Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/5/2000 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP September 5, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. lain Vasey, Economic Development Redevelopment Manager; and Mr. James Mason, Economic Development Business Development Manager. As part of the City Center Master Plan, staff recommended that a City Center Master Plan Advisory Committee be created to provide citizen input and guidance prior to the plan being presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Advisory Committee will act in an advisory capacity and provide input and develop concepts and ideas that will be incorporated into the plan. The Committee would help the City to establish goals and objectives for the plan and provide feedback and comment throughout the planning process. It was recommended that the Committee be comprised of 30 citizens, selected from different disciplines, representative of the entire City and appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The proposed Committee structure would include representatives of six constituent groups, each consisting of five individuals, including property owners, civic/institutional groups, real estate brokers/developers, retailers, Glendale citizens from the entire community, and bankers. The Committee will meet every month, or as often as needed, from October of 2000 to approximately April of 2001. The Committee's meetings will be open to the public and there will be a number of opportunities for citizens to provide input and comment on the development of the plan. If the Council approves of the proposed Committee structure, staff requested that the Council consider appointing members of the Committee at a future meeting. 1 On July 25, 2000, the City Council retained the services of RNL Design to complete the City Center Master Plan by August of 2001. At Council Workshop meetings held in April and July of 2000, staff presented concept timeframes and preliminary structure for the plan, including the citizen participation portion of the project. The creation of the Citizens Advisory Committee has been discussed with the City Council, as well as other groups such as the Downtown Development Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, and merchants groups. A number of citizens have volunteered to participate by contacting staff or Councilmembers. As part of the development of the City Center Master Plan, a number of methods will be utilized to solicit citizen participation, including public meetings, newsletters, cable television, and target focus groups. The planning process will require several public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff plans to attend a future Workshop with the consultant, RNL Design, to present further details relating to the citizen participation process. The City Council has approved a contract with RNL Design to complete the City Center Master Plan for $216,329. The recommendation was to review the proposed Committee structure and provide staff direction. Councilmember Lieberman cautioned RNL Design to work closely with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) at the earliest stages in regards to the intersection of Grand/59th/Glendale Avenues. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if RNL Design was involved in putting Phases I, II and III together. Mr. Vasey stated that they were. He explained that they had discussed the concepts and timeframes. He said that RNL has an office in Phoenix and that some of its staff and affiliate consultants have looked at the site concerns. Councilmember Martinez stated that, although he liked the proposed membership categories, he felt the community at large should be better represented. He explained that five individuals representing a community of this size was not adequate. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Advisory Committee was an advocacy group or if they would be asked to set aside their opinions and consider information received from the citizens. She suggested that, if they were an advocacy group, more citizens should be involved; however, if they will act as more of a hearing group, the citizens should then present their ideas to the committee. Mr. Colson explained that their role would not be as an advocate and they should not come in with preconceived ideas of what should be accomplished. He stated that they want a group that can filter ideas to determine if they are realistic and achievable and to act as a sounding board. Councilmember Martinez stated that he has had two or three people express interest in serving on the committee. He reiterated his opinion that five people representing the entire City was not adequate. 2 Mayor Scruggs stated that she also had a list of people City-wide who had expressed an interest in serving on the committee. Councilmember Goulet asked whether the community was satisfied with the Citizen Committee's recommendations. He suggested that, by nature, they would get people advocating certain things in the downtown area. He stated that he has had 15 people actively solicit him who want to serve on the committee. He suggested that the meetings be moved around the City, providing more people with the opportunity to attend. He said that there should be more differentiation between the building property owners and the retail business owners. Mr. Colson stated that it is difficult to identify the community's level of satisfaction. He said that they have discussed moving the meetings around the community. He noted that, although there is no restriction or limitation as to the number of members in the committee, they want to receive input from the citizens in a manageable fashion. Councilmember Clark submitted a memo that she had prepared. She said that she took a minority position. She explained that she was concerned they were giving 10 positions to local stakeholders and 20 positions to bankers, brokers, professionals and civic organizations. She questioned whether there was a need for a two-to-one ratio on a committee that makes major decisions about downtown Glendale, where people live, work and own businesses. She stated that major stakeholders deserve at least equal representation on the committee. She said that she has also had residents express an interest in serving on the committee. She suggested a dual-track committee, one comprised of professional groups and another of local stakeholders, who would then come together to build a consensus. Councilmember Frate stated that he also had constituents who were interested in serving on the committee. He noted that some of these constituents have a lot of experience to offer. Mayor Scruggs stated that people who want to see certain things happen would best serve outside the committee structure, acting as advocates. She said that people need to decide why they are there - are they there to listen to what others have to say or to push for a specific agenda. Mayor Scruggs stated that the real estate brokers used in the Miracle Mile forum were from outside the community because they wanted to hear what the outside world viewed as the City's strengths and weaknesses. She said that they would not get the kind of input needed with regard to bringing development investors to the area unless they went outside of the City of Glendale. She noted that they had done a good job in identifying the various categories that need to be included. Mr. Colson suggested that someone involved in the committee could play an advisory role and that they could establish a task force to seek input from financial professionals or developers outside the City of Glendale. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark's comments that real estate and banks need no more than two representatives on the board. He said that he also agreed with Councilmember Martinez that the citizens of Glendale should have more representatives, as they are the ones who ultimately have to live with the project. Councilmember Martinez suggested that they keep it to one committee and increase the number of representatives on the citizens-at-large group. 3 Mayor Scruggs summarized by saying that, although the Council felt the concept was good, they want it to be larger. She said that it should be kept to one group and should be local to Glendale. 2. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE 303 ALIGNMENT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. James Book, Transportation Director; and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager. There has been much discussion regarding the northern alignment of the LOOP 303. In the October 5, 1985 Special Election, the people of Maricopa County voted on, and overwhelmingly approved, Proposition 300, which included the construction of LOOP 303 in the West Valley. There has been exceptional growth in the Northwest Valley, creating a desire for additional transportation corridors. Several alternative alignments for the LOOP 303 have been suggested. City staff presented a brief overview of the original alignment of the LOOP 303, as well as some of the alternative alignments that have been proposed. The construction of the Northwest LOOP 303 runs from 1-10 along Cotton Lane, north to Grand Avenue and then on to Lake Pleasant Parkway. The 1985 Special Election ballot showed this alignment then continuing easterly until it reached the 1-17 Black Canyon Freeway at the Dixileta Drive alignment. The City of Glendale is supportive of public discussions regarding the construction of supplemental freeway segments, but strongly opposes any change to the voter- approved alignment. There are no budget impacts or additional staff requirements associated with this item. This item was presented for information and discussion purposes only. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal was not identified on the map. He said that it may effect plans for bridges, crossings and so forth. Mr. Book showed Mr. Lieberman where the CAP canal was on the map. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Book stated that the 1985 proposition did specifically mention Dixileta. Councilmember Lieberman asked if Dixileta was a current interchange. Mr. Book replied that it was not. He added that there is a desire to establish the interchanges on 1-17 between Carefree Highway and Loop 101. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the proposed widening of 1-17 northbound would end at the 303 interchange. Mr. Johnson explained that, in the current long-range plan, the widening extends to the Carefree Highway. He added that it is not funded. 4 Mayor Scruggs stated that Loop 303 was removed from any funding mechanism in 1994. There was no interest on the part of the region in seeing Loop 303 come back until other private interests determine where they need access. She said that they had carefully focused on Dixileta in their letter to Governor Jane Hull, recognizing that they were not engineering the entire route. She said that business interests which are involved would like to put 10 miles between Loop 101 and the next transportation corridor. She said that they were costing the City a tremendous amount of money in terms of diminished quality of life for the residents and the traffic they are placing on 59th and 67th Avenues on a daily basis. Councilmember Clark asked where the City of Glendale ends to the north. Mr. Book stated that the Glendale City limits end at Pinnacle Peak Road. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that if Loop 303 moves five miles north, people living north of the Loop 101 would continue to travel Loop 101. Mr. Book stated that, although they currently have quite a bit of capacity on the Loop 101, there is not a lot of additional capacity at the interchange from the Loop 101 to 1-17. He explained that the Valley got along for quite some time without freeways because it had a very well defined arterial grid system. He said that the northwest area does not have much commitment to the grid system, making Loop 303 even more critical. Councilmember Clark pointed out that voters voted for the Dixileta alignment. She asked if any thought had been given to the fact that, the further north the alignment is, the more opportunity there is to destroy desert open spaces. She suggested that moving the alignment further north would conflict with MAG's (Maricopa Association of Governments) Desert Spaces Plan. Councilmember Lieberman stated that this would not effect 59th Avenue because it ends at Thunderbird Park and then goes east to 1-17. He said that it would effect 67th Avenue because it would cross 67th and 99th Avenues, both of which streets could use it. He expressed his opinion that Dixileta would be the best connector because the closer the area is, the faster it will grow in population. Councilmember Martinez agreed that traffic on 67th Avenue is a big problem and he stated that the City owes it to the voters to have the interchange at Dixileta. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council supported the project. She said that all north Glendale and north Peoria residents would be receiving a letter within the next week, making them aware of the situation. Councilmember Clark suggested that the Council develop a resolution, indicating its strong support of the voter-approved Dixileta Drive alignment. She said that they should call for all other Northwest Valley cities to pass a similar resolution as well. Mr. Johnson stated that it was important that a decision be made with regard to the alignment and that the right-of-way be protected. He said that the further south the alignment is, the more the City of Glendale would benefit. He said that this decision would go into the Regional Plan in March of 2001. 5 Councilmember Frate thanked Mayor Scruggs for mailing information to the people who live along 59th and 67th Avenues, informing them of the consequences of moving this alignment. Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Johnson to elaborate on the intersection with 1-8. He asked when the limited route would be made into a full freeway. Mr. Johnson replied that it would be made into a full freeway when the money was available. Councilmember Lieberman noted that 91 property owners had donated that land in the hope that it would speed up its development. Mayor Scruggs stated that the consensus of the Council was to do a resolution supporting the Dixileta alignment. She noted that morning traffic on the Loop 101 backs up to the west, past 35th Avenue. Councilmember Lieberman asked if that situation would be alleviated once Loop 101 opens up to the east. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) believes it will; however, she feels that, while it will help to some degree, new travelers will also continue to be added. 3. UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOTBALL STADIUM IN THE WEST VALLEY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. James Mason, Economic Development Business Development Manager; Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; and Mr. Charlie McClendon, Budget and Research Director. The November 7, 2000 election ballot will include Proposition 302, which would increase hotel/motel taxes and rental car fees sufficient to provide funds for the upgrading of several Cactus League facilities and the construction of a new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals football team. In addition, Proposition 302 creates the Tourism and Stadium Authority, which will be responsible for the management of such a stadium. Historically, the sites discussed for such a facility have been in the East Valley or in Central Phoenix. A West Valley site has recently been proposed by Mr. John F. Long. At today's Workshop staff was present to update the City Council on the viability of a West Valley site. On August 10, 2000, the Mayors and/or City Managers from eight West Valley cities and towns (the City of Glendale, the City of Peoria, the City of Surprise, the Town of Youngtown, the City of Litchfield Park, the City of Goodyear, the Town of Wickenburg, and the City of Avondale) met and discussed an offer by Mr. John F. Long to donate land near Loop 101 and Thomas Road for a new football stadium. This site is approximately 2 miles from the Glendale City boundary at Camelback Road. At that meeting, three key points were agreed to by all of the cities in attendance. They are: 1. A written statement of support for a West Valley stadium site must be provided by the Arizona Cardinals and published in the local newspapers. 6 2. A statement of support by Mr. Skip Rimsza, Mayor of the City of Phoenix, stating his City's endorsement of the project and its participation in the public sector funding necessary for the project. 3. An analysis of the project's merits must be completed. To that end, a committee, consisting of West Valley City Managers and Assistant City Managers, was formed to determine: (a) revenue to be expected from such a project and how that revenue would be shared among the stakeholders; (b) what the municipal expenditures would be for such a project and from what sources could the cities and town generate those funds; (c) the relationship of the proposed site to the various cities, and the amount of money and the timeframe that each city and town would expect to receive payback on this investment. This was the first time that this issue had been discussed by the City Council, Previously, a ballot initiative failed in the City of Mesa for the construction of a stadium and regional events center. This was the first staff briefing to the City Council on this issue. Staff is currently evaluating what the potential costs of the project may be to the cities and towns. These costs, however, are not exact since no site plans have been developed. At this time, the estimates range from $40-126 million for off-site improvements. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff direction. Councilmember Goulet asked if the 13 or 14 stadiums identified in the Pepperdine University study which cost taxpayers more than they generated was calculated on a yearly basis. Mr. Mason explained that it was based on the life of the debt repayment on those stadiums. He stated that most had a zero return. Councilmember Goulet asked what period of time the 1994 study of 30 stadiums covered. Mr. Mason explained that the studies dealt with direct economic benefits, not with residual benefits. Councilmember Martinez asked if other West Valley cities had indicated that they want to proceed with the feasibility study. Mr. Beasley stated that a meeting would be held that Thursday with the West Valley Mayors and City Managers, at which they would discuss what the next step should be. Councilmember Martinez voiced his support of proceeding with the feasibility study. Mayor Scruggs asked if they would like the City of Glendale to proceed regardless of whether other cities participate. She said that most of the other cities have not taken a position because they do not have a complete understanding of what is involved. Mr. Beasley said that if the other West Valley cities were willing to participate, the City of Glendale should participate; if not, Glendale should not proceed. Councilmember Lieberman noted that, although the other cities do not have funds to put into the project, they are willing to help. He expressed his opinion that the City of Glendale should proceed. 7 Councilmember Clark noted that this would go before the voters on November 15th and, if the voters say no, this would be a mute discussion. Mr. McClendon agreed. Councilmember Clark said that the City of Phoenix did not expect this potential land donation and has not developed a strong position. She said that the City of Phoenix's position would determine whether this ever occurs. She said that, should this become a reality, waiving fees for site development is not subject to voter approval in Phoenix. She pointed out that, if they want to commit more than $3 million to the project, they have to hold a special election. She expressed her opinion that there is no harm in moving forward with the feasibility study, but that is as far as they can go at this time. She pointed out that the City of Phoenix is willing to put some money into the feasibility study and suggested that the cities of Peoria and Avondale should do the same. She said that smaller cities, even if they cannot afford a large contribution towards the feasibility study, could contribute a token amount to indicate their support. She questioned how long it would take to do a feasibility study. Mr. Mason said that, since the information is out there already, it would only take a matter of weeks to compile the information. Councilmember Frate asked about the timeframe for the proposal. Mr. Colson stated that they have been drafting a letter of intent because he does not believe the October 1st deadline is feasible. Mayor Scruggs said that she was told this letter would come from the Steering Group and she believed this group to be a more appropriate venue to issue the letter. Mr. Colson confirmed that it would come from the Steering Group and that they had simply drafted the language. Mr. Beasley stated that the West Valley Managers discussed whether a study needed to take place and whether there should be a placeholder's letter. He said that they have not put anything into a form for presentation to anyone except the West Valley Mayors. Mayor Scruggs said that she would not be comfortable with a letter that came from the West Valley Mayors and did not include the Mayor of the City of Phoenix. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that staff has spent enough time working on this when, in reality, it is a property owner in Phoenix who has said that he will give an undisclosed amount of property. He stated that the Mayor of Phoenix had said the City does not want to build the stadium. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned why the City Council was considering it when it would not help the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs stated that she did not believe the Mayor of the City of Phoenix has been anti-stadium or anti-Cardinals, but rather surprised with an opportunity that was not figured into the City's financial plans. She suggested that, because of improvements being done to the Civic Center, the City of Phoenix would need to go to the voters before spending additional funds on a football stadium. Mr. Colson clarified that they had drafted a letter on behalf of the City Managers group, and not on the City's behalf. He said that they had worked hard to identify the costs associated with this type of facility and determine if it could generate the necessary revenue stream. He said that, based on the projected direct revenue generation, it is very difficult to justify and they need to determine if they can generate the ancillary development necessary to justify the project to the City. Councilmember Clark pointed out that, in 21/2 months, the voters will have spoken and the City Council would then know if there was any support to move forward. She said that it might solve some of the City of Phoenix's dilemma as well. She explained that there might be more incentive to bring the issue before the voters if the general sentiment of the voters in Maricopa County was to support a stadium. She said that, in the interim, a feasibility study could be done at a minimal cost and she would not have 8 a problem in moving forward with that study. Mayor Scruggs explained that the legislation requires the proposals to be in before the vote on November 7t". She said that the legislation does not address what happens if no one submits a proposal. She noted that Page 56 of the legislation requires that the Tourism and Sports Authority enter into a binding agreement with any party that will be a regular user of the multi-purpose facility. She said that it also requires that they enter into one or more agreements with a county, city or cities in which the potential site or sites are located. She said that the agreement would address how the county or city would provide the land, parking, and infrastructure needed for the facility. She said that the Tourism and State Authority rgquires that the City of Phoenix and any other city hold a public vote on November 7t". She reviewed a draft of the Tourism and Sports Authority's request for site proposals for the stadium facility. She said that if the Tourism and Sports Authority's request for proposal criteria is correct, there can be no proposal because no election is occurring in the City of Phoenix or the other cities on November 7"1. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would express the Council's willingness to participate in the feasibility study at the meeting to be held that Thursday, with the understanding that the other west valley communities would also participate. She asked if the breakdown of one-third to be paid by the John F. Long Organization, one-third to be paid by the City of Phoenix, and one-third to be shared by the other cities was something they had an agreement on. Mr. Beasley stated that the only thing they were aware of was that the Cities of Phoenix and Peoria had offered to share in the cost of the feasibility study. He said that they had not received a formal offer from Mr. Long; therefore, the other third would probably come from the other cities. Mayor Scruggs asked how much land was being donated. Mr. Mason stated that the footprint of the stadium is 131/2 acres, and possibly more. He said that the John F. Long Organization was willing to leave it open for negotiation, depending on the outcome of the election. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that, if Mr. Long does not want to negotiate until after the election, they would not know what the cost basis was prior to the deadline for the proposal. Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Long would need to be involved in the development of any proposal and be willing to discuss the issues prior to the election. Councilmember Clark said that she would be very disappointed if Mr. Long only planned to provide 131/2 acres for the stadium, reserving the rest of the land to generate revenue. She said that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Long to put himself in a position where he would enrich himself at a major cost to the West Valley cities. She said that Mr. Long would have to provide land for the parking as well if he wanted the stadium to go through. Councilmember Martinez asked if it has been 131 acres from the beginning. Mr. Colson explained that Mr. Long's initial offer did not specify the amount of land, only that he would make the land available within the 1 ,000-acre parcel he owns. Councilmember Martinez said that he had assumed, incorrectly, that the donated land would include the parking. Councilmember Martinez asked what the County's role would be and why it could not bear some of the cost. Dr. Vanacour stated that they had no first-hand information on that issue. 9 Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that Mr. Long has never had anything against the City of Glendale or the project and he apologized if Mr. Long was given the impression that the City of Glendale was not grateful. He said that they should proceed with the feasibility study. Mayor Scruggs stated that the City needed something in writing. Mr. Mason noted that at a meeting held on Friday, Mr. Long's organization stated that they were willing to negotiate a donation of 40 to 60 acres. He explained that the 131/2 acres relates to what the Tourism and Sports Authority (TSA) required for the site of the stadium. He noted that there is an additional nine acres of pedestrian area around the stadium. Councilmember Martinez asked if the National Football League (NFL) would accept surface parking. Mr. Mason said that, based on the NFL's studies, they would prefer surface parking because parking garages create traffic bottlenecks. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. 10