Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Shooting Range topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council agrees to carry a placeholder for proposed indoor shooting range while staff explores partners
Summary
At a March 30 budget workshop the Glendale City Council signaled consensus to include a placeholder in the CIP for a proposed indoor shooting range while staff pursues master planning and potential partnerships (including with the Department of Defense). No funds were committed; staff will return with cost‑sharing and funding options.
Glendale City Council members on March 30 signaled informal consensus to include a placeholder in the city's capital improvement plan for a proposed indoor shooting range while staff pursues further study and potential partnerships.
Staff presented preliminary construction cost estimates of $20 million to $30 million (excluding debt service) and projected annual operating costs of $500,000 to $800,000. Budget staff outlined four broad funding approaches for council consideration: using existing public safety GO bond authority; combining bond authority with revenue offsets from facility operations; issuing excise tax revenue bonds; or a hybrid of debt and general fund resources. Staff emphasized that adding a placeholder would not appropriate money but would preserve the project as a planning item in the CIP.
"We're not spending the money today," the mayor said, describing a placeholder as a shell in the CIP to keep the project visible while staff collects more information. Several council members urged caution about scheduling the project in early years of the CIP when bond capacity is already committed. Council member Tomlachoff said the city should pursue a regional approach and give staff time to negotiate with potential partners before moving ahead.
Opponents on the council raised concerns about priorities and timing. A council member representing the Cactus District said she could not support even a placeholder in the near term given neighborhood needs and recent large capital commitments already in the pipeline. Council member Turner called the project potentially "a vanity project" in earlier remarks; a colleague responded that characterizing the proposal that way was offensive and that public safety readiness is at stake.
City staff recommended treating the next step as a master‑planning effort: determine scope, location, potential partners (including the Air Force), and funding scenarios, and return with recommendations and cost‑sharing options. Council members agreed staff may come back with contingency or consultant requests if needed for that planning work.
The council did not take a formal vote. The direction recorded at the workshop was an informal consensus to carry a placeholder and to continue evaluation and negotiation, not an appropriation of funds. Staff said it would return with more detailed analyses, potential reimbursement scenarios from partners, and options for how the project might appear in a future bond package or standalone election if council chooses that route.
