HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/3/1990MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1990 AT 3:10 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 Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City
Attorney and Linda Ginn, Deputy City Clerk.
WORKSHOP SESSION
1. LIONS PARK BALLFIELD/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For several months, staff and the Parks and Recreation
Commission have been discussing the exclusive use of City
park ballfields for several youth organizations.
At their June 12 meeting, the Commission voted in favor
of proceeding with a request for proposals that would give a
Glendale youth organization exclusive use of the Lions Park
ballfield during the spring for a four or five month period.
Lions Park was recommended because it is a smaller field and
not heavily used for city sponsored adult slow -pitch softball
leagues. This recommendation came after a lengthy discussion
of ballfield locations and usage by city programs, how other
cities cooperate with little league programs, the impact on
city -sponsored youth ball programs, city use of the Lions
Park ballfield, and the precedent such an agreement would
establish.
As this type of agreement will result in payments or
compensation to the city for exclusive use of a public
facility by a special interest group, open competitive
proposals will be required.
The highlights of the request for proposal are as follows:
1. Proposals will be accepted only from youth
organizations that certify and provide evidence
that 80 percent of the youth they serve are
Glendale residents.
2. The city and successful proposer will each
contribute $1000 annually to a repair and
maintenance fund.
1
3. The term of the agreement shall be five years. 4. The successful proposer will provide the requiredinsurance. It is the intent of this project to allow organizations, thatserveGlendaleyouthandprovideaservicedifferentfromcity -sponsored youth ball leagues, the opportunity to utilizeacityparkballfieldtomeettheneedsoftheirparticipants. There will be no additional cost to the city as a resultofthisRFP. The successful proposer would be required to
maintain the facility, except for irrigation, during the time
of the agreement. The successful proposer may request to
install, at their expense, improvement such as an outfield
fence, signs, pitcher's mound, snack stand, etc.
Councilmember Scruggs asked staff who the improvements
belonged to when they are done. Staff replied that any
permanent type improvements would belong to the City but the
organization would retain the rights to any temporaryimprovements.
Councilmember Scruggs suggested that since this was the
first try on this concept that staff use a three year plus
two arrangement (3 year agreement + 2 year option) instead of
a straight five year agreement.
The consensus of the Council was to change the term of
the agreement as suggested by Councilmember Scruggs and place
this item on a Council agenda as soon as possible for formal
consideration.
2. BICYCLE PLAN OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE
Staff stated that the original draft of the Bicycle Plan
was developed by Drake and Associates, based on citizen and
staff input. Subsequently, the Bicycle Committee and the
Transportation Commission were formed. The Transportation
Commission developed a revision to the original plan. This
revised plan has now been reviewed by the Bicycle Committee,
the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Transportation
Commission. All three bodies have recommended that Council
adopt the revised plan, called the Bicycle Plan of the City
of Glendale.
Staff continued that the primary bike system would have
bike lanes on the collector streets. Staff reviewed the
routes of the bicycle paths in the Thunderbird Paseo, along
Skunk Creek, Arizona Canal and the Grand Canal linear park.
The Plan illustrates freeway crossings on future freeways and
bridges over canals. Staff also stated that the Plan
2
proposes a Bicycle Coordinator, which has been approved byCouncil, who will spend about 75% of their time planning anddesigningbikeroutes. Staff stated that one of the major concerns that hasbeenevidencedisthecostassociatedwiththebuildoutofthissystem. Staff explained that many of the costs that areidentifiedinthePlanarebeingincorporatedintoparkdevelopmentprojects; i.e. the cost identified for thebicyclepathalongThunderbirdPaseoisalreadyinconstruction. Mr. Ernster stated that there is $100,000budgetedthisyearinTrafficEngineeringforstreetimprovementswhichconsistsofstripingandsignageanditis
staff's intention to continue the process by coming before
Council each year and requesting additional funding. Mr.
Ernster stated that right now they are looking at a budget of
50,000 a year and are confident they can do major bicycle
striping and signage improvements for that amount.
Mr. Ernster stated that some of the other improvements
such as the freeway crossings are the ones that are really
questionable. He said that some of the freeways are
doubtful. However, he thinks it is important to leave these
items in the Plan because a lot of things can change between
now and when these facilities will be constructed.
Several members of the Bicycle committee spoke in
support of the Plan. Those speaking in support of the plan
were: Bobbee Petty, Michael McCabe, Hans Rosenthal and Ken
Groom.
Councilmember Scruggs, speaking as a former participant
on the Plan, congratulated all who had worked on the Plan
stating that a lot of work, resolution of differences of
opinion and compromises had gone into the final draft of the
Plan and said it had been a herculean effort on the part of
both staff and citizens.
The consensus of the Council is to place this item on
the earliest possible Council agenda for formal adoption.
3. ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FOCUS PERSON
During workshop sessions on the budget in May, the City
Council directed the inclusion of two additional staff
members to be budgeted for Neighborhood Focus activities.
The Council requested that before the second of those two
positions was filled, the staff come back to workshop to
discuss the emphasis of the job description for that
particular position.
There were three possible areas of emphasis discussed
during these deliberations. The original proposal was for a
Neighborhood Outreach Specialist which would work out of theCityManager's office, whose primary duties would be tosupportandencourageneighborhoodeffortstoworkforneighborhoodbenefit. This person would generally work onneighborhoodprojectsnotorientedtowardCodeEnforcement, e.g., neighborhood discussions regarding park improvements, follow-up on development concerns, block parties, neighborhood newsletters and a directory of neighborhoodassociationsandneighborhoodcontactpeople. The second possibility is for an additional neighborhoodfocusperson. Under this scenario, the Enhancement staffwouldhavethreeSpecialistswhoseprincipaldutywouldbeto
respond to code complaints and three neighborhood focus
people whose principal duties would be to work with
neighborhood focus groups. The emphasis would remain pretty
much as it is now, i.e., the promotion of neighborhood
improvement by seeking voluntary compliance with city codes
and working with neighborhood residents on neighborhood
improvement projects.
The third option would be to make this position a code
enforcement officer. This would allow the Neighborhood
Enhancement Division to utilize four Specialist I's to
respond to code complaints and would free up the two
Specialists II's for a greater emphasis on focus
neighborhoods.
Staff stated that if the Council does not have a strong
preference in this matter, they would recommend filling this
position as a Neighborhood Enhancement Specialist II.
Recruitment would emphasize group skills and prior work with
neighborhoods over prior experience with codes. The success
of this approach could be evaluated during the year and
amended if necessary at Council direction.
Councilmember Scruggs asked staff if Code Enforcement
requests were increasing or remaining the same. Staff
replied that the amount of requests was on the upswing from
last year and seemed to increase every year.
Councilmember Huffman said he hopes that the person who
fills this position will be sensitive and diplomatic to the
needs and concerns of the citizens.
The consensus of the Council is to place this item on a
future Council agenda for formal consideration.
4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORT
Marion Porch, the Intergovernmental Liaison, briefed the
Council on state and federal legislative issues and related
matters.
4
This item is for information only. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONSMayorRennerstatedthatthe experiment with taping theWorkshopsessionshasnotbeentoosuccessfulandCablestaffhassomesuggestionswhichtheywillbepresentingtotheCounciltoimprovethequalityofboththeaudioandvideoofthepresentations. l:.l l .YM
There being no further items to come before the Council,
the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
5
ti-LcxaC' /Y1/v
Deputy City Clerk