Good afternoon and welcome to our Glendale City Council workshop. This meeting is for council members to review and discuss important issues, projects, and future council meeting agenda items. It's a work study session only and allows the council to hear input from city staff. No action will be taken at this workshop and there will not be an opportunity for public comment. This meeting is streaming live on Glendale's Facebook and YouTube pages and the city's cable television station, Glendale channel 11. Thank you for joining us >> and good afternoon. and welcome to Glendel City Council workshop session of September 9, 2025. Uh just a side note, I called my mother today and wished her happy birthday of 93 years. So yeah, I'm I'm pretty happy about that. Yeah. >> Uh the meeting is called to order. Uh roll call. Uh if you will signify by saying present. Council member Baldenegro >> present. >> Council member Concious >> present. >> Council member Guzman >> present. >> Council member Milner >> present. >> Council member Turner. Vice Mayor Tom >> here >> and chair I'm here. So with that uh if if I understood properly u Mr. Turner will also uh be absent this evening. Is that correct somebody? Okay. All right. Very good. Uh we'll move on to item number one. Uh that has been removed from the agenda at the request of staff and is not going to be heard today. So we're going to go to item number two. >> Consider would you introduce that please? Consideration of electric bicycle ebike and electric scooter escooter ordinance. >> Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. Here to provide items of staff report on both item number two and number three today will be deputy city manager Rick St. John. >> Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. Uh this we're here today to continue the conversation about potentially adopting an ordinance to regulate the use of ebikes and e- scooters in our communities. Uh we had an initial conversation back on August 12th. I think we got consensus on a few items. We'll talk about that today. And then we have some decision points and then finally we the the final decision would be do we even want to adopt an ordinance. So we are seeking council consensus today on the adoption of of an electric bicycle electric scooter ordinance. So from the August 12th workshop, I believe we have council consensus on these items that helmets are required for any rider under the age of 18, that there can only be one rider per ebike or ecooter, that they must obey all traffic laws while operating on public roadway roadways, and they must operate uh at reasonable and prudent speeds. some items for consideration that we still need to talk about. Uh minimum age requirements to ride the use of these uh modes of transportation on sidewalks and uh must keep all wheels on the ground while riding. That's kind of a new one. I don't think we touched on that on August 12th. Uh but looking at what other cities are doing it, it might make sense for us to add that if we adopt an ordinance. So, cities across the valley have adopted different provisions. I've I've got a list of a few of them here. Phoenix does not allow use on sidewalks. You have to be 16 years old to ride. Class three, which if you remember are uh pedal assist that go up to 28 miles an hour, are prohibited on alleys and rights of way. And the penalty for a civil offense is a minimum fine of $100. They do not have a helmet uh provision within their ordinance. Scottsdale, they allow use on sidewalks and multi-use paths except for those class 3es that go 28 miles per hour. Uh, no escooters are allowed on roadways that have a speed greater than 35 mph. You must be 16 years old to ride a class three, so only the class 3. Uh, the penalty, the first offense is a minimum fine of 50. Second, minimum fine at 250. And third becomes a class one misdemeanor and and those are uh that occur in the same year 12-month period and they do not have a helmet law. Surprise, they do allow the use on sidewalks only where no bike lane exists on roadways greater than 25 miles hour. So e- scooters are okay on sidewalks on any roadway exceeding 35 miles hour even if a bike bike lane does exist. Ebikes are not allowed on sidewalks when the motor is engaged. So, class 2 ebikes, which only have a throttle, they're not pedal assist, would never be allowed on sidewalks. You'd only be allowed uh the pedal to pedal. No motor engaged, and they do not have a helmet law. So, PIIA uh ebikes, all classes are allowed on bike paths and sidewalks. Class 3 cannot be used on multi-use paths and they do have a helmet provision within their ordinance. No age requirement in Poria. So Goodyear, no use on sidewalks. You got to be 16 with a valid state ID to operate on public roadways and they do require helmets. Mesa class one and class two can be used on bike and multi- youth use paths. Class 3es cannot. No ebike use on a sidewalk. E- scooters can be ridden on sidewalks. So, no bikes, but scooters are okay. And you have to be 16 years old to operate and they have no helmet provision. I believe that's the last city that I have. But, uh, after putting this presentation together, I I got a phone call or an actual email from Craig Croner. He's our fleet manager. And Craig came from the city of Boise. And in Boise, they adopted a a pretty good ordinance on ebikes and e- scooters. And I just want to even though it's not part of the presentation, I just want to share some of it with you for for consideration. So it says uh no ecooter shall be used to carry more than one person at a time. No person shall operate a bicycle, ebike, or e- scooter that is either too large or too small for such person to operate safely. Every person operating a bicycle, ebike, or e- scooter, whether physically or remotely, shall maintain direct control of such device at all times. Every person shall operate only one bicycle, ebike, or e- scooter at a time. And here's the one I kind of like. Every person operating an ebike or e- scooter shall refrain from carrying anything that prevents full control of the device or obstructs their vision. Uh that's not something that I don't think we'd contemplated here in Arizona, but it it does make sense, I think, if the council chooses to adopt an ordinance. So, going back to our decision points, uh we're we'll open it up for discussion to hear what the council would like to potentially see. >> Mayor, >> uh yeah, yeah, go ahead and then I'm going to respond. Go ahead. >> Oh, okay. Um I got a call from a resident. Um they were concerned that uh uh they're an older couple that uh has their grandchildren come over and he puts a child seat on his ebike. Uh he was very concerned that he would not be able to do that anymore. I I would like for us to consider that uh that be part of the ordinance that you you could have one person or you know a child but uh seat on the bike. Uh because there are, you know, there are grandparents that like to take their kids for their grandkids for rides. >> Okay. Uh I actually uh I'm kind of proud that we got this. Uh I think all of you are are familiar with the MYAK students, Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission. Uh we this year have 38 students and I I can tell you honestly uh these kids are unbelievably bright and incredibly intelligent. Uh I would I would dare say that this is probably the smartest group that we've had since I've been mayor in 13 years. I want to read this letter that that I got. Uh it's from Giovani Cauldron, member of uh the Mayak. Uh it says, "I personally do not use ebikes or e scooters. However, I do have two younger brothers who do. Uh they got into an accident about 6 months ago. My 12-year-old brother had a minor skull fracture, blood clots, and seizures, which led him to be hospitalized for two weeks, then placed on blood thinners for about 3 months despite his history with ebikes. He still believes that the age requirement should be set at 14 years old, not 16, which I agree with because a lot of kids around my neighborhood use them to get to school safely and quickly when their parents are too busy working uh and use them to get home from school when it's 100 plus degrees outside. As long as the bike is under 50 cc's, I think he means or equivalent, it does does not need to be in the same category as motor vehicles. I do not think most families have experienced firsthand accidents on an ebike and setting the age requirement to 16 is a simple way for them to prevent their own kids from wanting an ebike, which would sue them in a way. Also, my 10-year-old brother believes that the age of e- scooters should be 10. I guess that makes sense. Uh he is small for his age, yet believes that this because they don't go that fast, any accident in a vehicle is scary to everyone watching. So, I think this simply something people are trying to avoid. Finally, they both absolutely, this is his 10-year-old and his 12-year-old brother, they both absolutely believe that the helmet should be required at all times for all ages and that the school should teach safety precautions and guidelines. Uh, and I love that part of it that, you know, he's taken it where the school should be part of of educating. Uh, says, "Sorry for the late and long email. Thank you and good night." So, uh, that was, uh, again from Giovani Cauldron. September 5th is when, uh, it was sent. Uh, and I just wanted people to know that that, you know, uh, these kids have some good points that that have been brought up. If kids have to walk a mile, mile and a half home and it's 106 degrees or something, I mean, that that potentially could be an issue. So, I think we need to look at everything. I I'm not personally real excited about making it so difficult and he brought that up in here that that uh parents are just simply saying, "Oh, no, there's a law. We can't have a bike." At the same time, uh you know, my daughter was riding scooters and bicycles and actually flying gliders at 14 years old. So, I don't know how I tell somebody you can't ride a scooter, but you can go out legally and fly a glider without an engine. So, you know, I I I don't want to be overreaching. I think that I think the one thing that everybody has already agreed on, I think his helmets make a lot of sense. Uh even though uh a lot of people won't wear them on motorcycles, I certainly encourage people always wear a helmet uh when you're operating some type of vehicle like that. So, um I'm certainly welcome. Anybody else have any other comments? Uh go ahead. >> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. St. John. I I thought that was very thorough analysis of other cities and I really like some of the things you mentioned about Boisey. I like all of those comments about the Boisey. I think we should include those in. I think they strengthen and really send a good message to the community. All of those particular points. Uh regarding um some of the other items uh from the other cities, there's several of these that I think uh we should consider. I think the helmets uh we that's still a good thing. I think we should keep that as it is. Ray, is there a consensus on the helmets >> under 18? >> Under 18. >> Under 18. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, the other things that I would like to uh to uh see in this ordinance, um, I I would agree with Council Member Guzman regarding u a built-in seat. If you have a built-in seat, uh, that is, you know, safe, uh, and and you're wearing the helmets and you're doing everything that you need to, I think a built-in seat would be acceptable, uh, for having another person, but otherwise only one person. Um, the other uh items that from from the other cities that I really liked were um allowing on sidewalks. Uh, and again there were several different classes of this. I like the idea. And again, as as we discussed this last time, I went out and I really paid attention to our busy streets. And I would never allow anyone on an ebike to ride on some of those busy streets. To me, they were just they're just too busy. And as a parent, that's something you need to control with your child if we allow uh ebikes. But um an e scooter which we talked about uh 10 year olds I don't think we should require them to be on the street. I like the ordinance where it talked in. I be believe Scottdale, Surprise, Peoria, all allowed them on the sidewalks. And and again, I I I I get the point about, you know, the faster 28 mile per hour bikes going on a sidewalk and maybe we do limit it to e scooters, but I think we need to allow usage of sidewalks. And I think it'd be following what the rest of the cities do. And one thing I don't want to do is is have an ordinance that you know a person in Peori is writing in Pori and then all of a sudden they're in Glendel and now they have a totally different law that they need to to comply with. So uh I would think we try to make at least our surrounding city's ordinances similar to ours and one of them is the uh sidewalk uh which I think we should allow at least the east scooters on. Um, I I like the penalty aspect of of the other cities. Um, and the comment about uh if there's a bike lane that that the ebikes would need to be required to ride in those, but otherwise they could ride on the sidewalk. Um, see if there's any other ones. Sorry, I would checked off here. Um, the age limit we talked about 14. I wouldn't have a problem reducing it down from we said I think did we say 16? >> Uh I wouldn't have a problem bringing it to 14. Um but I like the idea of with a state ID. I guess at 16 14 you can get a state ID. Uh so I I wouldn't have a problem with that. Um I think those are the main thoughts that I had about it. Um so I' I'd like to hear what the rest of council thinks. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, one of the things about the the age requirement and and that's a obviously being with that that letter from that young man. Um, and I don't know if this is possible. I just want to throw this out there and think outside the box. Let's just say his 12year-old brother whatever the age was is it doesn't fall into that category. And I don't know if this how we can do this or not, if this is even legal, but so this may be a Mr. Bailey question, but can a parent sign something? Like if my dad want to send me in the army when I was 17 to sign a piece of paper, you can go. Could a parent sign something say my son or my daughter has been has gone through, you know, we trust that they know what they're doing even though they don't necessarily meet their an age requirement that the city wants and that we're putting the onus and the ownership on the parent. I want to ask that >> mayor, council member Baldenegro, I believe with so when we talk about age being the reason why something is illegal. So whether that's tobacco possession or alcohol possession, they're they're referred to as status offenses. I don't believe that parents can give permission for their children to violate what any of those offenses. So I couldn't give permission for my child to use tobacco underage. Did that answer your question? It did. Okay. Did you have any other questions? >> Mayor, I just wanted to respond to um the consensus on helmet. Um I would ask the council or my position would be for everybody regardless of age to have a helmet, but that's just my opinion. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. >> Turn this on. Okay. Um the I think six the pro the problem with 12-y olds and and you know younger kids is that they don't they don't understand the consequences and their parents aren't with them when they're writing. So the parents one of the problems and this has been kind of a valleywide issue. Obviously it's see everybody's got ordinances even in Idaho but is that the behavior away from the home is not the same as the behavior at home. Um because kids are kids. I mean I think and I can speak for myself when I was you know 14 15 16 years old my behavior sometimes was not the same in front of my parents as it was when my parents were not there. So that is that is I think part of the problem and these kids are putting themselves in danger and I've heard from multitude of of residents in my district adults that are driving vehicles that are very concerned that they're going to hit one of these kids. That is probably the greatest uh contact that I've had with residents is they are terrified that they're going to hit one of these kids. So, one of the things I wanted to bring up, it does say um that they they have to have both wheels on the ground. I I know we have I don't know some sort of reckless uh category for just general driving. Um, and I think I think that it should include something in there about any kind of re behavior that's deemed reckless by an officer that sees it. So whether you're, you know, darting in front of a car or anything reckless, I mean, that's a pretty big category. But the reckless behavior of of these kids who are young and don't understand that they could be easily killed by a by a car, and that's a tragedy for everyone involved. um that we should include something in there about reckless behavior that an officer sees happening. So, I don't know if everybody okay with that, but I think we should include that. Not just having both wheels on the ground, there's a lot of other things a rider could do that are that are reckless that could put them in danger and a and a motor vehicle driver in danger of hitting them. Um that's one thing. Another thing is, um I one of the cities had an ordinance I and I kind of wanted to liken this. We've I know we have something with golf carts because I've had issues with residents that want to be able to take their golf cart from one golf course to another golf course and they're not allowed on the street any streets that exceed is it 40 miles an hour. >> But mayor, vice mayor, I'm not familiar with the laws around golf cart use. I think they're classified as completely separate vehicles. >> I know. But my Yeah. The point I was going to make is a golf cart's probably a lot safer than an ebike or an e- scooter. And I know we have um because they they used to take them now they now they can't they used to cross on the pedestrian bridge. They can't cross on the pedestrian bridge and they don't go fast enough to be they're not allowed on streets that are 40 miles an hour. They can't go down 67th Avenue. They can't go down 75th Avenue. So my thought is we're not going to allow adults driving a golf cart to do that. That's a bigger, safer vehicle, but we're going to allow a 14-year-old on an escooter or an ebike, ebike to do that. Um, I mean, it's dangerous in a car driving on our arterial streets. So, um, that's why I was thinking somebody in here something about here it is. Surprise. E scooters are okay on sidewalks or any roadway that exceeds 35 mph speed limit or and I would think that I would say that e e bikes would should be the same thing that if you're if you're out on an interial street um where the most of the speed limits I think around the city are 40 pretty generally speaking anyway. Um I wouldn't want a 14-year-old that had to ride in the street whether there's a bike lane or not a bike lane. And I know we had a discussion I thought the last time about that we would allow side them on sidewalks on major arterial streets where the speed limits 40 miles or 35 miles an hour or higher but in residential areas in neighborhoods where you're like more likely to find more pedestrians um that they should be um not on the sidewalk. Um that that's another one of the major complaints that I get is you know people out walking walking their dog and these people you can't hear them they come up behind you um and they're going fast. So that was another thing I wanted to bring up. And then one more thing was um it says uh where's our these are the must write at a reasonable prudent speed. Um, I think that our officers should be able to they shouldn't be they shouldn't be a able to be modified to exceed whatever speed they were whatever their production speed is. Um, because that's part of the problem. And I think from what I understand, it's very easy to modify these to make them go to exceed the speed that they were built to to go. And so maybe I mean reasonable and prudent or should it say you can't we're not going to let people ride these modified ones around in Glendale either that you're going to have to take whatever you put on it off and go back to the speed that it was built to go. >> Mayor, vice mayor, I think that's uh yes to both. I think you can say that uh you have to ride at reasonable and prudent speeds given the conditions that you're riding in. So, if there are uh if you're on an arterial where there's a lot of pedestrian traffic, you got to ride slower because of the pedestrians. I think that's a good thing to say. We can also say that no electric bikes that go faster than 28 miles an hour will be allowed on any of our roadways >> or or sidewalks >> or sidewalks. >> Okay, I'm okay with that because that's the highest speed that any of them have been the production speed. None of them exceed 28 miles per hour. I think that I think that's a good thing. So, I'd like to see what everybody thinks about the the couple of items that I brought up. I'm I'm okay with going to 14 if that's what it's going to take to get to a consensus. I think we were at 12 on e- scooters and 16 on ebikes. So, if we wanted to make at least 14 is you're in high school. Um, and if we added something in there about reckless behavior, because that is the primary issue with these ebikes is these kids are just doing really reckless things on these bikes. Um, and and the fear that I've heard, uh, I just want to express again, and I know there's some residents watching that have contacted me, is that they are really, really concerned they're going to hit one of these kids because of of the reckless behavior that they're doing on the bike or scooter. Thank you, mayor. >> All right. I'll get to you in just a second. Uh, so I got three thoughts on that. Uh Arizona law right now, Arizona statute allows a person that is 15 years 7 months to be able to get their learner's permit. Correct. >> 15 and six, but yes, sir. >> 15 and six months. >> Yes. >> Oh, I thought it was seven months. Okay. Uh to me, the 14 makes total sense because there need there should be some way to transition between not having the ability to have the ability to drive a vehicle. And I'm thinking 14 for a year and a half if they can start learning some laws and rules and and and ways to deal with the road. Uh I think 14 would be safe. I I I know a lot of kids 14 years old that are pretty sharp. Of course, I know a lot of 30-year-old people that aren't. So, you know, the the years difficult to gauge because everybody's different. I would certainly support the 14. Um, the other concern that I really have that I I don't think anybody's really thinking about, if you have an electric bicycle and you're 35 years old, why would you not be allowed to ride it on the street if you're obeying the traffic laws the same as a motorcycle? I I don't understand that. I'm talking about the person. So tell me, I want somebody to tell me the difference between handling an electric motorcycle, I'm sorry, a motorcycle or electric scooter. If you're an adult and you're obeying all the streets, you're stopping at the at the lights, you're doing everything you're supposed to. Why would we why would we not? I can understand 16 and younger certainly don't want to do that, but I don't know why we would tell an adult they couldn't do that as long as they're obeying all the normal laws that they would if they were riding a motorcycle. >> And mayor, I would add, as long as they're not impeding traffic. So, if they're on an ebike that only goes 21 miles an hour, they shouldn't be riding on a 40 mph roadway. That's going to impede traffic. >> But my point, what that said is, uh, if a if an ebike comes out, and I've seen them, I don't know whether they're adapted or changed or altered. I don't know. But I've seen them where they're going 35, 40 miles an hour, and the people were doing just fine. They were they were in the lane, but on the edge of the lane. They were obeying the signs. They were stopping when they were I mean they were doing everything legal. I was kind of blown away that it could go that fast. But if I don't know why we would make an exception that adult couldn't do that. >> Mayor, those those types of electric bikes are not legal. >> Um they're not classified as an ebike. The three classes of ebikes two go 21 miles an hour. Class 3 goes 28. Anything above 28 miles an hour doesn't come out of that's not manufactured produced. That's someone breaking into the computer essentially and taking the governor off, which you're not allowed to do. >> And Mayor, can I ask Mr. St. John? I mean, they're not street legal anyway. You can't get a a license plate for an ebike to operate it in the roadway, can you? >> Correct. Vice Mayor, um, couple of things to talk about there. If the ebike or e- scooter is being ridden on a sidewalk, they have to obey all the same rules as a pedestrian would have to obey. So they have to cross at a marked crosswalk. They have to, you know, pass people on the right. All that kind of stuff. If they're operating on the roadway, they have to obey traffic law, if that makes sense. So, even on a regular bicycle, not an ebike, but a regular bicycle, if you're riding on the roadway, you have to stop at every stop sign, you have to signal your turns, you have to have a front light and a rear reflector. All those things now apply because you're riding on the roadway. The same would apply for ebikes and e- scooters. You'd have to have all the necessary equipment on that ebike to ride it on a roadway. residential roadways. I I don't think we would enforce that. Although we do enforce traffic law on bicycles sometimes on residential roadways because it it can become hazardous. >> Let me ask you a question. What what's the definition of an ebike? >> Mayor, the definition of an there's three classifications of ebikes. The first is a pedal assist that only goes 21 miles an hour and the motor doesn't engage until you start pedaling. >> Okay. A class two has no pedals. It's only a throttle. So, you can you don't have to do anything other than thumb press the throttle or turn the throttle to go. And it goes 21 miles an hour. A class 3 is again a pedal assist like a class one, but it can go up to 28 miles an hour. >> Okay. So, those are all ebikes. >> Those are ebikes. >> What do you call a motorcycle that has electric motor? Mayor, depending on the size of the motor, it could be classified as a motorcycle. >> Yeah, I I I I think we're asking for problems with this. Um because there are motorcycles that are completely electronic, completely no pedals. Uh and then there's the old mopeds, which were gasoline engines with pedals. I don't even know if they make them anymore, do they? No idea. Um I I don't know. I I'm I'm just afraid if we get into the weeds way too much on this, we're going to come up with something that's either not enforceable or that the courts are going to throw out. And and I would caution everybody, you know, let's let's do it right the first time. Even even if we don't go as far as everybody wants to, we can always look at it and we can always add to this if we go too. >> Mr. Um, mayor, members of council, just something for, and Rick just kind of hit on it a little bit, but now that we're starting to see um the day shortened, one of the things may be one of consideration, not only lighting if you're on a street, but should you require a scooter operating on the sidewalk to have some level of lighting for the safety, the pedestrian and and and who the sharing of the of that area that I don't that's in any of the policies or not, but I would I think that hitting of a of a of a scooter is just as dangerous, not because of reckless behavior as much as just not physically seeing seeing them. And that may be a consideration that you want to make sure that they have the appropriate front and rear reflective uh lighting of some type. And mayor, if I can add to that real quick. Um, from my experience, bikes that are purchased legally through either the internet or a retail store, they come with the front headlight and the rear reflector already affixed, >> not not necessarily the scooter. >> Mayor, I'm not familiar enough with scooters to say yes or no. >> I think I've seen them both ways. >> Yeah. I I just want to address a couple of uh things that that you had talked about, Mayor. Um the my understanding is that the bikes that you're talking about if they're if they are street legal, in other words, you can get them licensed than a motorcycle that's electric, for example, if you can get it licensed, it' be legal in Arizona. But if you can't get it licensed, it would exceed the minimum or the maximum requirement of 28 miles an hour and it would be deemed illegal in Arizona. So, anything goes over 8 28 miles an hour is illegal to ride on the roads unless it's licensable by the state. So, I think that would answer your concern. If the state has deemed that a vehicle, a motor bike that's electric can go 40 miles an hour and it can be licensed by the state, then it would be totally legal. But if it cannot be licensed by the state and the state says you can't have a vehicle that goes over 28 m an hour uh then that that's not licensed by the state then it answers that concern. The state law would would override anything we said and we need to meet we should make our our regulations the same as what state law would or so it doesn't exceed the state law. Does that make sense? It it it does uh sort of and then at the same time a lot of Arizona statutes don't make sense. Uh and I say that um for example uh I don't know if an electric golf cart is allowed on sidewalks. Is it >> mayor? Electric golf carts aren't allowed on sidewalks. But yet at the same time, there's not a person in here that hasn't gone down the road and seen these uh uh people selling ice cream and potato chips and things on the sidewalks. >> Mayor, that is illegal. >> I But we see it every day and we don't enforce it. I mean, our >> We do enforcement. We do enforce it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um at at the same time, uh I don't know a lot of golf carts that can go 25 miles an hour. I mean, some of them you're lucky if you can get them up to 20. Yet, most of the occasions, even even in like Sun City, the legislature passed a law that said they could drive them on certain streets. I think it was under 25 miles an hour if I'm not mistaken. I know that's in statute. And so, uh, that statute, Glendale would have to honor that. Correct, >> mayor? Yes. >> So, you know, that's what I'm saying. These are very conflicting laws in so many different ways. Uh, I I would think that the first thing we should do is is absolutely do the helmet because everybody agrees on it and that's going to eventually somewhere save somebody's life. We'll never know about it, but I know it will. The other ones I I'd like some more clarification on some of the stuff, but there's a lot of twists and turns to this. >> I I love the idea of the 14. I think it's showing a 14-year-old kid uh you're old enough to take responsibility uh you know and hopefully with some education uh may maybe they can do that but I think it's a good transition into a motor vehicle at 15 and 6 months. So uh go ahead. >> Thank you mayor. I just like to point out though that uh somebody with a learner's permit cannot drive without a licensed driver in the vehicle with them. So they're not just turned loose at 15 years old in six months. So, they've got um supposedly a six-month minimum learning period before they can test for a license where they're not allowed to be operating without a licensed driver in the car. So, um I'm wondering, you know, I want to back up. So, I think we were all we all agree on the helmets. I think we all agree on on the one rider per scooter with the exception of if it's uh either built or has a I don't know what manufactured with a a seat for for a passenger or I guess for a passenger whether it's a child or another adult if it's built to accommodate I that they can't you can't just I mean I've seen three kids on on one ebike >> so I mean they they all hop on so um by maintaining the traffic laws must ride at a reasonable prudent speed. Um I guess there's some discussion about the minimum age to drive must keep I think I think there's agreement in keeping the wheels no wheelies you know that's that's dangerous or nothing reckless and I'd like to have that added. um our police department is they understand what reckless behavior is and I mean I would think we would want them to at least talk to the kid about their reckless behavior and explain to them that they're putting themselves in danger and they're also endangering drive the drivers in the roadway by behaving recklessly. um the sidewalks. Um I mean I can see both sides of it, but I think if if on a on an arterial road where the speed limit is higher than 35, then we would allow them on the sidewalk in residential areas where there's likely to be more pedestrians. I like that different differentiation. And I think that was surprise that had that differentiation. And I I think that's reasonable that um we don't want, you know, if the speed limit's over 35, which it is on pretty much every arterial street, that we don't want to force kids out into the street on these things. But if the speed limit's 25 like it is in neighborhoods, um, and you're in a neighborhood where people generally, not everyone, but generally going slower and where you're going to encounter pedestrians, I think they should be off the sidewalk because they are hitting people and causing causing scaring dogs, just creating problems in neighborhoods by being on the sidewalk. Neighborhood generally a neighborhood sidewalk is I think it's three feet. It's pretty narrow. I mean, it's really not big enough to accommodate somebody on an ebike and a pedestrian. There's not really enough room really for them to even safely pass. So, I think that's important. Um, and I, you know, I'd like to maybe I know you're kind of in favor of the 14. I think 15 it's a compromise between 14 and 16. And that's still 6 months before you're old enough to get your permit. Um, but that gives you a six-month where because you're on your own. you're not, you know, you're not in, it's not like a 15 and six month driver. Um, I had to drive with my brother when he was 15 and 6 months. And I can tell you, some people have a very steep learning curve when they're learning how to drive. I don't know how many red lights he ran when he was first learning how to drive. Um, and I was older, so I I was the one that got to had to go with him. Um, but these kids just don't understand, you know, how dangerous it really is out there in the roadway. I mean, I know as adults, we do. Um, but I think at the minimum 14, I prefer 15. I think that's more prudent. And then the helmets I think we're in agreement on. Um, we can always amend an ordinance. You know, we can always if we find new information or we, you know, find out that people are really upset about this, which I've not talked to anybody who doesn't think we should do this in my district. Um, we can always go back and amend the ordinance to remove something, add something. But I think it's important that we move ahead today with some sort of consensus to get this on a voting meeting. Thank you, Mayor. >> Mayor, if I may, >> who's asking? >> Yes, sir. >> Um, would there be an interest from the council to set different age limits for different types of transportation? So, a class 3 that goes 28 miles an hour, maybe that's 16 years old. a class two and a class one ebike that goes 21 miles an hour, that's 14 or 15 wherever you land. And an e scooter, maybe that's 12, wherever the council decides to land, but that wouldn't be hard to do in an ordinance. >> I could support that, mayor. >> Um, any other discussion? >> Yeah. >> Um, I I made a list when I was going through this. Um, I had, you know, must be 16 year olds to ride the ebike, uh, class three, but, um, 14, I'm good with the 14 for the scooters. Uh, I think that scooters should be allowed to be ridden on the sidewalks. Um, even in a neighborhood, a kid can get run over uh on a scooter. Yes, the the traffic through neighborhoods is a little slower, but you know, if they're if they you can't see them because there's a car in the way, yeah, they can still get hit in a neighborhood. Uh just like they can get hit on an arterial road. I support allowing the e- scooters to be ridden on the sidewalks. Uh, as far as the ebikes go, I was kind of um going along with what surprise put as far as uh the e scooters okay on sidewalks on any roadway exceeding 35 miles an hour even if a bike lane exists. And um I do agree that uh they need to have you know how everybody needs to have a helmet on. But uh I know that there's a lot of contro or you know discussion here about the ebikes that are going 28 miles an hour. Uh that that is fast. Uh I'm not sure how I feel about them being that fast on a sidewalk, but as far as the scooters go, I I feel like the scooters should be allowed to be written on the sidewalks. >> Um you had a question. >> Um more of a a suggestion that we simply go through that you you just call for consensus on I I think it's be difficult to get a consensus on all these ideas at once. So, we just go through them as you started to at the end. >> Why don't we start off with with uh what Rick had just suggested, the different ages for the speeds. Is there a consensus for that? >> Repeat that one more time, >> mayor. Yes. Uh I I was I suggested 16 years old for a class 3 that goes 28 miles hour, 14 or 15 wherever the council lands on class one and class 2 ebikes that go 21 miles an hour, and then 12 for e scooters. and and Okay. So, on on that item, how how's everybody on that? >> Yes, I'm good. >> Okay. So, we're good with that. >> 14 or 15, sir? >> 14. >> 14 >> was my understanding. >> I I like 14. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh and then uh scooters on sidewalks in residential areas, speed limits under 25 miles an hour, they could be allowed on the street, but not on anything higher than a 25 mph speed limit. Is that agreeable to everybody? >> Can you repeat that, sir? >> If if you're on a scooter, you cannot be on a a main roadway that has a speed limit higher than 25, you would have to be on the sidewalk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I'm okay with that. If if we can also add that whoever is on the scooter or whatever it is, if there's a pedestrian, they stop for the pedestrian so that the pedestrian >> always give always give leeway to the pedestrian. >> I would like that. Yes. >> Mayor, can I add to that? >> Sure. Um, I've seen language, I don't remember whose ordinance it was. It was probably out of state, maybe California, that said, >> "Oh, we don't want to do that." >> True. That said, uh, >> sorry, California, >> operating an e- scooter, ebike on a on a sidewalk when there was significant pedestrian traffic. They were not allowed to do that. You had to get off and wa walk the scooter or bicycle. It was actually pretty decent language. If the council would like to see something along those lines, >> I'd be okay with that. I I remember when it was uh I'm sorry, M. I I remember when I was at ASU and back in the late 1900s, 1991ish, they had um in the interior of campus, like specific places where you cannot ride your bike and you got tickets from bike police. I'm wondering if they're like off the close to the campus on Mill if they have something that what are they similar to what's on campus to off-campus and >> they don't they don't know them at all. I don't I don't I don't know. I'm just curious. Okay. >> Okay. What else do we need? >> Um if I can get a clarification on that. So, we're going to allow e- scooters on sidewalks in residential areas and require they be on a sidewalk on our arterials. And are we going to set that at at uh speeds greater than 25 miles an hour or as other cities have done, are we going to say 35 miles >> on sidewalks? >> So, e scooters can only be ridden on the sidewalk when you're on a roadway that has a speed greater than 35 miles per hour. >> I thought we said 25. I I said 35 because that's what Surprise has. >> Well, most most residential areas speed limits are 25. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Mayor, the distinction would be >> anything greater than 20. >> The distinction would be Glendel Avenue. It's a 30 mph roadway. >> Yeah. So, if the council wants to allow ebikes, e- scooters on or e- scooters specifically on the sidewalks in downtown Glendale, we would need to say 25 miles an hour, not 35. >> I would say 25. >> I would be okay as long as we add what vice mayor said about the reckless specifically in front of like the businesses where their front door opens onto the sidewalk where it's right there. If if we could add some sort of >> reasonable and prudence always the way to get around that too. So, mayor, if I could ask the So, is it where the speed limit exceeds 25 miles an hour? Because neighborhoods are 25. So, I'm trying to understand exactly what we're trying to do. So, where the speed limit exceeds 25 miles hour, >> Vice Mayor, that's my thinking. Yes. >> Okay. All right. I'm okay with that then. >> Uh I I think we had some good ideas from the Boisey or ordinance. I'd like to read each of those and see if we want to add those as well. I know uh I liked all of them that that you mentioned. if we could kind of have a consensus whether we want to move forward on any of or all of those. >> Can you read them again? I don't remember each one. >> Yeah, he's going to read them. >> He's going to read them. >> So, mayor, the first one kind of applies to the child seat. It says, "No person riding or operating a bicycle or ebike shall ride other than upon or a stride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto." >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Consensus. Go ahead. No bicycle or ebike shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped >> which is the same thing you just >> roughly the same thing >> except for >> what if they put two car seats on it for for twin kids. >> Mayor I would say that that's equipped for twin kids then. >> Okay. So we're not limiting to two. We're saying equipped for >> mayor. Yes sir. >> Everybody good with that? >> Yes. >> All right. No e scooter shall be used to carry more than one person at a time. Those are specific to e scooters, which you can't affix a child seat to an e- scooter. >> Uh, no person shall operate a bicycle, ebike, or e- scooter that is either too large or too small for such a person to operate safely. >> I I I think that that could be a problem. I've seen little bitty kids handle things way bigger than you think they could handle. I've seen very large people handle small stuff really good. It I think that that isn't necessarily I don't know how you would enforce that because it's it's it's opinionated by the opposite >> unless he can see that they simply cannot handle it. >> I I mean I don't you know attorney and you have to figure that out >> with the age requirements. I don't see that as a necessary provision. >> All right. Leave it out. Yeah. >> Everybody agree that? Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm okay then. Uh, every person operating an ebike e scooter, whether physically or remotely, I don't know what they mean by that, shall maintain direct control of the device at all times. >> Is there do they have remote controls for this? That'd be fun. >> Mayor, I would say yes, but remove the remote control. >> Yeah. Well, we don't know what the future brings. Flying cars are real, you know. >> I guess it depends on who's on it and who's controlling it, right? I say remove remove the word remote control. >> I I Yeah, I I don't understand a remote that >> Yeah, I don't either. >> Sure. If I may, >> let's just say somebody from Boise moves into town and they have one like that. If we don't have anything written in, I think that just saves us if if somebody from Boise moves in. >> We just leave the the remote out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That everybody agree with that? >> Yes. >> Uh next is every person shall operate only one ebike or ecooter at a time. I I do have a problem with that. Uh I when I was young, which is, you know, like a hundred years ago, uh there was occasions where a friend's bike would be left somewhere and he'd ask me to bring it back and very easily you could, you know, wasn't that big of a deal. So are you operating the other bike or you just simply helping transport it back? >> Mayor, that would be the distinction. I think I think what the code would say is operate. So if you're towing it behind you, you're not necessarily operating it. But the next provision of the code um would become important and that says that every person riding an ebike or e- scooter shall refrain from carrying anything that prevents full control of the device or obstructs their vision. So if they were towing another ebike in an unsafe manner, that provision would prevail. >> Okay, >> I like that So again, you're saying towing. I think of towing is behind me. I'm talking about the occasion, and we've all seen it, where somebody on a bicycle is riding their bicycle with one hand on the handlebar and holding the bicycle next to them and and pedaling and and they're taking two bikes in one. They're not sitting on it. They're not operating. They're just simply getting it to the next location. Would that be allowed or not allowed? >> Mayor, under this, it would be allowed. >> Okay, then I'm fine with that. >> I'm good. >> I'm good with it. Good. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um, now we've got that one. I got a few more items that we've discussed. Um, lights uh at night. And again, you said they usually come with them and everything I've ever seen does come with both lights and reflectors, but I think it should be a requirement within our ordinance. >> Bikes and scooters. >> Yeah. For at night. >> Yeah. For riding after sunset, >> it it's required on a bicycle today. >> Yeah. So we should make it required here. >> So uh Mr. St. John, a bicycle is required a headlight. It's not required a tail light. Is that correct, >> Mayor? It is a rear reflector. >> A rear reflector. Yes. So the same rules uh would you recommend apply to these? >> Mayor, I think that makes sense. Yes. >> Okay. Everybody good with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mayor, I believe that's all we needed to discuss. May I believe it or not? >> I had something. >> Go ahead, Vice. >> Well, you go ahead. Let me I'll get you next. >> I I just wanted to ask if um we were uh giving consensus for uh helmets uh for 18 and under or um my opinion was to have helmets for everybody and I wanted to get clarification on that. Mayor >> 16 and under was my understanding that everybody agreed with >> for helmets. I thought it was 18. >> I thought it was legal driving age >> until you're an adult. >> Again, uh you're not required a helmet on a motorcycle. You can have a motorcycle license at 16. I to me it wouldn't make sense that we say you have to have a helmet on a electric bike but not on a motorcycle. That's why I I chose 16. >> Well, I believe we decided last time 18 because that's the legal age at which you become an adult. >> Make your own decision. >> And we're saying anything other than adult we're going to require. And I and I think that's what most I I I believe that's what the law is in Arizona. Adults do not have to wear helmets. It's not required. >> It's 16. It is 16 >> for for a motorcycle. For an ATV, it's 16 also. >> Oh, okay. I didn't know it was 16. I thought it was 18 >> on the street or >> it's 16 years old. You can ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I don't think it's smart, but you can't. And for an ATV, it's also 16 years old. I I just took the ATV test last week. >> Okay. But those aren't street legal, right? >> Yeah, they are. >> Are they? >> Can be. >> I don't know. I I prefer 18. That's that's where I would like to see it land. >> If the Excuse me, mayor, >> sorry, who's talking? >> Okay, go ahead. >> Uh, if the state allows uh a 16-year-old to decide whether they shouldn't or shouldn't wear a helmet, I think that we need to follow the state rule to all. So, I'm in agreement with you, mayor. >> It seems like we're going backwards if we say you have to be 18 on a on a electric bike, but 16 you don't have to on a motorcycle. And a motorcycle can go 100 miles an hour. >> If I may, that's a logical argument. I would I would agree with 16. >> Mayor, for clarification, uh, in drafting the code, are we saying under 16 years old or 16 and under? >> I would say under 16. >> Thank you. >> Okay. What else? >> I mayor, go ahead. >> Oh, yeah. You were next. I'm sorry. >> Okay, that's okay. Um, we didn't have any discussion about um, penalties. So, um, I was looking Whoops. I was looking at Scottsdale on slide seven. Um, and there their first uh, offense, the penalty is nominal. It's only $50. Um, and I think, you know, the second time somebody there's an infraction, the penalty should be higher. Um, and then the third offense is and I don't know what happens with a class one misdemeanor. It just goes on your record or what exactly? merits a criminal citation that impacts your uh ability to either obtain a license or keep your license potentially. >> Okay. So, it would require the the person whatever whatever their age and their parent to appear in court. >> Mayor, vice mayor. Correct. >> Okay. I like that too. If somebody does somebody there's the third offense, I would like to see the the the the teenager and their parent have to go to court. Um so, I I like Scottsdale's penalty. it increases with every offense. Um, and I'd like to see if there was a consensus for that. >> Basically, page seven. >> Mayor, um, as far as the penalties go, um, I'm looking here at Scottsdale. The first offense, $50. I think the second offense, $250 is too high. I myself would consider 150. I mean, $250 is a lot of money. Um, >> it's supposed to be punishment. >> $150 is punishment. >> Yeah. And that again, that depends. >> You're talking about a minor. >> Depends on how much money you have. How much money your parents have, I guess. >> Yeah. >> Well, this is in Scottdale. Maybe those parents can afford 250 bucks. >> Well, yeah. I mean, there are people that $250 uh will literally send them into bankruptcy. And there's other people at 250, they'll leave that at a tip. >> Yeah. >> So, >> yeah, >> I I think that that's something. Does Does our courts have the opportunity to alter that >> depending on the situation? >> Yes, >> mayor. Uh these are minimum fine amounts. >> So, even if the council were to decide that that a minimum fine for second offense of 150, the court could go above 150. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Could we put then Okay. Could we then say up two and then allow the judge if if they hey you know what this this doesn't need to be this high this B going to really struggle or then the judge could then lower it but we know that that would be the maximum penalty. >> Mayor I've seen uh ordinances that are written that way. It's we can do that. >> I would really I would prefer to do it that way because I think it's more fair for everybody and it gives a judge an opportunity to to speak with that parent and that kid and and and try to make them understand. So, mayor, if I'm hearing correctly, we want maximum fines for first and second offense as civil traffic violations. Third offense still criminal class one misdemeanor, or are we changing that? Also, >> I'm I'm not in love with a mis I mean a felony. I'm not personally, but I don't know about everybody else. >> I I agree with the mayor. I don't think that we we should have a third offense as criminal misdemeanor. Yeah. >> Um I think we should stay civil, maybe uh increase the fines, but I don't want any of our under 16y olds to ruin their life because of those things. >> Yeah. There there is a way that we could we could address number three. Uh unlike the first two where it's up two, then we could say number three would be 250 at the discretion of the judge, which if he wanted to go higher, then he could. If this is that rebellious kid that no matter what you say, they're going to fight you, then the judge has that opportunity. Okay? you know, if you're going to be that way, we're going to make it 300 or 400 or 500. But I I don't like I don't like the felony. I think that's too young for for a kid to to start facing those type of things. >> It's a misdemeanor, but same point. >> Yeah. >> Everybody agree with that? >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What are the maximum fine? I'm sorry, mayor. >> Well, I don't think you'd have a maximum fine. Uh the third one would be up to the judge. We should probably put something there like $500 or something, you know, maximum of $500. >> I'm I'm fine with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Everybody good with that? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay, >> mayor. I need the max fine amounts for all three. So, we have 500 for a third violation. What's the max fine for second violation and first violation? >> Well, just make sure that you and I are thinking the same. Uh, first up $250 for penalty one. The judge could lower it if he wanted to. Up to $250. The judge could lower that if he wanted to. And then the third would be uh up to $500, which I wouldn't want him to lower that. If they've already messed up twice, I think the third one needs to be a pretty good slap. >> Okay, I'm good with that, mayor. >> I'm good with that, too. >> But at the same time, shouldn't we have a minimum on the first one? >> Leave it up to the judge. >> Okay. All right. I I mean just having a kid and a parent show up in court, that's a pretty big deal right off the >> bat. Okay, gotcha. Okay. >> Can the third one have a minimum fine so that it's I apologize. Right. Point at me. I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Can the third one have a um minimum fine? So it really does feel like a >> it's 500 >> penalty. Well, you're saying maximum. I'm saying a minimum. >> No, just 500. He said >> that would be the max. We would start I thought we would start at the 250 up to 500. I mean, on the third one, I thought you said the penalty would not be negotiable. It's 500 the third time because they don't seem to be getting it. >> That would that would be my preference. >> Yeah, I agree with that. So, that's not negotiable. It's $500 the third time. >> They messed up twice the third time. They really need to understand. >> Gotcha. Okay. I have a couple more questions have clarification. Um my understanding and I want to make sure this is correct that um currently these ebikes and all ebikes are not allowed in our rideways and our in our parks. Is that correct, >> Mayor? They're not allowed in our parks. >> In our parks. A rideway would be a sidewalk. So yeah, I get that. Okay. >> Tell them I'm not here. >> Yeah. Mayor. >> Um and then I had one other point of clarification. Um, it had to do with the riding on the sidewalks. So, I believe we said that you could ride your escooter or ebikes on the sidewalks on all streets under 25 or I mean what I'm saying is in the neighborhood because I we said you in in on on larger streets you can ride them on the sidewalk. So any street greater than 25, you can ride it on the sidewalk. What about streets that are under 25? I don't think that's inclusive in that. So I believe we we want to say that uh kind of like what um Scottdale and I think there a couple of different cities uh said that they can they can use them on sidewalks in the neighborhood streets. And again, they have to follow all the other things that we've talked about, the prudent and and all those kind of things. But then on streets greater than 35, they're not allowed on the streets. Is that correct? Because we did decide on that one. >> Yes. But uh we didn't use 35. >> We used 25. >> Council member. Yes, >> we used 20. So So they are not allowed on streets greater than 25 miles per hour. >> Mayor, council member Melnar. That's correct. But I don't think we clarified if they're allowed on streets less than 25 or if they're allowed on sidewalks under 25. >> Mayor, Council Member Melnar, I thought we were saying they would be allowed unless the pedestrian traffic uh was too heavy. >> Okay. So, as long as it's written like that, it would be they're allowed on the lower speed unless there's uh a lot of foot traffic. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mayor. Okay. Then you >> uh yeah, I just looked on um chat GPT for all those watching at home. Um and it does say that uh motorcycle riders, it says yes, in Arizona, motorcycle riders and passengers under the age of 18 are required by law to wear a helmet. Riders 18 and older are not legally required to wear one, though many still choose for safety. And it said Arizona's helmet law for riders and passengers under 18 has been in place since 1976. So, it is you are required by law to wear um a helmet if you're under 18. So, I still think that we should require anybody under 18 this to wear a helmet. >> That's a law. We should go with it. >> Yeah. If that's the state law, then yeah, we should go with it. >> Yes. And just to reference, >> let's finish this up first, then we'll go to you. >> That's it's the same topic. >> Okay. >> Um Yeah. Uh, so it's as uh ARS28-964. Um, that's the that's the helmet law. 18 years old in Arizona. Thank you. >> I stand corrected. >> Okay. >> And there is consensus to bump that to 18. >> Mayor, thank you. I believe that's all we have. >> Okay. >> We tackle skateboards next week. >> All right. Julie, >> council item of special interest to update the book titled Glendel Century of Diversity. >> Mayor, uh, this is a request uh, council item of special interest from the vice mayor to update, as Julie just read, Glendel, a century of diversity. It was originally, uh, drafted in 1992 as a first edition. In 2000, they created a second edition, and in 2008, they created a third edition. So, the council item of special interest would be to create a fourth uh edition of this book that brings us to current date. Um, one of the things that the vice mayor and I had talked about was entering a budget supplemental for this project in next year's budget process. And so in order to get an accurate number for that budget supplemental, staff is also requesting today permission to go into the market, hire an editor, uh, or at least start talking contractually with an editor to find out exactly what would the cost be so that the council can be informed on that budget supplemental. >> Mayor, go ahead. >> Since Thank you, mayor. since this was my item of interest. Um, thank you, Mr. St. John. Um, I think it's important to continue the the tradition of telling the story of Glendale. Um, I think it's really important and we're I mean, I didn't realize that we were by the time this actually is published, it's it's going to be the the next 20 years essentially. This uh last edition stopped right before the recession. Um, so I think we've got a really compelling story to tell about Glendale is, you know, what happened after 2008 that probably was drafted in 2006 or seven. Um, and that, you know, the city was really on an upswing. Um, but I mean, you know, we've we've got a really important story to tell and I think, um, I think we should I think it should probably be do be doing it every 10 years. um trying to get 20 years into one one book is going to be a big challenge, but um but I think it's important that we continue on with the process. >> I uh I have a thought that uh may create some stir. Maybe not. Uh I I don't like the I don't like the title of the book uh century of diversity. Glendale was founded when? >> 19 what? >> Mayor 1910. >> 1910. >> 1910. So, we're we're 115 years, probably another two years before the book comes out. Uh why are we saying uh century? We we should go back to the beginning. Uh and then diversity is something incredibly important. I think the city's done a great job of addressing that with the way we treat our staff, our citizens, the laws that we've passed, the codes that we we passed. I don't know if that would be the thing that I think we should be pushing. I you know maybe uh you know 115 years of Glendel's growth from start to finish or something like that but I I don't know why we would want to keep that same title because we do want people to know it's different too. >> Mayor, what about Glendel the next chapter or something like that. >> I I love that actually. >> Yeah, I like that. >> I like that too. >> And mayor, I think when we engage an editor, those are the types of things that we can bring to the council as suggestions. >> Okay. Well, that was my only thought. I have no issue with doing this. My other thought is uh if the city funds this and the city hires the the author and and puts all the stuff together uh when the books are sold uh if there's any money made, how does that work? I mean, what what it seems to me that if you could include uh the historical society uh where uh they could actually uh be charged and rewarded by helping sell these books, I I think that that may not be a bad way for them to have a fundraiser opportunity. At the same time, get the word out about Glendale that we should be able to get some uh information from the historical society also on this. >> Mayor, we would engage them for sure. >> Yeah. Yes sir. >> Can we consider um I mean I like this idea but can we also consider maybe uh for this uh fourth edition also creating like a a version for children so that we're we're we're also showing them at a younger age to it's just an idea. Uh, mayor, in response to that, considering it's the going to be a big undertaking, that's not my item of interest. I think it's important to get this story told. I mean, we could probably once we get this done, talk about maybe a children's version. Um, I mean, you know, once kids can read, they can read this book up. I mean, it's not, this isn't going to be Shakespeare. Um, you know, I mean, once you're at a third or fourth grade reading level, you could you could read this stuff. Um, so I don't want to slow this down because we're already pro about 10 years behind on on getting this done. Um, we've gonna have a lot a lot to to try to fit into this book and doing another second book uh alongside of it I I think would would bog it down and slow things down. It's not my item of interest to do two books. >> Okay. So, I guess my question we need a consensus to move forward. >> Mayor. Yes, sir. Okay. Do we have a consensus to move forward as presented? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh maybe maybe what you might think about doing is if we could find a a child author to come up with something similar, just much smaller with cartoon uh pictures. That that could actually work out really cool. But I don't think it should be tied to this. But I do like the idea. I think it's a great idea. >> Okay. Okay, that's power. >> Council items of special interest clarification. >> Mayor, members of the council, here to provide staff report is Deputy City Manager Thomas Atkins. >> Your microphone. >> Sorry. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. It's my honor to be here before you today. Uh staff is seeking clarification from city council regarding a provision in the city council guidelines which are the standards adopted by the mayor and city council to provide for the effective and efficient conduct of the public's business. The current city council guidelines outline the process for placing items of uh special interest on a workshop agenda whereby any member of the council may indicate topics that they would like to have discussed at a future council workshop. The question before the city council today pertains to the frequency at which these items of special interest may be reintroduced uh after council has previously provided direction. Staff recently had a request for an item of special interest uh that arose after council had provided direction just a few weeks earlier. The current city council guidelines for C items of special interest do not provide a process for reintroducing items once council has provided direction. Staff is seeking clarification today on this interpretation. U potential items for council discussion today are include but are not limited to keeping the city council guidelines as is with no process for bringing back items once direction has been provided. establish frequency limitations, for example, a one-year hiatus on items or establishing a requirement for consensus or supermajority of consensus to be provided for repeat requests. This concludes my remarks and I'm would happy to take any questions or turn it over to council discussion. Go ahead, >> Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Atkins. Um, we've adopted a a policy. We've updated that policy since 2013. I know we have. We've done it since I've been on the council because now it's a you get a scoping memo. I mean, there's the policy. I don't know if it hasn't been, I guess, added to the um the council uh guidelines. Sorry, I keep getting away from the microphone, but I know we've adopted um and had discussions about how to handle council items of special interest since 2013. >> Mayor, members of the council, vice mayor. So, there are two different things here. There's we have an administrative policy for how how as a staff how we process council items of special interest. You have a separate council guideline and we just are seeking clarification for that. We'd like to make sure that our administrative process for handling these items are consistent with the guidelines that the council has set forth. But they're really two different areas. And you are correct. We did update uh administratively we updated our process for timelines and how we bring back scoping documents and all that's involved in that. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um I I don't I think bringing bringing back especially when basically the balance of the council hasn't changed. Um there should be some sort of my opinion is there should be some sort of waiting period. um if it because obviously you're not you're only bringing back things that there was no consensus for because if there was a consensus for it, it moved ahead and went through whatever the process was. But if there was no consensus to move it ahead, uh my opinion is and I know there's some varied opinions uh probably about, you know, how long the waiting period should be, but if there was no consensus to move something ahead, I don't see any reason to be bringing it back, you know, a month or two months later. I I think maybe a year or maybe two years, maybe that, you know, if there's a a change in in the council. I don't know what the right answer is. Um, but I don't see any reason to be bringing something right right back. And I think also if you bring it back that it should be basically reintroduced as a new item of interest once there was no consensus essentially that item is has died on the day. It didn't go anywhere and so it would need to be at least I would think re reintroduced as a new item of interest at some point in the future. whatever the consensus is for whatever the waiting period is to do that. Thank you, Mayor. >> Mr. Miller. >> Um, yes, I I agree with the the concept of having some sort of waiting period. Uh, perhaps a year and a half uh or two years uh would be acceptable. Um, I also had another question uh regarding the I guess it's more an administrative policy. Uh, and I'm I'm not sure I I have seen it always done the same way. So my understanding the administrative policy and again it's not written in this policy we're discussing but I think it pertains to it and we may want to put it in this policy if we feel like we need to that once an item is brought up as an item of special interest. My understanding it goes to staff. They meet with a council member. They create a scoping statement and they come up with some perhaps some basic estimated costs to to move that forward. That then comes back to council to decide if we want to move it forward based on that criteria. Is that correct, Mr. Phelps? Is that how because because I've seen it done a little different at different times and I want to get get clarification on the administrative policy as well. The again the process for how we do it, it's introduced at a workshop. Uh we assign somebody internally to meet with that council member, create a scoping document where we understand what exactly the council member is seeking uh to get, you know, discussion. We then estimate the amount of time and resources it would take to fulfill that. We then bring that to the council to say here's the scope of work. Here's what we believe are the amount of staff resources that would need to be expended to help facilitate this discussion. We then look for consensus by the council as to whether or not uh we move forward. If the council says yes, then the staff goes out and begins working on the presentation and at some point we schedule a workshop item back for full discussion. If the council says no, we don't believe this is a good expenditure of staff resources, then the item dies at that point. >> Okay. Uh and that's what I thought was was our administrative. But I've seen in the past where sometimes we brought forward things that we didn't just discuss the scope and whether we wanted to move forward. It was like we went right fullblower into the discussion. And that was my question and concern is if we have a process where we first have to discuss if whether or not we want to move it forward first and have a consensus to move it forward before we have the full border discussion because I've seen it both ways. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of council, you know, like with all policies, it's almost impossible to craft one that anticipates every scenario. So, let's just say on in this particular discussion we're having today that somebody said, "I'd like to talk about our policy." We wouldn't need to come up and do a scoping document and come back to you and add an extra layer of meetings on it. We could take it directly to a council workshop. So, there have been times when there really wasn't necessarily a a scoping document needed. it would just to help agendaize a discussion by the council on an item that they're already, you know, wanting to contemplate. So, it's it's a general policy, but as we as I said earlier, it's impossible to have one policy that that really anticipates every scenario that comes forward. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, that that was my I'm glad you brought that up, Council Member RNA, because that there has been cases. In fact, at the last workshop, there was something that was uh an item of interest and then it was brought back with a full presentation without seeing if there was a consensus of the council to move ahead with with do doing that presentation. So, um I'd like to see some consistency in that. Um I don't know how who's deciding. I It's my understanding that it one person can't just get something on an agenda. At least it's my understanding that you need at least two other people to get something on an agenda. So if it goes from a council item of special interest to an agendaized on a workshop without any get nobody getting a consensus unless um and I don't really even know who handles handles the agenda, but it was it's my understanding that one person can't just get something put on the agenda. So, and I did have that discussion with the mayor how we how we work the agenda, but that was I thought why the scoping memo was brought back to see if there's a consensus to get to get it on the agenda. If there's I've had I think those of us that have been here a while had items of interest that that you know never got past the scoping memo. It just there was no consensus to do it and that's the end of it. I think I saw Mr. Bailey raising his hand. >> Yeah. And your your comment is not correct, but I think that's what Mr. Bailey is going to >> mayor and councel the in terms of getting an item on an agenda and this goes to where our code speaks to getting items at a special meeting where it says the mayor or three members may do it and so it's the mayor has the individual right to do it otherwise it's three council members okay >> they would have the right to get something and just to be really clear about that the code references that it's to get on a special meeting and the way that's been interpreted before I was even here is that that's the ability for a council to to to work to get something directly placed on an agenda >> on a voting meeting agenda >> so that we don't have to call a special meeting every time somebody wants something on the agenda. We actually just put it on an an upcoming agenda. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Can I respond to that? That was what my question was. So if if one person does a counselite on a special interest and then it just shows up as a workshop presentation without getting any kind of consensus, at least in my mind, that's not in line with the administrative policy that it needs to go through the scoping memo, come to the council, see if there's um a consensus to to move the item ahead and if there isn't, that's the end of it, and then now it's subject to whatever the waiting period is that whatever we decide that's going to be. Thank you. And and you're exactly right and that's why over the last nearly 13 years I have not abused that opportunity that I have. Uh and I've only had a handful of occasions where council has come to me and and and wanted something on. So I don't see that as the issue. What I see as the issue is uh bringing things back up so quickly. uh whether your council has changed or not, uh the people sitting here today that make the decision today, I I don't think we should discard our authority uh to make that decision just because two weeks from now you have another council member come on. I don't think you should regurgitate all of that and do it all over again. So, I I heard one year, I heard two years. I would support a year and a half myself. I think that's very fair. >> Well, I'd like to get some clarity, mayor. Um if an item is brought to the workshop and um there's no consensus on it, then it would just take three council members to get it on the voting agenda. Is that is that correct, >> Mayor? Council member Guzman. Yes, there would there would need to be three council members and and and from a practical stance, how this has worked historically is that that three council members individually need to notify me that they are interested in putting an item on an agenda and then I'll work with them to accomplish that. >> Okay. So, we wouldn't send the memo to the city manager. We'd send it a memo to you. >> Historically, that's how it's happened. Yes. >> Oh. Because one of the practical elements of this is from a staff perspective is that that when um council has had the desire to place something on an agenda from a kind of a legal perspective, I need to make sure what you're proposing is legal, right? >> And then I would generally encourage you then to work with finance to make sure what it is because there's usually some sort of expenditure involved and that would be that it's cleared with finance because >> that allows staff and not to be surprised by it as well. Oh okay. Okay. >> Yeah. The only part that that Mr. Ber left out was u also you can come to me. I would caution all of the council keep in mind that once you talk once you talk to two other people that fourth person becomes a a quorum. So right >> don't don't do that. >> Uh let's keep doing what we've been doing here the last several years and let's keep everything legal. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to get clear. >> Mr. Bailey and mayor and council if I just may provide you a nuance that also the attorney general recognizes is that the request is not that you're asking to approve something or to vote. All you're asking is to actually bring the subject matter before the body if that may there's a there's there's a distinction. You're not saying you support it. You're not saying you're against it. All you're asking and you're making the request is can this item can this question be brought before the body? And then at the public meeting, that's when you would make that decision based on what the debate may have been in in public whether or not you want to approve or deny. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Of course, the danger is discussing that item with three other people beside yourself. And then it it's it's a it's easy to to get in trouble. It's it's easier not to get into trouble. So, I just caution everybody. Uh so, you're next. >> Uh mayor and counsel. Um I don't think that this is a problem and I I think that um uh if the scoping um statement is different every time like it shouldn't be the same question, the same topic, the same uh thing uh to rehash the conversation, especially if we didn't get consensus. But I think if the scoping um statement is different uh then it should be allowed on the same subject. Um but I'm okay with whatever the um the council does in consensus. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Was there a consensus for a year and a half? >> I'm okay with that, Mayor. >> I'm okay with that. >> All right. Okay. What else? >> Mayor and council. That's all I needed. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. >> City manager report. >> Yes. Mayor, members of the council, before I run my uh bimonthly uh managers report, I did want to get some new news that came in this morning that wasn't able to be inserted into there. So, we were notified earlier this morning uh by uh S&P Global Ratings, which is one of the two largest rating companies, that they are doing it uh they've they've analyzed our debt. They've upgrading the city of Glendel from a double A to a double A plus. And that's going to include they're going to also rate our our upcoming $17 million general obligation bond offering to the doublea plus as well. Um the um they the management report they put out that kind of gives justification for it highlighted a number of areas. Um one they they acknowledged the city's kind of history uh recent history of conservative budgeting. Um they also noted our expanded revenue streams uh that are available to the city uh that uh have developed over the last number of years and that the city has exceptional cash reserves. So those were the three things that really drove their policy. Um they again they were um they they also called out just the prudent forecasting tools that we use. Um that they um that we have excellent uh budgeting tools uh to conserve our resources in place. And finally they acknowledge the city's transparent budgeting process. Um and so with all those reasons they've upgraded us now from double A to double A plus which is something that uh the council should be very proud of. This is your physical management uh of the organization that has has caused us to get this. What does it mean? Potentially means that as we continue to issue debt going forward in the future, we will play pay less interest. And interest is one of those things that create no value for our citizens. Quite frankly, citizens goes to uh uh an investor in New York or in in Nebraska. And so it doesn't really u add any value. So this is great news for the city and congratulations to our budget and finance team as they help are responsible for really setting the tone with our rating agencies. With that I will now be will run my bimonthly report. [Music] Hi there. September is here and Glendel as always has plenty to celebrate. We're making improvements to our airport runway thanks to a nearly $2 million grant from the Arizona Department of Transportation. We're adding a new 1-in asphalt overlay. This upgrade is expected to extend the life of the runway by at least 10 years. The airfield will need to close during construction, and our team is working closely with tenants and businesses to help plan around any disruptions. The summer games at the Glendale Adult Center were filled with friendly competition, laughter, and community spirit. For an entire week, our parks and recreation team hosted tournaments in cornhole, whifflegolf, pingpong, billiards, chess, pickle ball, and more. The games wrapped up with a closing ceremony where participants earned medals, and celebrated their achievements. Glendel's transportation and police teams are working to keep students safe on their way to school after a collision. They kicked off a new program at Mountain Ridge High School with a 30inut presentation on pedestrian, bicycle, and ebike safety. The goal is to raise awareness and prevent future crashes. And this is just the beginning. Our team plans to bring this important safety program to all nine high schools across the city. Ballet Under the Stars is returning to Glendale for an evening of free family fun. Ballet Arizona will light up the stage with a mix of classical and contemporary dance on September 25th at Sarro Ranch Park. Starting at 5:00 p.m., there will be food trucks, live music, and children's activities like face painting and balloon animals. The show kicks off at 700 p.m. Two local poets are helping Glendale writers find their voices. The Glendale Libraryies free writer in residence program is back. Through October, our community can take part in free workshops and one-on-one consultations designed to spark creativity and provide valuable feedback. It's just one more way Glendale libraries are supporting learning and creativity. I'd like to recognize two exceptional leaders from the Glendale Fire Department who are retiring. The department recently held a ceremony honoring Assistant Chief Ken Barnes for 35 years of dedicated service. His leadership and mentorship have shaped generations of Glendale firefighters. Deputy Chief Jeffrey McMinmy is also retiring after a distinguished career, leaving a lasting impact on the department and our community. Congratulations to both on their remarkable careers and well-earned retirements. Thanks again for watching. I'll be back soon with more updates. [Music] >> Mr. Bailey, nothing. >> No report. >> Council items of special interest. Uh, starting with Mr. Balden Agro. >> None today, sir. >> Thank you. Mr. Conscious, >> none today, mayor. >> Miss Scuzman, >> none today, mayor. >> Mr. Milner, >> nothing today, Mayor. >> Vice Mayor, >> nothing today, Mayor. >> Okay, this is unheard of. I got to come up with something just because not really. No, I have nothing either. So, with that said, uh, can I get a motion to go into executive session, please? >> I move that we go into executive session, mayor. >> Second. >> I have a motion. Who's who made the second? >> Mr. Milner. Okay. Uh, we have a motion, second. Any discussion hearing? None. All in favor, please vote. I >> I >> Any opposed, vote nay. Here you guys have it. Do you have it? Motion uh passes and the council meeting is in recess.