Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council debates adding indoor police shooting range to future bond asks
Summary
Councilors and staff debated whether to advance an indoor police shooting range as a CIP candidate; supporters cited training and scheduling benefits while others warned of bond capacity limits, competing public safety priorities and uncertainty over federal partnership funding.
Glendale councilors spent a sustained portion of the March 3 budget workshop debating whether to pursue an indoor police shooting range as part of future public safety capital requests.
Mayor led the call for exploring the project, saying, “I want us to move forward with building an indoor shooting right now,” framing it as a way to improve officer proficiency and public safety. Supporters said an indoor facility would allow year‑round, controlled training, better scheduling for specialized shooting scenarios and potential cost‑sharing arrangements if a federal partner signs an agreement.
Opponents and cautious members raised two practical restraints: bond capacity and competing priorities already listed in the CIP. One council member said the city recently went to voters on bonds and “these slots are all filled,” adding that projects already in the CIP should not be displaced without a clear financing plan. Staff and the city manager said that while the concept has merit, the police chief elected not to include the range as a funded CIP line and that the city currently lacks bond capacity to construct the facility without reprioritizing other voter‑authorized projects.
Assistant Chief Ernie Oam, who traveled with the mayor to study other ranges, described the training benefits: “would an indoor range be something that the police officers would use? For sure,” and noted the operational advantages of an on‑site facility for rifle and scenario training. Staff clarified the Department of Defense cannot directly construct the facility under MilCon rules but could enter into a facility use agreement to reimburse negotiated costs and provide ongoing support.
Council directed staff to bring back cost estimates, operating‑cost projections and scenarios showing two funding paths: (1) a model if an outside partner reimburses construction and operating costs, and (2) a model if the city funds construction via a future bond. The mayor and several councilors said they would support adding a line for the range for further study; others asked to hear the police chief’s priorities before committing.
Next steps: staff will prepare cost estimates and funding options for a follow‑up CIP discussion; any formal inclusion on a bond package would require council approval and voter authorization where bonds are necessary.
