HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/2/2007 *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
OCTOBER 2, 2007
2:30 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. INDEPENDENT FACILITATOR FOR APPOINTED OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Yvonne Knaack, Councilmember, Barrel
District.
This is a request for the City Council to review further information and details regarding
the process, expectations, and costs to establish an independent facilitator for appointed
official evaluations.
Implementation of this process will result in a mutually acceptable process between the
Council and appointed officials that clearly communicates goals and expectations,
encourages mutual responsiveness, and reflects a specific timeframe for accomplishing
the review. This process includes the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. The
Presiding City Judge, while appointed, is reviewed under a procedure established by the
Arizona Supreme Court and was, therefore, excluded from consideration in this process.
The use of an independent facilitator for appointed official evaluations addresses each of
the Council Strategic goals that are relevant to the individual appointed official.
1
At the May 1, 2007 Council workshop, Councilmember Knaack asked that the special
interest item of establishing independent facilitation of appointed official evaluations in
local municipalities be researched. At the August 21, 2007 Council workshop,
Councilmember Knaack presented the findings of the research. At this time the Council
indicated their interest in pursuing the opportunity of having an independent facilitator
oversee the annual evaluations of the city's appointed officials. Additionally, the Mayor
and Council requested that further information from staff be presented at a future
workshop to include details regarding the process, expectations, and costs to establish an
independent facilitator for appointed official evaluations.
A memorandum dated August 7, 2007 to the Mayor and Council titled Council Item of
Interest: Independent Facilitator for Appointed Officials Evaluations was presented at the
August 21, 2007 Workshop.
The process of independent facilitation of appointed official evaluations offers a system
that provides for a non-subjective review, with a broad range perspective of pertinent
issues and goals set by Council. This allows for objectivity in evaluating each appointed
official independently; standardization of process and measurements; effective review
and evaluation of accomplishments; development of future goals and objectives; and,
advisory compensation information.
The approximate range of costs for the entire process would be $5,000 to $10,000 for
each appointed official. Dependent upon the facilitator selected, much of the information
gathering could be conducted via telephone interviews or other surveying methods. If the
facilitator were required to attend more than one session, the costs would likely increase
accordingly. This fee would include development of the process; preparation of
information; evaluation mechanism and standards; and, an established timeline of
activities to conduct the review.
Staff is seeking guidance from the Council on the implementation of a process for
independent facilitation of appointed official evaluations.
Councilmember Knaack provided a brief introduction on the request of the Mayor and
Council, that further information from staff be presented at a future workshop to include
details regarding the process, expectations, and costs to establish an independent
facilitator for appointed official evaluations. She added that it was agreed that this was an
important issue for consideration that could result in mutually acceptable process
between Council and appointed officials that will clearly communicate goals and
expectations, encourage mutual responsiveness and reflect a specific time frame for
accomplishing this review.
Councilmember Knaack summarized the process of the independent facilitator, stating
that this would allow for objectivity in evaluating each appointed official independently;
standardization of process and measurements; effective review and evaluation of
accomplishments; development of future goals and objectives; and, advisory
compensation information. She added that she believes the appointed officials are the
top professionals and deserve this process.
2
Councilmember Clark inquired as to how setting goals with a facilitator would differ from
other goal setting sessions the Council has had in the past.
Mr. Beasley stated that the goals would vary with each person. He stated that his goals
would be aligned with the Council's goals from an organizational stand point for budget,
department and business plans. He noted that there would also be a strategy for
implementation as well as a time frame being set.
Mr. Tindall stated that the process entails the Council and staff setting goals for the
organization to be implemented with a precise plan and a facilitator. He noted that the
goals would not change because of the use of a facilitator, however it would be more
specific and detail oriented.
Councilmember Clark stated that what she understood was that the goals were not
separate or different from any other goal setting session, but only differ in the
implementation and performance of the goals being set.
Ms. Pam Hanna reiterated the sentiments of both Mr. Beasley and Mr. Tindall. She said
her department would look to the goals the Council envisioned and tailor those goals to fit
the department for an improved business plan. She added that with the help of the
facilitator, they would be able to expand, narrow or add specific details.
Councilmember Frate inquired as to the cost and from where it would be funded. He
asked if it would be something they would have to budget for the year.
Mr. Beasley stated that the cost would vary depending on whether the facilitator is local or
not. He said the cost would probably be between $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the
amount of meetings as well as other factors. Additionally, each department had
discretionary funds that could be used to fund the process.
Councilmember Frate commented on possibly using a facilitator in the interim and later
work on goal setting internally with the tools learned from the facilitator.
Councilmember Knaack stated that the facilitator would always need to be an
independent contractor. Councilmember Frate expressed his support for a facilitator.
Mayor Scruggs added that every year the Council should discuss and determine the use
of a facilitator. She said the majority would then vote whether to have an independent
facilitator. Additionally, she said she viewed this as a test project and not for the long
term.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that the process that was in place now had, in his view,
worked fairly well; however he was willing to try something new in hopes that the process
could be improved. He said he was willing to try it for one year and view the outcome. He
added that he believes this to be a good experience for all.
3
Councilmember Lieberman commented that he foresees possibly having two different
kinds of goals. One of the meetings would be for goals concerning the city, while the other
would be to sit down with the facilitator and discuss managing different departments. He
stated that ultimately, it was one goal that could be worked on two ways.
Councilmember Goulet stated that he appreciated Councilmember Knaack's request to
bring this project to the table. He said in the past they struggled with several concerns
regarding this issue. He inquired as to how the goal setting session would incorporate
each individual performance measures as well as discipline principles. He noted that the
attorneys had professional responsibilities to meet legally and asked if that would carry
over to other offices or individual performance measures that would be looked at or would
they chose certain things based on what the goals and objectives were.
Mr. Tindall explained that each individual had specific goals that have been set for their
department and would vary for each person. He added that the facilitator would probably
look to each individual and their goal setting, in keeping with the overall encompassing
goals of the Council. He also explained that the cost would probably be higher the first
time around since they were still in the learning stages; however the cost should be much
lower the second time around if the Council so chooses to continue the process.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Tindall if when meeting the goals for his department,
would he discuss the individual characteristics he would utilize to meet those goals. Mr.
Tindall stated that he was correct.
Mr. Beasley reiterated Mr. Tindall's views. He stated that each individual's job was
different, with different challenges and goals to meet. He explained that his job was both
external and internal with Council goals, staff and city needs. He added that his goals
would meet the values, standards, performance and ethics of all individuals.
Ms. Pam Hanna stated that the city clerk's office was a very service oriented department
with service to the public, City Council and staff. She explained that her goals would
center on specific functions to continue to offer and expand excellent service for the
public, staff and all city organizations.
Councilmember Goulet stated that it was very important for the public to acknowledge
that the city had the same goal with each department's goals structured and tailored to
reach the same goal in different ways.
Mayor Scruggs commented that the goals for the city's attorney and city's clerk offices
would be different from the goals set at the retreat. She added that as for the city
manager's goals, there would probably be some over lap, however there would be some
refinement as well. She noted that there would be times when some services would be
better met and reviewed internally rather than dealt with independently. She related an
example of attorneys reviewing old and out dated ordinances. She explained that the city
clerk's office would have different goals than Mr. Beasley's goals; however each goal
would work to better serve the city. She added that Mr. Beasley's goals would probably
be tied directly with goals set by the Council.
4
Mayor Scruggs noted that this was what she had envisioned when utilizing the help of a
facilitator.
Councilmember Frate commented that having another set of eyes looking over their goals
could give a new and different perspective.
Mayor Scruggs had a question based on a process stated in the memo. In the memo
there was mention of a priority list of goals and input from each person independently.
She inquired how that list of goals would be developed and how and when they would be
presented. She asked Councilmember Knaack if she had spoken to other cities that had
gone through this process.
Councilmember Knaack explained that she had not discussed this process with other
Cities who had utilized facilitators. Mayor Scruggs stated that it would be a good idea to
talk with other elected officials and ask how this process actually occurs.
Mr. Beasley stated that it was his understanding that the process would start with
individual goal setting and then find the commonality and consensus regarding those
goals. The consensus would then be brought in for discussion in a group setting for
implementation, strategy and a time frame.
Mayor Scruggs inquired as to the process to select the facilitator, which needed to be
fairly quick, because evaluations started in January. Councilmember Knaack stated that it
had not been set up thus far.
Mayor Scruggs commented that she thought the facilitator would probably come from the
Human Resources discipline. Mr. Beasley stated that the facilitator would be an individual
that would identify with each person and be familiar with each individual's evaluation
models and would not necessarily come from HR.
Mayor Scruggs reiterated that most of the Council believed the facilitator would be
someone whose work was in the profession of Human Resources. She asked how they
would begin the process of finding a facilitator. Councilmember Knaack commented that
they should all have input in finding and identifying a facilitator.
Mayor Scruggs asked to begin the process of finding a facilitator. She stated that she
would like to begin now because there would be veto power, therefore they needed to
have more than one name.
Vice Mayor Martinez suggested possibly having Human Resources research and compile
a list of names and backgrounds of who other cities were using. He noted that they could
bring it to a workshop for discussion.
Mayor Scruggs stated that it would have to be in a workshop setting because it dealt with
evaluations. Mr. Tindall stated that she was correct. He added that they could follow it up
with an executive session and continue the discussion to agree on a facilitator.
5
Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that they needed to all agree with a procedure to begin
the process selection.
Councilmember Clark commented that her view of a facilitator was someone to bring
points of view together and form a consensus. She stated that she was not specifically
interested in it being a facilitator from Human Resources, but rather someone who could
bring the diverse views of many people to commonality. She said she agreed with
bringing this to a workshop and/or an executive session. She added that she personally
did not know of any facilitators, however was confident in the names from Human
Resources, staff and any Council members who had submitted names. She would like to
see a short biography or background on any facilitator nominated.
Councilmember Goulet suggested possibly needing two facilitators because of the two
very different areas. He said there would be one facilitator for individual performance and
possibly another for city goals. He noted that he believes it would be difficult for one
facilitator to focus on both goals.
Mayor Scruggs commented that she agreed with Councilmember Goulet's assertion that
two facilitators might be needed because of the expertise needed in very different areas.
She added that hopefully they could agree on one independent facilitator that could
evaluate and help achieve everyone's goals.
Councilmember Lieberman commented that this was a learning process for all. He stated
that they could possibly like this process or not at all. He said that overall he believes this
to be a unique learning experience and would like to move forward with it.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that he was not suggesting the facilitator be a Human
Resources person, but rather have them research, contact and have background
information on suitable facilitators.
Mayor Scruggs proceeded to summarize the discussion thus far. She stated that
everyone would be permitted to submit names of facilitators, including Human Resources.
The list would be researched by Human Resources and biographies and background
checks done and submitted to the Council for a meeting set in executive session to
discuss and decide on a choice or choices. The next step would be to obtain the cost of
the individual facilitator. After the cost is determined, there would be another session to
then discuss and select the facilitator. Mr. Tindall stated that they could possibly budget a
cost today and avoid the second meeting.
Mayor Scruggs and Mr. Tindall suggested advising the participants in advance of the
budget range and time frame. Mr. Tindall stated that they would only select from that pool.
Councilmember Frate commented that an availability factor may become an issue.
Mayor Scruggs continued and said that after the discussion and selection at the executive
session, Human Resources would finalize the contract.
6
Mr. Tindall stated that a simple contract could be developed and be ready when the
selection was made.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested possibly interviewing the facilitator. The consensus
from the Council was not to interview.
Councilmember Clark stated that this process was new to everyone and interviewing the
participants could possibly stretch and complicate the process.
Mayor Scruggs discussed the time frame of when the facilitator would be needed. Mr.
Beasley said that it would largely depend on the availability of the facilitator. He said that
the timing of implementation was a different topic. Mayor Scruggs commented that
evaluations began in January and would like to keep to that time frame.
Councilmember Knaack commented that she would like to start much sooner than
January and believes it not to be such a complicated issue.
Mayor Scruggs suggested starting in December if at all possible.
Councilmember Clark commented that since this was already October, it would be
extremely difficult to find a facilitator for November or December. She stated that they
should come to an agreement with appointed officials and needed more time.
Councilmember Goulet agreed with Councilmember Clark and suggested starting in
January. Councilmember Knaack suggested still trying to obtain someone for December
and, if feasible, to postpone until the next availability.
Mayor Scruggs suggested obtaining the list of names within a one week time frame. The
names are due to Human Resources by October 12, 2007.
Councilmember Knaack suggested the cost for each facilitator not to excess more than
$10,000 per appointed official. Mr. Tindall stated that it was common for a consultant to
have a "do not exceed clause" in their contract.
Vice Mayor Martinez suggested leaving the cost open so as not to encourage consultants
coming in at just under the $10,000 dollar range.
Mr. Tindall stated that what he was trying to avoid was subsequent meetings to evaluate
cost ranges. He added that the consultants would have a standard rate and ideas on the
time frame needed to complete the process.
Mayor Scruggs inquired as to an average cost of a facilitator. Mr. Beasley stated that he
believes that the cost to be close to $5,000 dollars. He added that they were not only
paying for their time, but also their expertise.
Councilmember Clark stated that Mr. Beasley had a valid point and could approve of the
7
$5,000 to $10,000 dollar range. She noted that as Mr. Beasley had mentioned, the cost
could go up depending if the person selected was from out of state.
Mayor Scruggs called for everyone to agree on a range. Everyone agreed on the limit not
to exceed $10,000. She asked for this to possibly be ready for the October 16, 2007
meeting. She stated that the deadline for turning in the names was October 9, 2007 to
Human Resources. Human Resources will contact each person or firm and explain what
the City of Glendale was looking for. Additionally, Human Resources would start
biographies and contact the individuals to find out availability in December, April or May
time frame. The facilitator would submit their hourly rate and be made aware of the
$10,000 range limit per evaluation. In addition, all information would be discussed at the
October 16 meeting. At that meeting, a selection of the facilitator would be made.
Councilmember Knaack commented that part of her vision was to remove this process
somewhat away from the Human Resources department and to have an outside point of
view. Mayor Scruggs stated that she wished she had a different term to use other than
Human Resources for people that do this as a profession and knows both the legal
aspects and the performance of evaluations.
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that other cities who use this process have found these
individuals and that could be a good place to start. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Vice
Mayor Martinez and stated that she would be looking into the names used by other cities.
Mayor Scruggs asked for a consensus to first start with names that had been used by the
cities of Peoria, Scottsdale and Chandler. Everyone was in agreement.
2. Regional PARATRANSIT study conducted by the REGIONAL public
transportation authority
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Cathy Colbath, Transit Administrator, Ms.
Jessica Blazine, Intergovernmental Program Director.
This is a request for the City Council to provide guidance on the Regional Paratransit
Study being conducted by the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). This
study was initiated by the RPTA to examine issues involving paratransit service in the
valley. The study reviewed existing local paratransit services such as Dial-A-Ride and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transit service, and presents a plan for regionalizing
paratransit services.
One of the Council's goals is to provide high-quality services for citizens. Providing
transportation options within the city will assist in achieving this goal.
Glendale Transit offers several transportation options. The combination of services
offered provided rides to nearly 2.5 million people in Glendale last year. These services
include:
8
• Fixed route and express bus services
• Glendale Urban Shuttle (GUS)
• Taxi-subsidy for certain medical trips
• Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS)
• Dial-A-Ride (DAR)
• Transportation services required under the ADA
The ADA is a federally mandated paratransit service required to be provided within % of a
mile of fixed route bus service to persons with a disability which prevents them from using
a fixed route bus.
In October of 2006, the RPTA contracted with TranSystems to conduct a study of existing
paratransit programs in the region and to identify potential benefits and challenges to
implementing a regional paratransit program. The study was to address issues, including
aging population needs, increasing ADA demands, transfers, and the possibility of
regionalizing certain facets of service to contain costs.
The paratransit services offered by Glendale were assessed by the consultant. In
summary of the system review, the consultant reported "The Glendale DAR and ADA
services appear to be well managed, high-quality, and operated efficiently. On-time
performance and ride times are exemplary. Accident rates and complaint rates are very
low. No ADA trip requests are denied and about 98.6% of non-ADA DAR trips requests
are accommodated."
As part of the process, input was gathered from staff and the public throughout the region.
Several meetings were held, which resulted in a regional paratransit model being selected
which proposes creating a regional call center and divides the valley into three sub-
sections: east, central and west. In this proposed system model some passengers may
have to transfer; however, most would not.
The item was presented at the September 2007 RTPA Board meeting for discussion. As
part of a separate item (RPTA Strategic Plan), an action was taken authorizing the RPTA
to become the lead agency to regionalize ADA paratransit, dependent upon approval of
local city councils.
The RPTA Board will be asked in October of 2007 to accept the consultant's
recommendation for regional paratransit service.
Participating in a regional service may provide residents using a regional ADA service the
ability to travel outside Glendale without needing to transfer, and will provide consistent
service policies. However, regional service could limit the ability of residents to travel on
9
the day of service requested as same day service will not be guaranteed. Additionally,
ADA fares will increase.
Participating in a regional system will result in loss of direct service control. The RPTA will
administer and operate the program through separate contracts with private providers.
Therefore citizen complaints will not be handled at the local level.
The study information was presented to the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee
on September 6, 2007 for information only. Comments included concern for difficulty
experienced by residents needing to transfer and concerns about potential loss of quality
of service and costs impacts by participating in a regional system.
The cost estimates provided to date are based on a cost allocation method different from
the method proposed to be used once a regional system is implemented. The consultant
states estimates using the preferred cost allocation method have not been provided since
the process to determine those estimates would be difficult and time consuming.
Additionally, current cost estimates presume ADA eligible riders will use the regional
service. However, ADA eligible riders may prefer to use Glendale's non-ADA service due
to lower cost, high-customer service and responsiveness. In that case, the cost of
providing non-ADA service in Glendale could be impacted. These cost impacts have not
been addressed by the study.
Valley cities receive financial reimbursement for ADA service through the RPTA. While
this reimbursement falls short of current ADA costs incurred in Glendale, other cities
receive funding amounts over their actual expenses. Glendale and any city whose ADA
allocations fall short of actual service costs would be responsible for the cost overages,
but would have limited control of the regional service.
Staff is requesting guidance from the Council to continue working with the RPTA to
refine the study prior to considering the cost and service delivery impacts of
participation in a regional paratransit system.
Mayor Scruggs commented that the City of Glendale has the highest level of quality
regarding DAR and ADA services. The consultants stated that they had a well managed,
high-quality operation that ran very efficiently. She added that the consultants had found
on-time performances and ride times that were exemplary.
Councilmember Frate stated that he understood they were still in the study process of
participating in the regional paratransit system, however asked at which point in time
could they vote whether to participate or not. He explained that Glendale had an efficient,
high quality system and should they participate regionally, as the cost could rise and they
would no longer have any control over the quality of service.
Ms. Cathy Colbath, Transit Administrator stated that one of the components of the
regional paratransit plan requires that non-ADA services, which most residents have, do
10
not guarantee same day service and any requests would have to be made in advance.
Currently ADA service was required to be made a day in advance.
Councilmember Clark stated that she sees this as a possible determent to the level of
exceptional service that Glendale deliverers to its most vulnerable residents. She noted
that she does not support moving in this direction, especially if it means that as a minority
vote against it, they are co-opted into the system.
Councilmember Goulet congratulated Ms. Colbath for the success in the transit system.
He asked if there had been any discussion on there possibly being three regions with
each region having to pay accordingly. Ms. Colbath stated that the method of cost
allocation proposed in the plan was that each jurisdiction would be accountable for their
residents' travel and there would be a trip distance component incorporated into the cost.
Councilmember Goulet asked what the yearly ADA increase was for Glendale. Ms.
Colbath stated that they actually experienced a decrease last year because they had
expanded the guest system with greater options. She added that typically there was an
increase in ridership and a yearly of increase of 3% is incorporated. Councilmember
Goulet noted that he would like to continue discussions and further study this matter and
would hope they would want to raise the level of performance to Glendale's standards
and not lower the standards to accommodate everyone as a whole.
Mayor Scruggs commented that a lot of communities did not have ADA services,
therefore how would the cost be addressed. Ms. Colbath stated that each community
could choose to use this regional system to provide their non-ADA service and acquire
the cost.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if dial-a-ride still stopped at the city boundaries. Ms.
Colbath stated that the service was provided only within the Glendale boundaries.
Councilmember Lieberman also inquired as to how much was paid to RPTA. Ms. Colbath
said they did not pay anything to RPTA for service; however they do pay the City of
Phoenix for some of the fixed route services. She added that RPTA does pay on behalf of
Glendale for some of the fixed route services. Councilmember Lieberman asked how
much was paid to the City of Phoenix. Ms. Colbath stated that Phoenix was paid
approximately $3 million a year. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there were any
routes that were exclusive to Glendale without using Phoenix transit. Ms. Colbath stated
that there were none. She said that they shared the regional system. Councilmember
Lieberman commented that they were already regional whether they wanted to admit it or
not. He stated that it would be difficult to be independent regarding the fixed route system.
Councilmember Lieberman commended Ms. Colbath for a wonderful job extending the
times, hours and frequency of the routes.
Mayor Scruggs stated that the fixed bus route system should be regional; however
Glendale does have two totally independent services at the moment which were dial-a-
ride and ADA. She explained that the question being addressed was, should they give up
those two independent services and become part of the regional fleet.
11
Vice Mayor Martinez commented that he did not want to give up the independent
systems. He said they were doing an excellent job and would like to keep it that way. He
added that they should continue exploring the regional issue, however would like to keep
everything as is for now. He asked if there were any free passes for students on fixed
routes. Ms. Colbath stated that they followed the same guidelines that the region utilizes
regarding discount fares for students. She added that Tempe does have free fares for
their students.
Mayor Scruggs relayed a lively discussion at a meeting where the free fare for students
was discussed. She stated that ultimately it was decided that one group of riders should
not be singled out for free passes and not others. She noted that there had not been any
money allocated for this subsidized service and Tempe was paying it out of there own
funds. She explained that any new project that someone tries to insert into the regional
transportation plan hoping to use Prop 400 funding, could not be included because the
funds were simply not there.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the taxi service used for medical emergencies went out of the city
limits. Ms. Colbath stated that it was used for only Glendale boundaries.
Mayor Scruggs gave direction to continue working with the RPTA to refine the study. She
would like to see the study consider the cost and service delivery impacts before
considering participation in a regional paratransit system. She added that on October 18,
2007, she would be voting on the RPTA board developing a single regional transit
agency. She explained that she was not in agreement with RPTA's direction in this matter
because of the impact it could have on Glendale. She said that the assumption that was
driving this change was that everyone assumed people wanted to travel beyond the city
limits. She explained that with long distance travel, there would be a price to pay for a
different type of service.
Mayor Scruggs stated that her vote of "no" would probably be interpreted as Glendale
does not want people to move around the valley. A "yes" vote would mean that Glendale
went along with the status quo. She said she could possibly abstain because of
insufficient information on the impact on the City of Glendale.
Vice Mayor Martinez recommended a "yes" vote to continue working with the RPTA to
refine the study and a "no" vote on the October 18th meeting. He said that he believes the
Council had enough information to warrant not becoming part of the regional system at
this time.
Councilmember Frate recommended a "no" vote on the October 18th meeting. He added
that they all believed in working together, however in this case he didn't see a benefit to
Glendale.
Councilmember Clark recommended a "no" vote for the October 18th meeting. She stated
that she sees no advantage for the City of Glendale's residents. She further added that
she sees no benefit in continuing to work with the RPTA since they have already decided
12
that it was not in Glendale's best interest.
Mayor Scruggs said that in continuing to work with RPTA, it could turn out to be
something that Glendale could support. Ms. Colbath stated that they would like the
opportunity to go back and look at options that had not been explored. She said she
would like the opportunity to explore the possibility of improving the transfer system which
would in turn improve the quality of service for all residents.
Mayor Scruggs commented that this was only the first stage in the process and any
resolution on a regional paratransit system was premature. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if
there was a time frame for the study. Mayor Scruggs stated that there was really no time
frame; however they were pushing for sometime in December.
Councilmember Knaack commented that she was bothered with just recommending a
"no" vote without further review and study. She said she was thinking of the people that
had to go to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale. She said that the area had become regional
and they should possibly look to the future.
Mayor Scruggs discussed the government's role in meeting everyone's needs and how to
recognize when it becomes the individuals responsibility.
Councilmember Clark stated that she believes that they had met their mandate when they
delivered excellent service to the residents of Glendale. She said that the watering down
of a regional system might put Glendale at a disadvantage to travel regionally. She noted
that a regional system was something that everyone aspired to achieve; however, if it was
not the right kind of service and did not meet the needs of the population it was intended
to serve, it would be an exercise in futility.
Vice Mayor Martinez reiterated his stand to recommend a "no" vote, however voted to
continue to work with RPTA to refine the study.
Councilmember Goulet stated that it seemed that people were motivated not to give up
something that was clearly a success and head and shoulders over everyone else. His
recommendation would be to continue the study, however vote "no" on October 18th
Mayor Scruggs stated that she would be voting "no" on the October 18th meeting for the
resolution to develop a single transit agency for all modes of transportation. She said that
her vote of "no" was on the basis that the vote was premature and there had not been
sufficient time to determine what the cost would be or that the service delivery would not
be diminished from the standards that Glendale had established.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Mayor Scruggs on this resolution being premature and
needing additional information on the study of cost and delivery.
Councilmember Knaack stated that she was in agreement with needing further
information.
13
Mayor Scruggs noted that this was a complicated issue. She added that most
communities see this as a free service when it clearly was not. She asked if there was a
way to assess the riders' needs for traveling outside the city. Ms. Colbath stated that
there had not been a study done, however the need was there for outside travel. She
noted that she would like to continue to work to develop something that would provide
some mobility and options to riders.
Mayor Scruggs commented that it was important to know the percentage of riders that
needed to travel outside of Glendale. She would also like to know if the users would
sacrifice the level of service they had now, for additional options. She asked Ms. Colbath
if there was anyway of finding out. Ms. Colbath stated that they had not done any studies
that would support that question.
Councilmember Clark suggested possibly giving out a survey card to obtain information
from the riders. She suggested passing them out while the riders were in transit. She
stated that the survey would give the Council insight on what the average rider considers
a priority. Ms. Colbath stated that she would look into putting together a survey. She
added that most riders do like having additional options.
Councilmember Clark commented that she did not want to give false expectations should
this become regional and people expect the same level of service given by Glendale.
Mayor Scruggs commented that at some point they would need to know were the rider
stands.
Councilmember Frate commented that the citizens of Glendale were extremely satisfied
with the Glendale system today.
Vice Mayor Martinez stated that he had used the dial-a-ride in the past and probably will
use it in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
14