Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/5/1990MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1990 AT 3:20 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, Scruggs and Tolby. Members absent: None. Also present were Gordon L. Pedrow, Assistant CityManager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney and Linda Ginn, Deputy City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. PUBLIC TRANSIT PASSENGER SHELTERS Staff briefed Council by stating Councilmembers have previously said that more shelters for passenger comfort are needed along bus routes in the City. The City currently budgets four to five shelters per year. To speed up that process would be very costly. There are basically three ways of acquiring shelters; (1) purchasing pre -fabricated shelters; (2) constructing shelters; and (3) contracting for media shelters. These options were presented to the Transportation Commission for discussion and recommendation. On April 18, 1990, the Transportation Commission approved the following recommendation to Council; "That the Media Shelter Program with advertising be the first choice due to the cost savings to the taxpayers. However, if other considerations preclude the use of media shelters, then the Transportation Department's standard shelter design should be used, with the design complementing adjacent architectural structures and facades. Further, less expensive shelters may be used in limited applications." The Transportation Commission was advised of the business community issue regarding the media shelter option and the current sign ordinance. However, the Commission felt that the business community would realize the value in acquiring capital improvements through this option. There are several concerns staff has regarding the media type shelters that should be investigated before this recommendation is given priority over the other suggestions. First, this approach did not receive support from the Chamber of Commerce, when it was discussed about a year ago, and there were many questions raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the "weakening" of the Glendale sign ordinance to accommodate this type of shelter. 183- Councilmember Bellah asked staff how many shelters wereneededbytheCity. Staff responded that on the currentexistingroutestherewasaneedfor60shelters. Councilmember Bellah questioned staff if the Council decidedtogowiththemediashelters, would they meet the fullneed. Staff responded that they would come real close to thefullneed. Councilmember Bellah stated that he thought theredefinitelywasaneedforthesheltersandcouldseenothingwrongwiththemediashelterformat. Councilmember Tolby stated that he felt the opposite from Councilmember Bellah, that by going with the media shelters the city would be weakening the sign ordinance. He further said that perhaps the city has it's priorities wrong in extending to so many routes which necessitate more bus shelters. Planning Director, Bob Coons, when asked what section of the sign ordinance would be violated by allowing shelters with media advertising, replied that technically the city could do the media advertising, however, the Planning Commission felt that it would be greatly inconsistent with the direction and intent of the sign ordinance. Councilmember Scruggs asked if there was a time period involved in the contract with the media shelter company. Staff responded that it was generally for a minimum of three years. Mayor Renner stated that he thought he recalled that the main objection to the media advertising previously was that it was exclusively national, i.e. there was not an opportunity for the local merchant to participate. He continued that he also thought that at one time there was a certain number that would be either for public service or would be available for local advertising. Staff responded that was correct and that could be negotiated into the contract. Councilmember Scruggs echoed Councilmember Tolby's sentiments in that it did send out a mixed signal if the City was not going to follow it's own ordinance. Councilmember McAllister stated that he liked the new bus shelters the City has built. He thinks they are an asset. Mayor Renner suggested that a representative from the Transit Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and Chamber of Commerce meet with a representative from the Gannett Corporation and try and reach a compromise on the 184- issue of media advertising and bring this item back toWorkshopsession. 2. ARIZONA HERITAGE FUNDStaffstatedthisis a request for the City of GlendaletojoinotherArizonacitiesandcitizensgroupssuchastheNatureConservancy, Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, Arizona Wildlife Federation, etc. in supporting the ArizonaHeritageFundpetitioninitiative. If sufficient signatures are obtained, this initiativemeasurewillbeplacedontheNovember6ballot. It will give the voters of Arizona the opportunity to make the final decision as to whether $20,000,000 should be earmarked each year from the State Lottery Fund for local and regional park and recreation, trails, historic preservation, natural areas, State parks, and Arizona Game and Fish, etc. The monies will come from that part of the Lottery Fund that currently goes into the State General Fund. The most direct benefit to the citizens of Glendale will be the 3.5 million dollars the Fund will provide each year for local parks and recreation department projects such as land acquisition, and outdoor recreation improvements, such as playground facilities, ballfields, swimming pools, etc. This allocation will be administered and managed much like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is a federal matching fund program. On May 14, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council approve a resolution supporting the Arizona Heritage Fund. Councilmember Tolby said he felt it was incongruous for the cities to ask the state to cut it's spending and then come back and demand $20 million for this project. The City Attorney expressed reservations with the way this item is written in that it advocates that the Council urge it's citizens to sign an initiative petition. He said that an initiative petition is a mechanism reserved by the state constitution for the citizens to participate in the democratic process. He said he has trouble with a governmental entity participating in that process. Mr. Van Haren stated he thought the Council should pass a resolution directing the state legislature to pass a law regarding these funds and let the citizens initiatives be conducted by citizens. The consensus of Council was to draft a letter responding to the overall obvious need for additional park funding but reflecting the Council's concern about the 185- present state fiscal crisis and direct the letter to theArizonaHeritageFund. This item will be placed on a future Workshop agenda forfurtherreviewanddiscussion. 3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORTMarionPorch, the Intergovernmental Liaison, briefed theCityCouncilonstateandfederallegislativeissuesandrelatedmatters. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. it C1110111; I 1 X44 There being no further items to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Deputy City Clerk