Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/16/1989MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 AT 3:00 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Falbo, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, and Tolby. Member Absent: Bellah. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, CityAttorneyandLindaGinn, Deputy City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT VIDEO PRESENTATION The Council and staff were shown a video that was developed by the Fire Department with the assistance of the Cable Department. The video consisted of highlights of the previous 12 months set to contemporary music and included scenes from several major emergency calls the Glendale Fire Department responded to during that time. This item is for information only. 2. DEDICATE -A -TREE PROGRAM Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, Public Works, stated that the Adopt -A -Tree, a program implemented by the Recreation Division, allows residents of Glendale to donate trees to the City and subsequently be planted at various parksites. Only those trees which meet type and size criteria were accepted in accordance with the Adopt -A -Tree guidelines. During the 5-6 years the program has been in existence an average of two trees per year have been donated by Glendale residents. Staff, in an attempt to increase the public awareness and participation in the Adopt -A -Tree program, has made several significant changes in the program. Some of the most important changes include the following: 1. Change name of program to Dedicate -A -Tree Program. 2. Establish a minimum $150.00 donation. 3. Provide inscribed plaque to donor. 4. Notify donor of specific time, date, location of tree planting if requested. 26- 5. Provide advertising/promotion on an annual basis toincreasepublicawarenessandsustainpublicinterest. 6. Put park maintenance in charge of administeringthisprogram. Council concurred with the changes, stating they wouldliketoseesomereferencemadetothesizeofthetree (24" box) in the guidelines so that citizens would knowapproximatelywhatsizetreetheywouldbedonating. Theyalsoexpressedtheirlikeforthenamechangeasitcouldbeawayforpeopletodedicatetreestochildrenorasawaytorememberpeople, who have died, in lieu of flowers. This item is for information only. 3. DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN Greg Marek, Economic Development, stated on April 20, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the draft Urban Design Plan as it will be laid out for final printing. The final plan will be contained in a loose-leaf notebook and it will be designed so that it can be used for marketing purposes. The final plan will contain some minor text changes in order to make it more readable. The preparation of the Urban Design Plan was coordinated with the preparation of the City's General Plan to ensure that both documents are consistent and can work together. The Urban Design Plan contains policies regarding design and development for the Downtown Redevelopment Area, except for the single-family residential areas which are covered in the City's General Plan. The area included in the Urban Design Plan lies between Myrtle on the north, Lamar Road on the south, 51st Avenue on the east and 62nd Avenue on the west. Generally, the Urban Design Plan includes items such as traffic and circulation, including the depressed Grand Avenue Expressway concept; height and density of buildings and provision for pedestrian activity. The plan divides the downtown into four districts; (Westgate, Downtown, Central and Eastgate). Each district has predominate features that distinguish it from the other districts and, consequently, each district has specific policies tailored to the development in that district. He further stated the effectiveness of the Urban Design Plan will not be maximized unless it is adopted as City Council policy, replacing the Urban Design Pattern and the Downtown Image sections of the Glendale Downtown Development Implementation Plan that was prepared by BRW in 1984 and adopted as Council policy in 1985. The Planning and Zoning 27- Commission at its April 20, 1989 meeting, recommended thattheCityCounciladopttheUrbanDesignPlanaspolicyfordevelopmentinthedowntownarea. The Downtown DevelopmentCorporationhasalsoendorsedtheUrbanDesignPlanfordowntowndevelopment. Mayor Renner commented positively about the pedestriancirculationplansproposedfortheDowntownarea. Councilman McAllister questioned the inclusion of designguidelineswithintheplan. Staff responded these were onlysuggestionstohelpkeepthecontiguityoftheplanintact. They further explained that the Development Review ordinancewouldprovidethePlanningandZoningDepartmentwiththerighttoeitheracceptorrejectanythemethatdidnotfitintotheplan. Council suggested that the Downtown Development Corporation be asked to participate in an advisory capacity as it pertains to design standard review in order to make sure that the Urban Plan's basic theme or standard is carried out. This item will be placed on a future Workshop agenda for further discussion. 4. THUNDERBIRD PASEO (ACDC): BID ADDITIVES City Manager Vanacour stated this is a request to review the five proposed bid additives for the Thunderbird Paseo also known as the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel (ACDC). Tim Ernster and Lee Stanley of the Community Services group gave Council a brief summary and stated on April 25 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opened bids for the recreation improvements in the Thunderbird Paseo. The low bid for the cost shareable improvements was $2,595,000. The city's share of this cost is $1,297,500,plus $64,875 for contingency, and 77,850 for construction administration for a total of 1,440,225. The five non -cost shareable bid additives include: automatic irrigation, $177,020; two basketball courts, 79,800; four volleyball courts, $29,800; 59th Avenue overlook, $245,900; and 67th Avenue overlook, $140,500. Total cost for bid additives is $747,052 which includes a contingency fund of $33,651 and $40,381 for construction administration. The combined total for the cost shareable and bid additive items is $2,187,277. The FY 88/89 Parks CIP authorizes $2,038,000 for both the cost shareable and bid additive items; this leaves a shortfall of $149,277. The City now has the option of accepting all the bid additives and adding $149,277 to the funding or deleting any or all oftheadditives. Funds are available in the Park ContingencyAccountshouldtheCouncilchoosetoaddfunding. Staff is working with the Corps of Engineers on thelightingofthebicyclepath. Staff would like to presentinformationregardinglightingofthebicyclepathandsomeadditionalsoccerfieldstotheCorps, with the 63rd AvenueandThunderbirdMasterPlan, for consideration for a futurephaseoftheproject. After discussion the general consensus of Council was todoawaywiththebidadditiveofthe67thAvenueoverlookandperhapsdoitatalaterdate. By eliminating the overlookthiswillbringtheprojectinwithinthebudget. Discussionensuedontheappearanceoftheoverlooksandsuggestionwasmadetobringthisitembackwithsomemoredetailedpicturesandinformation. This item will be placed on a future Workshop agenda for more review and discussion. 5. REVISIONS TO PURCHASING ORDINANCES. ABANDONED PROPERTY & SURPLUS PROPERTY Bill Brewer, Materials Manager, stated that staff is proposing a change to the current ordinance pertaining to purchasing, sale and lease of City property and unclaimed personal property. The objectives of the revisions of the ordinances are as follows: 1. Recognize local vendor's payment of city sales tax in awarding bids. 2. Implement 1988 Charter Amendment which states "The City Council shall establish by ordinance formal guidelines regulating the purchase of goods and services by the City." 3. Provide a formal purchase procedure which is more responsive to the operational needs of the city with respect to dollar limits, timing and method of solicitation. 4. Establish more diverse methods for the disposal of surplus and abandoned property. Mr. Brewer further clarified the first objective by saying it would allow them to take the assessment of the 1% tax by Glendale vendors, into consideration, in relation to whom would get the award. 29- Mr. Brewer stated they wished to introduce a Request forProposalprocedurewhereotherfactorswouldbetakenintoaccountotherthanstrictlypricetoweightheresultsofanaward. These proposals would incorporate what's best overallasopposedtothebidprocesswhereit's the lowest pricemeetingspecifications. He said this would allow staff to gointomoreofaperformancespecificationratherthanmeetingstrictbidspecifications. He further stated they were asking for the City Managertobegivenauthoritytomakeawardsupto $100,000 and thoseitemsover $100,000 be taken to Council. Council expressed their reservations with this proposalbecauseofthepotentialforaproposaltobeawardedwithouttheCouncil's involvement that is tied to a much largercontract; i.e. as a design contract to design work that willultimatelybeawardedtoaconstructionfirmtocompletethe project. Vice Mayor Tolby registered his concerns about opening the City up to controversary if staff starts evaluating performance specifications as opposed to awarding bids on the basis of companies having the lowest price meeting set, stated, definite specifications. He feels that it requires someone making too much of a judgement call. Further discussion ensued and the general consensus of Council was to go ahead and establish the proposal process for a trial period and set the dollar limit at $25,000. Vice Mayor Tolby left the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Staff also proposed a revision to give them the ability to lease, exchange or dispose of surplus or abandoned property. They currently are limited to disposal by sale at public auction. This item will be placed on a future Workshop agenda for further review. 6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPO Marion Porch, Intergovernmental Liaison, was present and briefed Council on current legislative issues. This item is for information only. 30- COUNCIL COM?1ENTS AND SUGGESTIONSCouncilmanMcAllistercommented that he can't standmuddywatersoiftheyplantbluegrassinthebottomoftheACDC (Thunderbird Paseo), then when the 100 -year flood occursthewaterwillbeblue! 0-11011) 11zI41:iIF, Y4There being no further items, the meeting adjourned at5:45 p.m. 9 zdvDeutyCity Clerk 31-