Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 3/1/2016City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85309 Meeting Minutes - Final Tuesday, March 1, 2016 1:30 PM Regular Workshop Council Chambers City Council Workshop Mayor Jerry Weiers Vice Mayor Ian Hugh Councilmember Jamie Aldama Councilmember Samuel Chavira Councilmember Ray Malnar Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff Councilmember Bart Turner City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Present 8 - Mayor Jerry Weiers, Vice Mayor Ian Hugh, Councilmember Jamie Aldama, Councilmember Samuel Chavira, Councilmember Samuel Chavira, Councilmember Ray Malnar, Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, and Councilmember Bart Turner Also present were Kevin Phelps, City Manager; Michael Bailey, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk. Mayor Weiers recognized Ethan McAfee, a MYAC student, who was in the audience and welcomed him to the meeting. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. 16-080 WEST PHOENIX/CENTRAL GLENDALE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY UPDATE Staff Contact: Jack Friedline, Director, Public Works Staff Presenter: Debbie Albert, Transportation Engineer, Public Works Staff Presenter: Jon M. Froke, AICP, Planning Director Staff Presenter: Jean Moreno, Economic Development Officer Guest Presenter: Mr. Scott Smith, Interim CEO, Valley Metro Guest Presenter: Mr. Wulf Grote, Director of Planning and Accessible Transit, Valley Metro Guest Presenter: Ms. Jennifer Pyne, Project Manager, Valley Metro Ms. Albert introduced Jon Froke, Planning Director, and Jean Moreno, Economic Development Officer, Scott Smith, Interim CEO of Valley Metro, Wolf Grote, Director of Planning and Accessible Transit, Valley Metro and Jennifer Pyne, Project Manager, Valley Metro. Ms. Albert also introduced members from the Transportation Oversight Commission and the community working group for this item. She said this item will include a Valley Metro update and presentation, Transportation perspective, a Planning and Economic Development perspective and request for Council direction. She said staff is seeking direction related to the identification of the leading route alternative and transit mode, consensus on moving forward with additional analysis at three areas along the proposed alignment, station identification and traffic configuration and feedback on the development of a cost-sharing concept with the City of Phoenix relative to capital and ongoing operation costs. Mr. Smith said he has been an active participant in both MAG and Valley Metro for many years, and said the decisions that need to be made are very difficult. They are decisions that will affect the City for many years and will have long-term generational consequences. He mentioned several relevant questions that might come up in Council discussions regarding this issue. He provided a short history of this transportation issue and how the high capacity transportation corridor has emerged, beginning in the east valley and moving into Phoenix and the west valley. Mr. Smith explained decisions made today are not final decisions, but part of a narrowing process. Beginning in 2000, valley cities began to designate funds for the high capacity transit. Mr. Smith said the Council will have many questions as this process moves forward. He said Valley Metro City of Glendale Page 1 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 recognizes this is a community decision and will work as a resource providing information on what is possible. Mr. Smith introduced Ms. Pyne. Ms. Pyne said the study began a few years ago. She said the studies determined the most suitable area for high capacity transit in the near-term was from 19th Avenue to downtown Glendale. She explained the study area currently includes the area from 19th Avenue and 67th Avenue, from Camelback to Northern. The study area does include the Westgate area for future inclusion in the plan. She said the goal of the planning study is to determine what type of transit service would best serve this area and where to locate the route. She said the study has narrowed the options to light rail transit and bus rapid transit. Three routes have been identified, which include a Glendale route from 19th Avenue to downtown, and two options on Camelback Road. One Camelback option would run north on 43rd Avenue and then west on Glendale Avenue to downtown, and the other Camelback option would utilize Grand Avenue to 51st Avenue to reach downtown. Ms. Pyne explained that light rail is a more expensive than a bus project in terms of capital cost. Longer project routes would also be more expensive. Evaluation was done to determine what additional benefits would be received for a longer project. One way benefits are determined is through estimated ridership. She said the Camelback options came back especially strong and heavily influenced by population and employment density as well as transit dependency. The study also provided information about adverse right of way impacts and potential for economic development. Ms. Pyne explained the Camelback options were highest in ridership numbers, both overall and in terms of a per mile basis. She said light rail has higher ridership participation than bus rapid transit due to the need for potential transfers while riding the bus. The leading alternative identified is a light rail line that would run along Camelback Road, 43rd Avenue, Glendale Avenue and then to Glenn Drive in the downtown area, west of 51st Avenue. Several areas along this route will require further study. In response to community feedback, end of line options are also being explored. Recommendations at this time include light rail transit which has a higher estimated ridership and higher capacity. The recommended route will run on Camelback, 43rd Avenue, Glendale Avenue and Glenn Drive. This option is most competitive for federal funds and will connect GCU and downtown Glendale to regional light rail transit system. Ms. Pyne explained there has been a great deal of public outreach, which included 22 events, 43 presentations and 10 public meetings. Additionally, 7 surveys have been conducted. From those recent public meetings in January 2016, it was determined that 67 percent are in favor and support light rail coming to Glendale as this creates potential for development, access to GCU and downtown and it preserves Glendale Avenue. Those opposed to this project expressed concerns about construction � and do not support downtown Glendale as a destination. Ms. Pyne said the downtown area is a historic area with smaller streets and required a more focused analysis. The community working group to provide advisory recommendation for a downtown route and meetings occurred June through October 2015. One of the group's tasks was to develop evaluation criteria to assess downtown route options. Key focus areas included impacts on small businesses, the unique downtown character, impacts on historic properties and leveraging investment to achieve economic revitalization goals. The advisory group recommended for this project to occur on Glenn Drive in the downtown area and to transition from Glendale Avenue to Glenn in the area of 51st or 52nd Avenue. This advisory recommendation is part of the leading alternative. Capital funding for this project would come from federal funds, regional sales tax and local sales taxes. Federal funding is a complicated process and they do look at land use and economic benefit as part of the process. Continuing analysis will include further development of the conceptual design for traffic configuration, station locations, City of Glendale Page 2 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 1-17 crossing, transition into downtown Glendale and an end of line concept. There will be continued public outreach on this project. The project is planned for operation in 2026 and this item will be brought back before Council later this year after further analysis is completed. Ms. Albert provided a history of mass transit projects. Federal Transit Administration is a $10 billion annual investment. The FTA partners with state and local governments and links people, businesses and communities to enhance, modernize and extend public transit. Funding is allocated by Congress with funds from federal gas tax and highway program funds. This project is important because it provides equal opportunity for mobility and access for transit dependent users, citizens with disabilities and limited mobility as well as an aging population. It also provides a choice for young adult riders forgoing drivers licenses, increases disposable income and provides a live -work -play community. These projects also will link the east and west valley and major activity centers. Ms. Albert provided a comparison on bus only trips and light rail only trips. There was a significant time and cost savings for light rail trips. These would decrease as the valley cities continue to expend their transit projects. The annual cost for a family to own a vehicle is about $2,213. Light rail provides reliability with a consistent schedule, no competition with traffic, greater frequency, more space, fewer stops and seamless access for mobility devices. Ms. Albert said 35 to 40 percent of the cost for this project would come from local sources and sales tax, and each agency would pay for the improvements within their jurisdiction. The Glendale local match would come from the GO Transportation Program and costs have been included in the financial plan since the inception. She said there is no impact to the General Fund for ongoing operations for construction of this project. Ms. Albert said there were many questions about how light rail would fit into downtown Glendale. A diagram was provided to show how traffic lanes might look with light rail. The details and configurations will have to be worked out in the next steps of the project. Additional information was provided how other communities similar to Glendale have incorporated light rail into their area. Other areas of concern include the area needed for a 90 degree turn for light rail. Concept drawings were provided to show what light rail might look like on Glenn Drive. In summary, from the Transportation perspective, there were two voter -approved initiatives from Glendale Onboard with a % cent sales tax and Maricopa County with a % cent sales tax. Planning studies were conducted in both 2008 and 2012. Light rail would be a federal and regional investment in Glendale. This project would support local planning priorities for transportation, economic development and land -use planning. The Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission unanimously supports this project. Mr. Froke provided an overview from the Planning and land -use perspective for the light rail project. This has direct impacts to the Centerline redevelopment area, which is the gateway to this community. The Centerline district was the city's auto row for many years. This area has potential for development in the future and this project . could improve the streets and neighborhoods in this area. Ms. Moreno provided an overview from Economic Development perspective. She said there are about 96 acres of vacant land in the Centerline area, 58 acres of which are a potential Brownfield which just means a potential presence or a perception of presence of a contaminant. Centerline has higher vacancy rates versus citywide vacancy rates for retail, industrial and multi -family. Centerline has had a 12% decrease in population versus a 3.6% citywide increase from 2000 to 2010. A comparison of population, dwelling units and employment was also made for Centerline and the Glendale municipal City of Glendale Paye 3 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 planning area. Overall, Centerline growth is expected to be slower and population growth will begin to lag. Dwelling unit growth will also lag throughout. The total employment growth projection from 2010 to 2040 shows Centerline at 37% and Glendale MPA at 115%. Downtown revitalization tenets include leveraging public investments, engaging the community, providing an attractive, walkable place with multiple transit options. It is also important to create a diversified economy with new residential, new employment, diverse retail, and encouraging business retention, as well as improving processes and regulations by making it easier for business owners to do business in this community. Ms. Moreno went on to discuss the economic impacts of transit systems, which include a 4 to 1 return on investment nationally, 400,000 direct industry jobs, and a 42% increase in property values. Over 1 million jobs are created or sustained per year for a transportation investment. Regionally, there has been an 8 to 1 return on investment, over 10 million square feet of commercial development, over 4 million square feet of educational development, over 15,000 residential units and almost 3,000 hotel rooms. In Glendale, a light rail system could provide 1,297 additional residential units, over 300,000 square feet of non-residential development, over 1,500 jobs, $4.8 million in property tax and $16.4 million in sales tax based on study information provided by Valley Metro. From an Economic Development perspective, a light rail project creates significant advantage for redevelopment and is aligned with the city's downtown revitalization goals. This project is also aligned with Envision Glendale 2040 General Plan initiative. Light rail leverages public investment and regional/federal dollars and provides an opportunity to add or increase residential units, employment, mixed-use projects, density, and walkability. Without significant changes, revitalization in this area is likely to lag and the light rail project will provide west valley connectivity to the rest of the Phoenix area. Ms. Albert provided the next steps through Spring of 2017, which include public meetings, cost-sharing IGA between Glendale and Phoenix and identifying a course of action to begin full development. Staff requested direction on the leading route alternative, light rail as the preferred mode of transit, continued study to address transition, station location and designs, and a conceptual agreement to 50/50 cost sharing of 43rd Avenue construction and operating costs with Phoenix. Vice Mayor Hugh asked about the economic impact of $4.8 million in property tax. Ms. Moreno said those figures were the property tax collection in the half mile radius around three stations that would potentially be in Glendale. She said this was based on projection and land use planning. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if that was the same with the sales tax. Ms. Moreno said that was correct. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if it was the 800% they were talking about. Ms. Moreno said the 800% return on investment is what has been seen throughout the 20 miles of the system, specifically looking at only % mile around each of the stations. She said it was only the development that occurred after the light rail came in '/ mile around the stations. Vice Mayor Hugh asked how much it would cost per mile and asked for examples of the 800% return. City of Glendale Paye 4 Printed on 7WO17 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Ms. Moreno deferred to Valley Metro to answer that question. Mr. Grote said the price of the 20 mile project was about $1.4 billion for 20 miles Vice Mayor Hugh asked him to break that down per mile. Mr. Grote said it was about $70 million per mile and that cost is all inclusive. There has been a great amount of development along that corridor. Arizona State University decided to locate their campus in downtown Phoenix because it was adjacent to the light rail. There have also been several residential developments in the downtown corridor. This development has occurred in Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe. Vice Mayor Hugh asked if the cities had already seen this 800% return and said that was a lot of development per mile. Mr. Grote said it was. Vice Mayor Hugh said the ASU development was mentioned and asked what other things had occurred. Mr. Grote said Cityscape in downtown Phoenix was an important development and light rail was instrumental in their decision-making for that location. Vice Mayor Hugh said a list of those projects would be helpful with a cost breakdown. Mr. Smith referred to the experience in the City of Mesa prior to light rail, and said there had not been any new investment in residential in over 35 years. Since beginning construction of light rail, over $60 million in new construction has begun. He said four universities that came to the city would not have come without the light rail. He discussed a project that purchased a vacant car dealership in Mesa for development. He said he the future of redevelopment for the light rail areas has not yet been fully realized. Vice Mayor Hugh asked about the examples provided for travel time by bus versus light rail to the VA. He asked how many veterans were taking that trip today. Ms. Albert said she did not know the answer to that question, and they just used examples showing locations they thought people might want to travel to. Ms. Moreno said they looked at regional destinations and access to medical facilities is important to this community, and that is why they picked that particular destination. Councilmember Malnar asked if there would be any impact on the General Fund. Ms. Albert said the operating and capital costs for the project are in the GO Transportation Program in the 25 year fiscally balanced program of projects. Councilmember Malnar asked if the city has been saving money in the GO Transportation, or if that money was currently being spent on other projects. Ms. Albert said they are anticipating bonding for the project and would use future sales tax generation to pay off those bonds in the future. She said they do not anticipate having to change the sales tax or any changes to the service. She said they are actually looking at expanding service in 2031. City of Glendale Page 5 Printed on 713/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Councilmember Malnar asked if they anticipate doing a secondary property tax bond. Ms. Albert said no, they would use the sales tax currently being generated to pay for that bond debt. Councilmember Malnar asked if they are already spending that money for other uses, how does the city pay off a bond with money being spent somewhere else. Ms. Albert said they have been using those funds on capital projects and as those capital projects are completed, they no longer have that obligation for those future funds. Councilmember Malnar said all those funds being used to pay off the future bond are being used to pay off capital only projects. Ms. Albert said that was correct. Councilmember Malnar asked if they can tap into federal and Maricopa County tax to do something other than light rail. He asked if they can do a bus rapid transit system and use those same funds. Ms. Albert said the federal funds are competitive and the city's best project should be presented for those funds. Those funds are set aside for mass transit projects so either a bus rapid transit or light rail project are eligible. She said the best project that would likely get those funds should be put forward since it is a competitive process. She said an evaluation was done on the benefits of both modes of transportation. Light rail was determined to be the most competitive project. Regional funds are programmed for this high capacity transit corridor and this is the only high capacity transit project the city has in the regional transportation plan. Those funds could not be moved to a streets project. She said the GO Transportation funds could be allocated to other projects included as part of the ordinance that created the GO Transportation Program. Staffs recommendation is to base everything off the maps and ordinance that created the '/ cent sales tax. Councilmember Malnar said he needed to get a clearer picture of what the Council wanted downtown Glendale to look like. He asked if there was a vision of what downtown Glendale was going to be, or are they just hoping that light rail will create a vibrant downtown for them. He asked what has been done as part of the study to see where the City wants to go and what they want downtown Glendale to look like. Mr. Froke said much of that vision has been adopted as part of the overlay district. He said some of the vacant auto dealerships might transition to something other than single story buildings or vertical mixed-use. He said future discussions would determine whether the scale of development would be the same as other areas around the valley. Ms. Moreno said the project team has had many conversations about this issue. Staff believes this project reflects the desires of the community working group. Their research has shown that the community does not want to be like other cities and wants to be uniquely Glendale. This project provides an opportunity to create the unique identity while incorporating the public investment in the transit system. She said that is the value of working with Valley Metro and other partners. Ms. Albert said the initiatives were included on ballots and about 67% of the voters approved a connection of light rail to downtown Glendale. This project is trying to implement that program that was approved by voters. City of Glendale Page 6 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Councilmember Malnar asked if they have looked at other communities that have done light rail with the type of vision Glendale has in mind. He would like to see examples of this. Mr. Froke said they have done those studies and visits, such as the trip to Portland, Oregon. Councilmember Malnar asked if those changes looked like what Glendale wants. Ms. Moreno said the town of Hillsboro is an excellent example of that. She provided information on prior tours and discussions about what they wanted the downtown to look like. She also spoke about the light rail in Plano and the changes to that community. She said there are unique differences between all cities. She said this is a tool to create a unique vision for their community. Councilmember Malnar asked about taking the light rail to the Westgate Entertainment District. Ms. Albert said the ultimate goal is to get the light rail to the Sports and Entertainment District, but the most viable option is to go through downtown Glendale. The Citizen Transportation Oversight Committee recommended including a project in the budget to study an extension to get the light rail out to the Sports and Entertainment District. Staff has included that as part of the 2016 budget process. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the tax that funds to the GO process had an expiration. Ms. Albert said it does not sunset. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the rapid transit bus had dedicated bus lanes and if it would still be a disruptive project. Ms. Albert said the bus rapid transit will have dedicated lanes so the impact would be very similar to light rail. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what staff was looking for from the Council. Ms. Albert said they are looking for is direction on setting aside all other alternatives that were being considered and to focus on the specific alignment of Camelback to 43rd, Glendale to Glenn. She said staff is also looking for direction on whether to move forward with analysis of the three areas, 1-17 crossing, transition from Glendale to Glenn and potential for change of the end of line to the west side of Grand Avenue. Staff is also looking for direction on whether to proceed with the research into the cost-sharing agreement for 43rd Avenue with Phoenix. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if the Maricopa County Court System at 67th Avenue and Glendale gives the idea of running the light rail project through downtown Glendale anymore merit., Ms. Pyne said although they haven't looked specifically at that issue, they can review it and determine both ridership benefits as well as additional costs. Councilmember Tolmachoff said it does matter that the CTOC recommended Council City of Glendale Page 7 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 move the process forward. Councilmember Aldama asked if taxpayers will still have to continue to pay a %2 cent sales tax with no benefit of those funds if this project does not move forward. Ms. Albert said citizens of Maricopa County, including Glendale, would continue to pay that sales tax program through 2025. Councilmember Aldama said they would receive no benefit to it. Ms. Albert said there are some services the city would be getting, such as bus routes. The city has prioritized where this money was spent and the light rail was one of those projects. Councilmember Aldama said operating costs would be $1.6 million per mile and then reduced to about $900,000 once rebates are in place. He asked for more information about the rebates. Ms. Albert said projected costs were in the $1.5 million range, and there are offsets to that and the offsets reduced the costs by about 40 percent. The offsets are attributed to fare box collections, advertising revenues and federal preventative maintenance funds. Councilmember Aldama asked if that was for Phoenix and Mesa. Ms. Albert said that was system wide Councilmember Aldama said he has heard from residents and business owners they want a vibrant downtown and an increase in foot traffic. He said they also want access to jobs and health services. Councilmember Turner thanked Councilmember Malnar for bringing up the point of what is the vision for downtown Glendale. His vision was to preserve the historic part of downtown. He is worried the downtown is at risk and if more effort is not made, the downtown area isn't going to thrive. He said every city needs to bring in modern and new. He said the area between 43rd and 51st Avenue is an opportunity to create an attractive and more modern part of the city. He said this modern expansion can extend up 43rd Avenue as well. This would create an opportunity to attract a diverse group of people to keep downtown thriving. He said he had the opportunity to visit Plano, Portland and Hillsboro. Hillsboro was very similar to the plan suggested for downtown Glendale and is successful. He asked if the information about economic impacts of the light rail was per stations or cumulative. Ms. Moreno said the information was the proposed activity that could take place around all three proposed stations. Councilmember Turner said those numbers were the combinations of the three stations. Ms. Moreno said that was correct. Councilmember Turner asked if the sales tax figures mentioned were Glendale's portion of the sales tax. Ms. Moreno said she would have to go back and double check, but said she believed it was Glendale's portion of the sales tax. City of Glendale Page 8 Printed on 71312017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Councilmember Turner had the same question about the property tax and mentioned there were other jurisdictions, like school districts, that also benefit from those taxes. He asked how many miles they were connecting to. Ms. Pyne said if all stays on schedule, in 2026 when the light rail would open in Glendale, the system would have expended in several other directions. Councilmember Turner asked how many miles the system is today. Ms. Pyne said there are 23 miles today. Councilmember Turner said many more miles would be added by 2026. Ms. Pyne said in 2026, the system would be about 37 miles. Councilmember Turner said for Glendale's 3 mile investment in light rail, it would connect to 37 miles of light rail across the valley. More importantly, all of those miles also connect to Glendale. He said all those people that utilize the light rail then become part of the potential labor base working in Glendale. He said that is a huge benefit for the city. He expressed concern about disruption to the businesses during construction and asked what assistance was available to businesses in the Mesa corridor. Ms. Pyne said there are business assistance programs overseen by Valley Metro and also by the cities where construction is occurring. She explained some businesses in Mesa used alternate parking for their customers prior to the construction. Business assistance programs would be made to fit the needs of Glendale businesses. Councilmember Turner said Mesa businesses were very happy with the communication and cooperation they received from Valley Metro during the construction process and felt it was crucial to help keep them in business. Mr. Smith said Valley Metro has done a great job of taking into account the needs of the small businesses. He said the small businesses in Mesa not only survived, but thrived, during the light rail construction process. He said it is a legitimate fear, but his experience with Valley Metro is that they have worked diligently to make this a top priority. Councilmember Turner knows everyone in Glendale is not in favor of light rail, but there have been many discussions about it over the years. He said challenge will be not if they will do this, but how best they will do this. He said the CTOC and the working group are in favor of moving forward on this project. Councilmember Chavira thanked staff, Valley Metro and the other Councilmembers for their input. He said they have touched on preservation, foresight and access. He said this leg of the project needs to be completed to connect with Westgate. He asked about the zoning around Luke Air Force Base to keep the F -35s flying. Mr. Froke said the base and housing were annexed in 1995 and anything that the city does near the base or out at the Loop 303, staff will look out for the best interests of Luke. Councilmember Chavira said the west valley has lacked connectivity and he is in support of this project. City of Glendale Page 9 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Councilmember Aldama said the goal is to keep businesses successful before, during and after construction. He asked what could be done to offset some of the losses businesses might suffer during construction. He said the voters want this project and it is difficult to say no to them when this is something they want. Vice Mayor Hugh said he is cautious about economic impact studies that say how good things might be. He said visitors can visit the downtown area now, not wait for light rail. He said light rail might not be the fix for all the downtown's problems. He was curious to see more evidence of the 8 to 1 return on investment. Mayor Weiers said he had a list of 23 signatures that are opposed to light rail coming to Glendale. He said he is not opposed to light rail and has met with Valley Metro. He said his biggest concern about light rail in downtown is the parking issue. He spoke about the traffic issues on Glendale Avenue and he was concerned about people walking when it was very hot. He liked the idea of incorporating light rail with a trolley system to get visitors to the downtown area. Councilmember Tolmachoff said the idea of ending the light rail west of Grand Avenue is a game changer and there is more opportunity for a park and ride site on the west side of Grand Avenue. Ms. Albert said Valley Metro has a placeholder for a park and ride site. She said there are positives to extending the light rail west of Glendale, but there are further studies that need to be done prior to any decisions being made. Councilmember Tolmachoff asked if they were looking for consensus to move forward today. Ms. Albert said they are looking for direction on moving forward with this project. Councilmember Tolmachoff said her constituents want the light rail to go to Westgate. She was a skeptic until the discussion about changing the end of line. She said she would like to continue the process with more study on the end of line issue. Councilmember Aldama asked if any of the funding mechanisms would cover light rail coming into downtown and transitioning to trolleys. Mr. Smith said the funding is a mixture of local, regional and federal funds. The federal government would look at trolley and light rail as two separate projects. The process to obtain funding for a trolley program would be very competitive. Councilmember Aldama said Lamar was an alternative route at one point during this process. He asked if Lamar is taken off the table forever if they have consensus to move forward today. Ms. Albert said never is a very strong statement. She said the recommendation of the community working group was to put light rail on Glenn Drive and staff is suggesting that is the best alternative for the city at this time. Councilmember Aldama said residents were concerned about light rail on Lamar. He said residents came out in numbers that they did' not want light rail. He asked if the issue was done. City of Glendale Page 10 Printed on 7/3/2017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 Ms. Albert said they are proposing to take Lamar out of consideration and the issue is done. Councilmember Aldama said as is Glendale Avenue to 58th Avenue Ms. Albert said based on this recommendation, they are recommending not to consider that alternative at this time. Councilmember Malnar asked if the trolley or rapid bus lines would be precluded from further discussion if this item moves forward today. Ms. Albert said based on this recommendation and the level of effort that goes into these right of way and traffic impact studies, it is in the best interest of the city in having a single alternative moving forward. She said moving forward, they would identify light rail as the mode and the route previously stated as the route the light rail would take. Councilmember Malnar said he would like to keep those options open as something might change in the future. Ms. Moreno said residents and business owners provided feedback and some formal direction by coming to an agreement on just light rail and the route previously mentioned. She said they didn't want the community living in limbo for another 6 to 9 months while study continues. If there is consensus to move forward, staff will be asking for a resolution. Councilmember Turner was concerned about the transition of light rail to a street car or trolley. He did like the historic significance of the trolley and would like to see a more defined trolley system in the downtown area. He said the trolleys could be used as connection from the light rail stop to other points of interest in the city. Mayor Weiers said his original thought was to have a transit center on the north side of Glendale Avenue where the old car dealers used to be. That transit center could also offer parking and other modes of transportation for visitors. He said the same light rail track could be used for trolley cars as well. He said this is a useless project if the light rail doesn't go west of Grand Avenue. Mayor Weiers said there was consensus. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Phelps thanked everyone for the dialogue today and said staff would follow up with answers to questions. He said there may be an opportunity to refund about $24 million in MPC bonds that could net a savings over the life of the bond of about $2 million. He reminded the Council that the groundbreaking ceremony for the Westgate Campus is on March 10, 2016 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. He said today is the last day to RSVP for this event. He encouraged the Councilmembers to attend if schedules permitted. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Bailey had nothing to report and reminded Council that there would be an Executive Session for Boards and Commissions. City of Glendale Page 11 Printed on 71312017 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final March 1, 2016 COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Aldama asked for staff to look into homeless activity increased in the downtown area. Councilmember Chavira said they had a great dialogue today and reminded everyone to be nice. Councilmember Turner asked staff to look into fire inspection fee structure. He wanted staff to look into ideas for redecorating the first and fourth floor lobbies. He also asked to amend the agenda for workshop meetings to include an opportunity for Councilmembers to make announcements. He asked for staff to look into ways to acknowledge and remember former Councilmember Phil Lieberman who passed away on Friday. Vice Mayor Hugh asked staff to look into ways to spruce up the City's entrance into Glendale. He wanted staff to look at the 2 hour parking enforcement in downtown Glendale. The City Council moved into Executive Session at 4:03 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m. City of Glendale Page 12 Printed on 71312017