Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/25/2009 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. 'i IS I GLENDr Minutes of the GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Glendale Civic Center—Onyx Room 5750 West Glenn Drive March 25, 2009 8:30 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. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RETREAT PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Richard Bowers of Bowers and Associates facilitated the meeting. Ms. Julie Frisoni, Assistant Deputy City Manager; Mr. Brian Friedman, Economic Development Director and Mr. Art Lynch, Deputy City Manager, responded to questions from the Council regarding the City's Economic Development strategies. Mr. Bowers presented a PowerPoint presentation on the current economic crises in the state. He stated that over the past 12 months, in the Greater Phoenix area, 48.9% of homes were sold at a loss and 37.9% of home sales were foreclosures. Of home sales purchased over the past 5 years, an average of 41.8% has negative equity. He presented an analysis of housing demands in the Greater Phoenix area and showed the economic down fall. He stated that the old analysis showed 40,000 single family units as opposed to the new analysis which showed it had gone down to only 16,600 single family units in the past few years. Mr. Bowers presented what he believed were the City of Glendale's greatest strengths. He noted that Glendale was in a good situation at a bad time. • National attractions of extraordinary impact • Solid E.D. success in business development • Council-Staff visionary effort with Glendale Centerline • Positive reputation for getting things done • Positioned for substantial growth • Capable & respected professional staff • Well prepared for economic downturn& recovery Mr. Bowers also discussed economic wants in Glendale and what investors and businesses were looking for. Below are some items for discussion: • Investment mindset • Education • Housing • Transportation • Work force • Pro-business environment • Competitive cost of living • Political stability • Streamlined systems • Business reputation • "One-stop shop" • Professional process • Quality of life Mr. Bowers continued and expanded with what Glendale can create within the organization that really makes a difference in a successful economic development system. Below are ideas that came from the Council, Chamber, and staff: • Know and sell the"product" • Strong Council policy direction, role clarity & cohesion • Capable, professional staff to seek, analyze & support policy • Non-adversarial, win-win approach with developers • Processes that are clear, seen as reasonable & can be expedited • Consistency Mr. Bowers indicated that the discussion may perhaps begin on several key starter questions for Economic Development in Glendale: • What is the Council-staff role in for Economic Development? • What are the Council expectations for Economic Development? • What does staff need from the Council? • What do we believe the marketplace wants from Glendale? Mr. Bowers introduced Mr. Lynch to speak further on the matter. Mr. Lynch stated there were five individuals in the economic department which carry out most of these functions. He explained that Mr. Bowers had provided them a back-drop in terms of the environment and with the economic conditions being felt around the county. He indicated the environment did not limit what the city looks for in goals to develop. He discussed the development of local capacity which was the development of revenue streams. These revenue streams will sustain the services 2 citizens want and need, and what the city can provide. He stated there had been some questions at the last retreat in regards to innovation. He explained that in regards to innovation, they had restructured the economic development areas, to really focus on four main areas. The areas are a) business attraction, b) business retention and expansion, c) redevelopment and d) innovation. He added they were also working on becoming the location of choice. He explained they did not want to only stop at the things that have been accomplished or the things that have been set up, but rather have aspirations and actions to develop further. He discussed some of the goals which have been accomplished or are being pursued. He stated they were constantly talking to major developers to move things forward; therefore, the Council should never assume that just because things were not moving quickly, nothing was being done and things were not moving forward. He noted they were preparing for when the economy returns, so they can be ready to move quickly. Mr. Lynch discussed the retention plans. He explained that Council's direction has been when a big box goes dark; they immediately fill it and put some plans in action. As a result, that was what they were working on with the developers. He provided details on requests and policy direction that focus on different sectors of the economy and market. He stated they had been focusing on sectors which had the kinds of average salaries Glendale wants to attract. He explained that even in this hard economic time, businesses have been relocating to Glendale with an average salary of$70,000 dollars. This makes an important statement of the foundation they were trying to lay down for the future. He remarked that any project being embarked upon has partnership elements to it. He noted that the partnership element in Glendale is what differentiates the city in how they approach economic development. He mentioned the many agencies with which Glendale partners. He stated that Glendale's goal, in good or bad economic times, is to create the capacity to render services benefiting the citizens of Glendale. He discussed Glendale's historic accomplishments by creating local capacity and how it has been a journey for all. Mr. Lynch stated there has been policy direction provided that they experience and embark on for multiple major economic development projects. He talked about the football stadium, Westgate, as well as other successes done through teamwork and private development. He stated that business attraction and business retention, expansion and redevelopment, are areas emerging as the focus that can give the biggest results with the limited effort and staff Glendale has. He stated that economic development was a long-term proposition. He reported that even in one of the worst economies on record, the department has been a key initiator of nearly 1,150 new jobs in Glendale in the last year. He added that in comparison to the rest of the valley, 25% of those jobs were created in Glendale. In conclusion, he noted there has been a deliberate effort on the part of the Mayor and Council to provide policy and direction that moves Glendale forward to become a special place in the country. He explained that each time they have seen new policy direction, they get people moving in that direction. He stated economic development was extremely competitive and requires the utmost confidentiality, as well as investment of many individuals. He explained the reason why economic development is such an important aspect, is because it deals with attracting major projects, small business, redevelopment, expansion and retention, all to the benefit of further growth in the community. He added that slow economic times require a need for greater creation of fiscal capacity. 3 Councilmember Goulet asked if relocation fit in the requirements for economic development. Mr. Lynch stated that relocation was a part of business attraction and relocation. He noted a good example was the new office building relocation. Councilmember Goulet inquired about existing business in the downtown area possibly relocating. Ms. Frisoni explained Phoenix Heart was a prime example of business relocation. She stated when they first got involved with them, they had not considered Glendale; however, after staff continued talks with Phoenix Heart, they are now in the area. Mr. Friedman explained how the process works and how they create relationships with companies. Councilmember Frate asked how they find out which businesses were moving out of the city. Mr. Friedman stated many times they find out through development agencies and business contacts looking for space. However, it also deals with building personal relationships with other businesses and staff's ability to understanding of the community. In short, they become aware from multiple sources. Mayor Scruggs asked to revisit Councilmember Goulet's questions on downtown business relocation because she believed it was not answered properly. Councilmember Goulet commented that the example used before regarding Phoenix Heart was good; however, he would like to know what could be done for businesses in the downtown area that possibly need relocating within the city to prosper. Mr. Lynch explained they had talked to some downtown businesses owners about business parks and those types of relocation options. However, those types of conditions require the city possibly financing the move. Still, relocating to the Centerline Project might be a possibility for some businesses. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if there had been any money set aside for property relocation. Mr. Lynch replied, yes. He indicated there was about $340,000 left in the fund. Vice Mayor Martinez asked what could be done for businesses that could not be put into an industrial park situation. Mr. Lynch explained the market provides some facilitation for those viable businesses. He discussed the cost and benefits for businesses to relocate and the analysis made to see if it would be cost effective. He added some businesses would rather shut down than relocate, which was another challenge. Councilmember Knaack commented that in her experience with businesses, they were willing to relocate to better their business. She stated the challenge was having an industrial park to which people would want to move. Mr. Friedman explained the economic challenges at the moment. He commented on current industrial parks that were suitable for these types of businesses. Councilmember Clark commented on some notes she had made for staff regarding economic development. She stated she would like the economic staff to identify specific sectors and target them. She inquired if staff had currently identified any sectors. She also asked if staff had identified any quality of life issues in need of further addressing and would attract high quality businesses. Mr. Friedman responded that they spent a lot of time targeting industries and businesses. Staff had come up with a list of businesses and their relationship with Glendale. In addition, they are constantly looking at new businesses and once they were identified, staff goes out and cultivates a relationship with them. He provided examples of different business efforts with companies such as Wells Fargo, Honeywell, Health Medical and High Tech Software, as 4 well as many others. He stated staff's job was to reach out to these companies to ensure their success in Glendale. He expanded on the quality of life issue. He stated the quality of life issue was an individual quest for people. However, Arizona, specifically Glendale, offers great experiences in education, recreation options, airport facilities, sunshine year-round, and tremendous business opportunities. He noted they had been ranked ninth in the country for quality of life, as a state. Councilmember Clark inquired about whether staff believed there were any issues on which the city still needed to focus which can improve the quality of life factors. Mr. Friedman indicated that what was being implemented in Glendale was equal to a population of 500,000 to 1,000,000. He cited all the entertainment, urban environment, shopping and arenas available in Glendale. He noted that in his opinion, Glendale's quality of life was a city unto itself and could not think of anything in the equation that was seriously lacking, other than keeping with what they were doing as per Council's goals. Councilmember Clark suggested focusing on localized shopping such as medical, supermarkets and dry-cleaning shops. She believes this was an area in need of addressing. She noted it was great having the shops in Westgate; however, would like to see more local shopping centers where people frequent daily. She added people liked the convenience of just driving a short distance around the corner for daily needs and believes west Glendale was lacking in that area. Mayor Scruggs commented that at the December retreat it was believed that at this retreat, staff would be prepared to educate the Council on the financial economic perimeters in Glendale. She stated she hoped this session would enlighten them as to what businesses were looking for specifically. She agreed with Councilmember Clark in her assumption that there was a need for local shopping stores for everyday life. She provided examples of how people made business decisions with properties in Glendale. She discussed the Costco situation and how Glendale had fought to keep it in the area. Councilmember Knaack commented on the shopping center on 59th and Peoria. She explained how they had tried to get several grocery outlets in that shopping center. Councilmember Clark suggested possibly creating an incentive program to attract businesses. Vice Mayor Martinez asked what the demographics at the intersection of 59th and Olive area were. Mr. Friedman stated the demographics in that area were just under $70,000 per household for that square mile area. Mr. Bowers commented that what he understood thus far was that each of these corporations has a decision matrix. He stated Glendale had the advantage with strategic positioning in anticipation of economic growth for the future, where a lot of cities did not. He noted that even if the demographics don't make sense at the moment, someone will buy these properties at some point. Therefore, they should go in and buy five years early in order to stake out the territory because of the change in demographics overtime. Ms. Frisoni added that was why it had been so important over the last eighteen months to meet with all the major grocery store brokers in order to be ready to leap on the best options in the west area, in terms of a grocery store in that area. 5 Councilmember Lieberman commented that Tesco admitted they had underestimated the competitiveness of the market, as well as the current price list. The company had to discount more of what they had. Mayor Scruggs suggested they take a 10 minute break. She stated after the break Council would have an opportunity to clarify what was on their minds in regards to what information and discussions were needed from staff. She explained the frustration she was hearing from property owners in certain areas around Glendale. The meeting resumed. Vice Mayor Martinez inquired as to the funding for GPEC that had been cut from the budget. He also asked if other cities were following suit. Mr. Lynch explained that although they appreciated the partnership with GPEC, when they reviewed its history and the actual funding available and Glendale's need to balance the budget, GPEC was one of the options looked at. He asked Mr. Friedman to further explain. Mr. Friedman explained how the City of Glendale has had a long-lasting relationship with GPEC. In the past 6 years, GPEC has facilitated several locates to Glendale. This year alone GPEC had sent them 70 inquires obtained from around the world. Of those inquires, staff has responded to only 33 as our inventory matched the client's request. The 33 inquires thus far have not turned into a prospect. He mentioned they have always had a great relationship with GPEC and they are great to work with. Mr. Lynch indicated that in terms of balancing the budget, this fee is about $100,000. He explained that discussions were ongoing about continuing GPEC. about Vice Mayor Martinez asked if any of the 1,150 jobs created last year had been created by GPEC. Mr. Friedman stated approximately 80 jobs had been created. Vice Mayor Martinez made the case that they should continue the relationship with GPEC because of the presence and impact they had in the valley. Ms. Frisoni commented there had been no one-time money offered this year in the budget and a lot of programs and projects that had been funded on a one time basis had been affected. She noted the GPEC was one of the programs traditionally funded on a one-time basis. She indicated they may negotiate a lower figure from GPEC and identify dollars in their budget. Mayor Scruggs commented on the GPEC issue. She read from her prepared notes on Glendale being a major leader in the valley. The City of Glendale is a major city with benefits, responsibility and accountability in its leadership role. She indicated that the partnership with GPEC goes far beyond the number of locators it provides. She stated one of the roles that Glendale has been awarded in its leadership position, was to collaborate and cooperate with other valley cities and agencies. Economic development should not be a matter of winning or making others lose. She explained their withdrawal from GPEC would cost the city friendships and partnerships, as well as the respect of leaders in Maricopa County. She noted that in a time, when the Governor and legislators were working with GPEC in ways they never had before, staff had recommended to pull their support from GPEC. She does not support this recommendation and sees it as a bad policy decision. She discussed how it could affect financial projects such as the Centerline project. Mr. Lynch responded that the fee for GPEC was around $100,000 and the city and GPEC have been discussing a lower fee. He stated GPEC hasn't been ruled out of the budget. 6 Councilmember Clark commented that GPEC needed to be presented as a regional player in budget discussions. Ms. Frisoni asked to make clear for the record that it was not staff's recommendation to pull funding for GPEC, but rather had appeared in the budget book as a budget cut because it was a onetime supplemental and that's what had happened to those one- time supplementals. However, at no point was it ever recommended to pull GPEC from the budget. Mayor Scruggs commented that GPEC's board was already discussing lowering all fees. She added Glendale was faring better than most in this economic crisis; however, the city was contemplating pulling out of GPEC when other cities were not. Mr. Beasley reiterated that the direction had not been to pull out of GPEC. He stated there was still three more weeks in this budget process to adjust and restructure the budget. Mayor Scruggs commented that staff keeps informing the Council they still did not have all the specifics on the budget; however, the GPEC information was specific and now staff was saying it was never the decision to pull out of GPEC. She reiterated that the recommendation would be a mistake and the city would lose the trust of many cities and agencies. She remarked that the Council needed to be informed of any changes or cuts that might have occurred in the recommended budget being presented for discussion. Mr. Beasley reiterated this was a three week process procedure to allow for any changes. Mayor Scruggs asked for the Council to be presented with any cut recommendations. Mr. Beasley agreed. Mayor Scruggs recommended staff send a formal request of all service cuts based on their final analysis. Mr. Beasley remarked he would be happy to provide the Council with that information. Councilmember Clark suggested staff include any amendments that were made to the document along with the information. Mr. Bowers asked for them to move on to a different topic area. He would like to hear about their expectations on the process, as well as the role of Council and staff and how they play out. He stated Glendale history had rendered them informed opportunists. He explained this was a very powerful position in economic development. He explained that today's conversations were a prime example of the city knowing what it wants the community to be in the future. He explained that the Council's decisions set the tone for the city's direction and the policies made. He explained how staff carries out Council's direction and seeks out the best investment opportunities. He noted staff also had the role of coming back to Council for policy direction and when policy input was critical. He stated that this agenda was meant to capture some of the things he understood from the December retreat. Councilmember Clark commented on how she handles developer inquires. She stated she sets up a meeting with them and immediately contacts staff to be present. She indicated it was very important for the Council to inform staff on what the Council was doing. She remarked that from staff's point of view, they were sometimes reluctant to pass out confidential information to Council because it might be breeched, as it sometimes had. However, there should be some sort of mechanism that would at least advise the Councilmember most affected by staff's decisions. She stated she believes both sides were lacking in communication. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Clark's comments. She commented she had seen Councilmember Clark invite staff to her meetings, as she has also done in the past. However, she feels there was no reciprocity from staff. She explained that most times she receives her information from outside sources and feels she is being caught off guard a lot of the time. As a consequence, she did not 7 feel she could speak knowledgeably about the city. She believes elected officials should be involved in their cities and people do expect that from their elected officials. She hopes this can be corrected. Councilmember Clark commented that she often saw faults happening on both sides. She believes they both have to work on more effective communication between parties. Vice Mayor Martinez asked what the procedure was now when a Councilmember was contacted, as well as when staff inquires about a property in someone's district. Mr. Friedman explained that it really depended on the subject matter and the confidentiality aspect. He stated typically companies like to deal directly with a competent staff from start to finish. He explained that businesses have an expectation of ultimate confidentially when negotiating a deal and it needed to be provided. He added sometimes Council is brought in to provide advice on a project or when the project needs Council's involvement in another form. Councilmember Clark asked if it would be possible for them to give a heads-up to a Councilmember, using only general information. Mr. Friedman stated they can share redevelopment and relocation opportunities with the Council. However, the only area really critical on the confidentiality portion, was the inbound, large, end-user business attraction segment. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if most cities operated in this fashion. Mr. Friedman responded that he believed so, however, it depended on their Charter. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if there had been any businesses lost because of some breach in confidentiality when Council had been informed in Executive Session. Ms. Frisoni responded, yes. Councilmember Goulet stated it was very important to be informed about what was going on in the city. He explained his frustration in his repeated inquires on the Sugar Beet Factory and how he had to find out about it in the newspaper. He noted he personally did not want to be involved in the ins and outs of their work; however, would like to be kept informed and educated on major events and their potential. He reiterated he did not like to be surprised and would like to know what was happening in his district. Councilmember Knaack commented that since their December retreat, they had received one e- mail listing developing projects. She noted it had been very enlightening to know what was being done. She added that was the type of communication she would like to see displayed. Mayor Scruggs remarked on the matter of confidentiality and why staff does not consider trusting the Council when it came to these matters. She questions how they had gotten so far away from the trust issue, which she finds insulting. Mr. Friedman noted that staff had the ultimate respect for their positions and that it was common for this staff to deal with the clients and that even Mr. Beasley most appropriately at his level does not deal with the majority of the operations and that even higher on the food chain lays the Council. Mayor Scruggs reiterated her comments of why there was no communication on the staff's part. Mr. Lynch stated they were only trying to do their due diligence so when the project information comes before the Council, the Council knows they have a quality project moving forward. He explained people might interpret information provided, even if it was not meant to be given in that form; however, they end up receiving a different view of the deal. Mayor Scruggs disagreed 8 and stated it would be better to be prepared so when people do come and inquire, Council was informed on what to say and what not to say. Mr. Lynch explained the dilemma for them was at what point they should share information with the Council. He stated their process provides for Council to receive pertinent information after its due diligence was done in order for them to review a quality project. Mr. Bowers stated that much of this dealt with trust and relationships. He explained that some companies do threaten to walk if their confidentiality is breached. He stated they have to make a judgment call between information, confidentiality, opportunity and risk. He noted they make those judgments along the way and they were not always concrete. He explained that at times, those same people who begged for confidentiality break it, and then the doors were wide open. He suggested coming back to Council periodically, making slight adjustments to policies. However, sometimes Council just has to trust staff that they were following their direction. Councilmember Knaack left the retreat at 11:15am. Councilmember Clark remarked that she understood there were times when projects were of extreme confidentiality and very sensitive; however, another 90% of projects are not. She asked staff to keep the Council informed on the normal projects so they do not continue to get blindsided by people coming up and asking about projects about which the Council knows nothing. Councilmember Lieberman agreed. He commented on a meeting he had with staff two weeks ago regarding the need to know about developments in his area. He stated he recently had received a call from staff informing him about a hotel developing in his area. He explained how he receives many calls from constituents on different issues, such as information on the Coyotes and area development and he would like to respond to them intelligently. He added he was also very frustrated when media outlets are given information that has not been shared with the Council. Councilmember Lieberman left the retreat at 11:30am. Councilmember Frate discussed examples of times when Council could be told about upcoming development. He agreed the Council should be kept informed which helped provided a positive image for the City of Glendale. Councilmember Clark stated this has been an ongoing issue that needed to be resolved. She indicated that at some point, there had to be a resolution to this issue. Mr. Bowers commented that this was a fundamental issue dealing with trust and success. He stated that the information shared creates vulnerability and the vulnerability shared has to be measured because the consequences of failure are significant. He related his personal experience of when he had shared personal information only to have the deal fail because of a breach of confidentiality. He remarked that it made him see that he needed to be far more cautious about what he shared. The consequences were that his credibility was damaged because of it and the project was discontinued. He explained this was a cycle, not just a process and it needed to be worked out using the trust angle. 9 Mayor Scruggs commented on the recent media coverage on the Coyotes lease payments as an example when she and the Council had not been informed by staff then were confronted by the media. In these situations she feels the media questions her and other Councilmembers credibility. Mayor Scruggs aid the public perception of the Council is damaged. She noted it was good that members of the press were present at the meeting. She hoped they would no longer feel it was unimaginable that the Council isn't informed about these issues. Councilmember Clark asked what policy issues staff was implementing to position Glendale to make it more attractive in the future. Mr. Lynch explained they were looking at relocation and zoning issues as an economic development approach requiring bonding capacity. He stated there was a lot of economic development recovery type funding that could be very beneficial to the city. However, they wouldn't know more for another couple weeks. Councilmember Clark asked if they were working with the planning staff to bring forward zoning models that can be used for relocation of businesses. Ms. Frisoni responded, yes. Councilmember Clark noted the Council still needs more economic information on what Glendale needs for the future. Mr. Lynch remarked they were working on those aspects. He reported there were a couple of key things to consider. He stated they had utilized the economic bonding abilities, as well as land acquisitions. In addition, they will continue to work on the major economic development initiatives, including the Centerline project and other major development commitments. He noted he appreciated the feedback that has been given today. Councilmember Clark suggested staff provide periodic information on their progress on the seven target area receptors identified. Councilmember Goulet asked to discuss the mini mall shopping centers that were now vacant and what can be done to help the situation. He provided some ideas on the issue. Ms. Frisoni explained that over a year ago staff had outside experts identify underperforming strip malls in each of the areas. She stated they had a very good road map and a good baseline as to where those facilities were and who owns them. She noted they had begun conversations on the ownership side, as well as the developers, in terms of their interest in some of those under performing facilities. She explained they had identified major developments and what some opportunities might be in each one of them. Mr. Friedman continued discussing ways in which they analyzed the surrounding community and where the opportunities were. He informed them how they were working with these centers and analyzing the best way to approach the owners. Councilmember Goulet agreed with staff's initiative and what they were doing; however, was sorry he was not aware it was happening. Councilmember Clark added that the problem was they were never told anything about how all this was being handled. However, she approves of their initiative. She added they did not have to know all the details, but would appreciate knowing they had targeted a strip center in someone's district, that could be turned around. She noted that it seemed they were doing a lot of great things; however, no one on the Council knew anything about it. 10 Councilmember Frate commented on how a business operation today creates sales tax and revenue. He suggested a one-stop, automobile sale and service center with incentives for small specialized automobile businesses to relocate there. He added that Glendale as a city could market the idea and help businesses with their advertising. Mayor Scruggs agreed that the one-stop automobile center or a similar specialized center seemed like a good idea. She noted that broader emphasis including smaller businesses not just big boxes, etc. Mr. Bowers commented that there were many similar examples of these types of centers being successful. Councilmember Clark remarked it might be the wave of the future. She stated the idea that people can go to one site, shop and compare was very appealing. Mr. Bowers summarized what had been discussed. He stated they seemed to have come full circle, including the industrial park and zoning initiatives that would free up more individual space. He noted they had also discussed specific sectors which had become more specific as discussions went on. The group also discussed the quality of life issues and what additional issues exist beyond the current. He added the group had discussed local shopping centers and what created a dynamic neighborhood. He explained the goal was to be unique, different and distinct in Glendale. The group had also discussed retention, relocation and incentives for businesses in order to keep them in Glendale. He commented on the group's discussion on the GPEC and budget issue. He stated there will be continued support for both the Centerline and GPEC. He also remarked on the discussion on Council and staff finding a more balanced communication relationship. He explained the risk factors concerning confidentially and Council not being adequately informed on issues. He stated that they needed to find the best way to provide a certain level of information to the Council without creating problems with business deals. He explained how the group had discussed underperforming strip malls and had some ideas on how to turn them around or relocate them. He summarized the feelings of the Council with staff doing a lot of great things; however, the internal marketing and sharing information still had a long way to go. Mr. Bowers stated this had not been an easy discussion; however, the Council had given some strong policy points. He explained the beginning of the meeting was to frame the discussion, not to limit it. Councilmember Clark stated Council had posed certain questions for staff that still needed to be answered. She asked for more information on bonding and economic recovery once they receive it in a few weeks. Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Clark how she would like the information handled. Councilmember Frate suggested a briefing like this one. Mayor Scruggs commented on how the Council knew what their roles were regarding the Charter. She discussed how the Council had spent numerous hours wanting to talk about Glendale's future and its development. She noted it was good to remember their success; however, they needed information on what staff was currently doing. She believes their roles as City Council seem to be continually narrowing with regard to issues of development. 11 Councilmember Goulet suggested receiving this type of information six months prior to their retreats. Vice Mayor Martinez remarked they should receive the information as soon as staff receives it and have it presented at a workshop or scheduled retreat. Councilmember Clark commented that the federal stimulus funding should be part of this issue. Mayor Scruggs recommended they have a workshop on this before they go on summer recess. She would like information on future developments and relocation options throughout the city, as well as economic goal setting. Councilmember Clark suggested they have a workshop in June to answer some questions the Council had requested. Mr. Friedman commented that the discussions in zoning would be challenging. Mayor Scruggs noted she understands this will be a challenging topic; however, what the Council wanted was to have a conversation about the types of changes that occurred in the zoning ordinance, speaking only in generalities. Councilmember Clark agreed that the discussion should be in generalizations. Councilmember Frate commented he was often asked about senior housing and where they were located in Glendale. Councilmember Clark recommended a workshop for the bonding issue, possibly in May. As there was no further discussion, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. 12