Councilmember Goulet stated this was a perfect example of the city being able to handle an international event. She said people mentioned in the past that Glendale was not capable of handing such a huge event, and they were proven wrong in a big way. He thanked all staff, including police and fire for their outstanding job. He said the media from around the world were reporting wonderful things about the stadium and how staff was handling every aspect. He said they should start plans for another big event. Councilmember Lieberman thanked the head chef at the Renaissance Hotel. He said the food and presentation was incredible and solidifies their five star hotel position. Vice Mayor Martinez stated it had been a terrific experience and cannot thank staff enough for all their efforts. He also said he had heard nothing but positive comments from the crowds. He stated he had seen staff working picking up trash just before and after game time. He related some positive comments made about Westgate and how wonderful it was. He said all the positive comments and the very successful event was all due to staff and their efforts in making it a huge achievement. Councilmember Frate thanked all city staff for all their hard work and preparation in making this a huge success. He stated that after sending a note of thanks to all employees, an employee had come up to him and stated he had really done nothing special. Councilmember Frate stated that he was wrong. Their ability to keep the city's services running smoothly with the Super Bowl in town was a great feat. He said the very next day he had gone back to Westgate and all the trash was picked up and you would not have known there had been over 120,000 people in the area. He stated he was very proud of the work done by staff. He also thanked the police presence in the area which made people feel safe. Mayor Scruggs gave a special thanks to Mr. Ed Beasley. She said about four years ago today, they both had returned from Houston with a list of things Glendale could do better. She said it was hard to believe that in four short years it was planned, executed and now it's over. She said that as written in her memo of thanks to city staff, she could not recall any other single event in the city where there hadn't been a single complaint. She stated she would like to acknowledge Ms. Pam Wertz and all her efforts in getting hotels and businesses open in time for the Super Bowl. She said she had many business owners asking her to thank Ms. Wertz and everyone in the department which had done so much for those businesses. They made every effort to help the businesses open to serve the tons of people coming to this event. She also thanked the public safety officials and stated that some people went away wishing for the same type of public safety program that Glendale has. She also mentioned the calm throughout the city and no traffic gridlock, unlike other cities have when during large events. She thanked the Transportation and Marketing department. Mayor Scruggs talked about the David Letterman Show, in which Glendale was mentioned. She stated there had been tremendous coverage for Glendale and the press was very impressed with the new developments in the city. She noted that this Super Bowl was the second most watched television program in the history of television. She added that from every possible aspect, this was as total success. The people who said Glendale could not pull it off are in total awe. 11 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 12