Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/19/2000 * 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 19, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. LUKE AIR FORCE BASE PRESENTATION CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations. OTHER PRESENTER: Colonel Edward L. Kasl, Vice Commander of the 56th Fighter Wing. The City of Glendale is home to Luke Air Force Base (AFB) and the 56th Fighter Wing. The 56tn Fighter Wing is the largest fighter wing in the U.S. Air Force and is responsible for the training of all F-16 pilots for the U.S. Air Force. Luke AFB currently employs over 8,000 military and civilian personnel and generates $2 billion annually for Arizona's economy. Colonel Kasl discussed the mission and operations of Luke Air Force Base. Colonel Kasl's presentation, which is being made to all West Valley City Councils, was designed to provide the Councils with a more complete understanding of what is necessary to carry out the duties and operations at Luke AFB. This also allowed the Council the opportunity to ask questions of Luke Air Force Base's representatives. Despite its importance to our country's national security and its economic and community benefits to the West Valley, the viability of Luke for future missions is being threatened by encroachment and development around the base. The City of Glendale annexed Luke Air Force Base in 1995 in an attempt to protect the base and show its support for Luke Air Force Base's mission. Most recently, during the 2000 Legislative Session, the City of Glendale strongly advocated the passage of S.B. 1514, which requires all political subdivisions in the vicinity of a military airport to file two reports with the Attorney General's office, showing that their land use plans are compatible with the nearby military airport. 1 This was the Council's first opportunity to see the Luke Air Force Base presentation. This item was presented to the Council for information and discussion purposes. Councilmember Lieberman asked Colonel Kasl if the F22 makes more noise than the F16. Colonel Kasl stated that he did not believe they would get F22's, although plans could change. He said that they anticipate getting a replacement for the F16 within the next ten years, but do not know if it will be any noisier. He stated that, since the Air Force is more concerned about a plane's performance, noise is not necessarily a major concern. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that people living near Williams Gateway are upset about the noise caused by the commercial aircraft. Colonel Kasl noted that operations at Williams Gateway have increased over 100 percent in the past five years. He said that even if Luke Air Force Base left, they would not take the runways with them and someone would find a use for them. Vice Mayor Eggleston thanked Colonel Kasl for taking his message to other cities in the area. Mayor Scruggs thanked Colonel Kasl and Luke Air Force Base personnel for their presentation on Luke Air Force Base's mission/functions and its impact on the state/local economy. She said that Colonel Kasl's point about the growing strength of relationships between the base personnel and civilian community was valid and she was pleased that everyone was integrating to become one community. She stated that it was astounding to see the number of volunteer hours Luke Air Force Base personnel donate to all of the surrounding communities. 2. DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK USE AND DISPLAY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager. This item, which was presented for consideration, would permit property owners within the Pedestrian Retail District and Catlin Court to use public sidewalks for displays and other uses, such as chairs and benches. Several merchants had requested that the City consider allowing them to place display items on the sidewalk to promote a more attractive pedestrian area. Several downtown merchants have used sidewalks for display purposes; however, existing right-of-way regulations do not permit such a use. The City can consider a right- of-way ordinance to permit the use of public sidewalks for display purposes. The sidewalk use and display permit process will address safety, liability, and access issues. The proposed permit regulations meet standards for accessible routes, as set by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ADA) It was proposed that merchants be permitted to place planters, chairs, benches, and other non-permanent items adjacent to their buildings, provided that a five-foot "clear zone" is maintained for pedestrians. No item that is for sale would be permitted, nor would any item that could be classified as signage (sandwich board signs). Only items made to a professional standard, that are non-breakable, well-maintained, and non- perishable, would be permitted. Applicants would be required to submit an application, including a plan of what display items were being proposed, insurance information (naming the City as an additional insured), and also a hold harmless agreement protecting the City. There would be no charge for a permit and all permits would expire on December 31st (for monitoring purposes). The Sidewalk Use and Display Permit Program would be administered by the City's Redevelopment Manager, in cooperation with the Code Compliance Manager, who would review applications and authorize permits. Any decision to revoke permits may be appealed to the Assistant City Manager, whose decision will be final. At this meeting, the use of downtown sidewalks for display purposes was presented to the Council for the first time. On June 20, 2000, the City Council approved $100,000 for streetscape beautification work in the downtown area. It is currently being designed and will be brought forward to the Council for consideration at a future Workshop meeting. Staff discussed this issue with individual downtown merchants and the Downtown Development Corporation. Staff worked with groups of merchants to identify viable criteria and appropriate materials. There will be no negative impact on the City's budget and no additional staff will be required. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the City of Mesa received an award for putting tables and benches out in the downtown area. He said that, as long as the ADA agrees with the five-foot clear zone, he would support the request. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the City of Mesa has exceptionally wide sidewalks. Councilmember Goulet stated that he has had people ask what they would be able to do once the project was approved. He asked if storeowners would be permitted to sell items in their entryway if space was available. Mr. Vasey explained that the regulations state that items placed on the public's right-of-way would not be available for sale. He said that "for sale" items could be placed on the private parcel. Councilmember Goulet asked how long it would take to obtain approval once storeowners submitted their plan. He also asked Mr. Vasey if they had considered having stores post their permit in their windows so that it was apparent they had met the requirements. Mr. Vasey stated that they would work with the Code Compliance Department. He said he hoped that a permit would be issued within a two-week period. He said that one of the requirements they were suggesting was to have merchants put a card in their window showing that they have a permit. 3 Councilmember Goulet stated that there have been some issues regarding canopies being hung too low. He asked how those types of issues would be dealt with. Mr. Vasey explained that existing canopies would be grandfathered in, but the regulation requires that other hanging items maintain a seven-foot clear zone and hanging signs meet the existing sign code. Councilmember Clark asked if an item that a business owner tastefully decorated with the name of the shop and used as a planter would be permitted under the code. Mr. Vasey said that if the logo was not on it, it would be a permitted use. He noted, however, that, if the business's name was on it, it would have to be reviewed as part of the City's existing sign code. Councilmember Clark asked if an antique planter that, while beautiful, does not meet the criteria of being well-maintained would be allowed. Mr. Vasey explained that they were looking to maintain the quality of the downtown area and sidewalks. He said that, if it was a quality item and would add to the aesthetics of the area, it would be permitted. He stated conversely that, if an item was not of good quality and well maintained, it would not be permitted. Councilmember Martinez asked what the boundaries were for pedestrian retail. Mr. Vasey stated that it was generally Grand Avenue to 57th Avenue and Lamar Road to Myrtle Avenue. Councilmember Clark acknowledged that this has been an issue for downtown merchants for a long time. She expressed her concern that the regulation was too rigid and fosters a sense of sterility. She said that it leaves little room for creativity, allowing a shop owner to distinguish himself or herself. Mr. Vasey stated that they had tried to make the guidelines as flexible as they could while, at the same time, creating a regulation that could be enforced by the City. He noted that they had worked with several downtown merchants and the Downtown Development Corporation in drafting the regulation. Mayor Scruggs stated that the situation was similar to homeowners who believe they should be allowed to paint or decorate the outside of their homes in any way they choose. She said that they were striving for consistency and asked if the rules needed to be adopted by the Council. Mr. Vasey said that they would bring the regulation forward at a regular Council meeting and present it in the form of a right-of-way ordinance. Mayor Scruggs said that she hoped merchants would look at the thousands of items they were permitted to place outside their establishments rather than at those items that were not permitted. She said that she recognized the importance of window displays. She noted that window displays are what draw people into stores. She reiterated the need to abide by ADA requirements. She said that she hoped the regulation would be adopted by the City and embraced by the merchants. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the 16 requirements would be put into a resolution and become law, or if they would simply be guidelines. Mr. Vasey stated that they 4 would bring it back to the Council in an ordinance format and, therefore, it would become law. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Downtown Development Corporation and merchants received copies of the guidelines and, if so, if any of the merchants were opposed to the regulation. Mr. Vasey explained that the item was presented to the Downtown Development Corporation and the merchants were very much in favor of the requirements. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that this item was driven by the merchants and not by City staff. Mayor Scruggs asked if the restaurants agreed with the restriction on serving alcohol outside. Mr. Vasey stated that they did not ask the restaurants whether they wanted to serve alcohol outside, but offered to do so if the Council so desired. Mr. Verburg stated that the City has the right to prohibit alcohol in rights-of-way; however, the Council also has the discretion to allow it if it so chooses. Mayor Scruggs suggested that staff talk to the restaurant owners to find out if they saw it as a restraint on trade. Councilmember Clark clarified that her questions were not based on comments she had received from any merchants. Councilmember Martinez stated that he would not have a problem in allowing alcohol to be served. He suggested that the Council give direction to staff that it be permitted. Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Martinez if he was suggesting that they add language which states that the consumption of alcohol is prohibited on any sidewalk or display area other than as a customer of a restaurant. Mr. Martinez said that he agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mr. Vasey stated that they would work with the City Attorney to develop appropriate language. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he agreed with Councilmember Martinez. Mr. Verburg said that there may be a problem in obtaining a liquor license, but he offered to research the issue. Mayor Scruggs suggested that a side benefit to the guidelines is that it will resolve underlying issues of inequity that merchants may have in other parts of the City. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that they consistently prohibit outside sales on certain stipulations. 3. DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN: GRAND AVENUE UNDERPASS AT 59TH/GLENDALE AVENUES AND MARYLAND AVENUE OVERPASS AT 55TH/GRAND AVENUES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. Dave French, Project Manager, URS Corporation; Ms. Diane Simpson-Colebank, Principal, Logan Simpson, Design, Inc.; Mr. Michael Shirley, Environmental Planner, Logan Simpson Design, Inc.; and Mr. Karim Dada, Environmental Planner, Arizona Department of Transportation. 5 Earlier this year, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) commenced the engineering design and environmental assessment phases for the first four Grand Avenue intersection projects included in the September 1999 Grand Avenue Major Investment Study (MIS): 27t Avenue/Thomas Rgad; the Loop 101 connection at 91St Avenue; 43` Avenue/Camelback Road; and 51s` Avenue/Bethany Home Road. The final engineering for those intersection improvement projects is scheduled to be completed in June of 2001. Start of construction for those four projects is programmed for varied periods between October of 2001 and January of 2003. ADOT has recently contracted with the URS Corporation to conduct the initial Design Concept Study (DCR) phase for two of the remaining Grand Avenue intersectio projects within the City of Glendale: the Grand Avenue undrpass at 59`h Avenue/Glendale Avenue; and the Maryland Avenue overpass at 55" Avenue/Grand Avenue. In this Design Concept Study, ADOT and its consultants will conduct a more detailed evaluation of the recommended MIS design concept for these intersections, including the identification of design issues and community concerns, evaluation of design alternatives, and evaluation of design measures to mitigate identified project impacts and concerns. The Design Concept Study concludes with a final recommended design concept for each of the intersections and precedes any work on preliminary and final engineering plans for the projects. The engineering design phases for these projects are scheduled to begin in July of 2001 for the Maryland overpass at 55th and Grand Avenues and in October of 2002 for the Grand Avenue underpass at 59 and Glendale Avenues. ADOT is desirous of conducting an extensive public involvement program in conjunction with the Design Concept Study on these projects. This program will identify and consider community impacts and issues relative to the proposed intersection improvements, and will review alternative designs and the final recommended design concepts. ADOT has contracted with Logan Simpson Design, Inc. to develop and facilitate the desired public involvement activities in these projects. Mr. French and Ms. Simpson-Colebank both represented ADOT on a draft Public Involvement Plan that was developed for the Design Concept Study for these Grand Avenue improvement projects. The draft Plan contains a variety of public forums, interest group meetings, public notices, direct mailings, and other activities intended to provide full community awareness and participation in the design concept discussions relative to these Grand Avenue projects. The purpose of presenting this item was to receive Council input regarding the draft Public Involvement Plan and to answer any Council questions concerning the planned public process. In 1998, the Maricopa Associations of Governments (MAG) completed the Gran Avenue Corridor Study that extended along the entire length of Grand Avenue from 7t AvenueNan Buren to the Beardsley Canal. That Study identified the need for significant improvements along Grand Avenue to provide better traffic flow, promote economic development, and improve the aesthetics of the Grand Avenue corridor. The Grand Avenue Corridor Study identified and analyzed 14 options for Grand Avenue, and recommended 2 options for further study within a focus area between Interstate 17 and the Loop 101. ADOT, in cooperation with MAG and local jurisdictions, followed up on the recommendations from the Grand Avenue Corridor Study and initiated a Major Investment Study (MIS) for Grand Avenue. The Grand Avenue MIS refined and evaluated the two final options recommended in the MAG Grand Avenue Corridor 6 Study: (1) construction of Grand Avenue as a limited expressway; and (2) construction of alternating grade separations (overpass/underpass) at the major Grand Avenue intersections. The Grand Avenue MIS was completed in September of 1999 and identified, as the preferred option, the construction of alternating grade separations at eight locations along Grand Avenue to eliminate the six-legged intersections. MAG and ADOT have added the eight recommended intersection improvements along Grand Avenue to the State's Long Range Transportation Plan and close to $180 million has been programmed through the year 2007 for the design and construction of these projects. The final Public Involvement Plan will contain a variety of public forums, interest group meetings, public notices, direct mailings, and other activities intended to provide full community awareness and participation in the design concept discussions relative to these Grand Avenue projects. There are no direct City costs associated with the Public Involvement Plan and the Design Concept Study phase for this ADOT project. The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the environmental assessment process involved. Ms. Colebank explained that the environmental assessment was prepared following the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Highway Administration guidelines. She said that they are required to address and disclose all impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project. She stated that they had to look at air, noise, and hazardous materials, as well as social and economic impacts. She said that they also have to look at cumulative and secondary impacts that will occur as a result of the project. She stated that the document would be presented to the community as part of the public involvement process. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the document was restricted to the construction phase or if it addresses concerns of future impacts. Ms. Colebank explained that the cumulative and secondary impact assessments address future effects. Councilmember Lieberman said that, in July, Mr. Fench stated that Grand Avenue would be closed for one year and Glendale Avenue would be closed for six months and, in the end, the railroad track would still be there. He said that, if that was the case, he was against the project. He stated that, if the project goes through in its current form, the lack of business would destroy the small businesses that make up the downtown area. He said, however, that he was in favor of the two other intersections because it eliminates the old railroad track and brings the two sides of Glendale together. Mayor Scruggs asked if the construction impacts were discussed with the merchants. Mr. French explained that, during the first meeting in July, they cautioned people that, if they wanted to build the underpass, it could involve closing Grand Avenue for one year and Glendale and 59th Avenues for up to six months. He said they wanted people to understand the fairly serious impacts that construction would have on traffic. He said that their present challenge was to try to engineer a solution that has the least amount of impact. He stated that they have started looking at how they can build the bridge and keep traffic on Glendale Avenue moving. He said that they would bring back their best informed estimates so that the Council could determine which would have the least impact to the community. He predicted that substantial closures would be necessary to 7 move utilities. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. French stated that design build would not necessarily shorten the construction phase. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he also objected to the fact that the project would limit access to downtown Glendale. He reiterated his support of the other two crossings. Mr. French asked Councilmember Lieberman to work with them to create a solution that will work for the City. Councilmember Martinez stated that the decision to have an underpass at that site had already been made and they needed to proceed in determining how the project could be done with minimal impact to downtown merchants. Councilmember Goulet stated that he had been trying to stop rumors that the downtown area would fail. He said that gridlock caused by the trains significantly affects the downtown area. He said that, while they had not come to a conclusion as to what would be, they were working on solutions for what may be. He stated that the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is another component that needs to be considered in conjunction with the Grand Avenue project. He said that people have asked him when construction would begin and if there would be solutions to keep traffic flowing. He said he tells these people that he assumes options would be offered that would allow traffic to continue to flow, but there may be times when roads will have to be closed. He said that people want to know how Grand Avenue will look when construction is completed. He stated that they were looking for visual and traffic improvements, as well as increased safety in the area. Mr. French stated that they needed to work together on all of the issues which were identified in order to come up with solutions. He said that they were looking for feedback to enable them to understand the City's concerns. Councilmember Clark stated that she would like to work closely with Mr. French on the issues of south Glendale. She pointed out that they would only have access to north Glendale from the south using the overpasses at 51st and 67th Avenues. Mr. French stated that Maryland Avenue would also provide access to north Glendale. In response toouncilmember Lieberman's question, Mr. French stated that the intersection at 59t and Glendale Avenues would work better with the elimination of the Grand Avenue traffic. He acknowledged the fact that the trains would still delay traffic, but traffic would clear out much faster because it would only be a four-way intersection. Councilmember Martinez suggested that they notify people of the effects of the construction via newspapers such as the Arrowhead Independent and Peoria Prospector. Mr. Beasley asked what would happen to the 2006 schedule if there was a change. Mr. French said that, what they were currently exploring, was consistent with the major investment study. He added, however, that, if there were changes, they may need to go back through the MAG process. He said that, if that was the case, he could not determine what the timeframe would be. He said that it usually takes a minimum of three months to go through the committee processes. Mayor Scruggs stated that she believed this would be viewed as a substantive change and it would have to go back through the process. She said that, once a study of this magnitude has been conducted, approved and accepted, you lose control to a certain extent. She said that, if it went back through the process, it may not be approved 8 again. She pointed out that this was part of the whole regional plan and was not the City of Glendale's decision alone. Councilmember Clark expressed her appreciation for the thoroughness of the public involvement process. She stated her concern was that July and August are typically vacation months for the public. She suggested that the public hearings be held in May and June instead. She asked what would be involved in order to distribute notices in a combination of English and Spanish. Ms. Colebank stated that, in the past, they have had a two-column format - with English in one column and Spanish in the other. Councilmember Clark requested that English/Spanish notices be sent out. She suggested the notices be mailed from Phoenix, as they typically arrive sooner than if mailed from Glendale. Mayor Scruggs noted that schools start earlier each year, changing the pattern of how people participate in the area. She agreed that public hearings should be held in May and June or they should wait until September. She stated that the website works very well and suggested putting the draft environmental assessment on the website. Councilmember Goulet stated that they should notify all businesses in the downtown area, not just those that are members of the Downtown Development Corporation. Mayor Scruggs complimented everyone involved on creating a good plan. She said that this was the beginning of the involvement period and they would have to wait to see where they go from here. 4. RESOLUTION TOPICS FOR THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Ms. Dana Paschke, Intergovernmental Relations Assistant. Councilmember Clark was absent during discussion of Agenda Item No. 4. Each year, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns (the League) asks jurisdictions to submit legislative resolutions for consideration by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution Committee. From the resolutions submitted, the Resolution Committee determines the League's legislative priorities for the upcoming legislative session. As Vice President of the League, Mayor Scruggs will serve as the Chairperson for this year's Resolution Committee. Intergovernmental Relations Department staff presented 38 resolutions, which have been reviewed by City of Glendale staff, and were seeking Council recommendations. Council's recommendations will then be forwarded to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution Committee. Proposed legislative resolutions can include changes to current laws that are burdensome or need clarification. Each proposed resolution must include a clear explanation of its purpose and effect, its direct municipal impact, and its financial impact (the estimated potential cost to cities and towns if the proposed resolution is 9 implemented and the identification of additional funding sources, if appropriate). At the July 25, 2000 Council Workshop session, Intergovernmental Relations Department staff presented four City of Glendale proposed resolutions. The City Council approved all four resolutions and they were subsequently submitted to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns for consideration. These four resolutions dealt with the issues of restoring the aviation fund, group homes, alternative fuel vehicles, and the preservation of military facilities. On August 25, 2000, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns held a pre-conference meeting, at which time each proposed resolution was discussed. Those resolutions that received the Committee's approval will be considered at the Resolutions Committee meeting on September 27, 2000. Recommendations by the Glendale City Council will be forwarded to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolutions Committee. There are no additional costs associated with these resolutions. The recommendation was to review the proposed resolutions and provide policy direction for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. With regard to Resolution 8, Councilmember Lieberman stated that Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, had received bids through e-mail rather than sealed bids. He asked if the resolution was after the fact. Ms. Paschke stated that some bond attorneys have interpreted the State Statute to enable electronic bidding, while others feel that the law is ambiguous. She said that the resolution would make it clear that electronic bidding is allowed. Councilmember Lieberman stated he had just heard that, whereas last year's Internet Christmas sales totaled $3 billion, this year they would be $12 billion. He said, therefore, that Resolution 9 was very important. Councilmember Goulet asked how sudden hazards due to weather affect liability on Resolution 3. Ms. Rudibaugh said that the issue was brought about by a situation in the City of Prescott. She explained that they felt liability should be more for streets, rather than for everything, and asked that this be clarified. Mr. Verburg stated that the resolution takes away the "you should have known" argument in liability lawsuits. He said that they would only be held liable for defects in maintenance of which they were aware. Councilmember Goulet asked what would happen if someone was renting a house or an apartment where utilities were included and the owners choose not to pay. He said that, in this case, the renters would be punished for someone else's actions. Mr. Verburg stated that a lien would be imposed on the property owner. Mr. Goulet said that, if the utilities were shut off, the renters would be harmed. Mr. Verburg explained that if the City imposed a lien, it may foreclose on the lien and, in effect, the City becomes the landlord. He said that the opposite situation could also occur in situations where the tenants were not paying the water bills. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that cities already have the right to shut off the water for lack of payment and are seeking the right to place a lien on the property. 10 Ms. Rudibaugh noted that all of these resolutions are concepts at this point. She stated that they would bring them back in more detail at a later date for the Council's recommendation. Councilmember Martinez said that, since Resolution 4 would foster competition, it should be supported. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that they remained neutral on that resolution because it was not a statutory change and they felt they should focus on items that actually need to be changed. Mayor Scruggs said that, once they get through the Resolutions Committee, all of the resolutions would then go to the Executive Committee. She said staff's attention should be directed towards those resolutions that come out with strong support. Councilmember Martinez asked if they remained neutral on Resolution 29 for the same reason. Ms. Rudibaugh suggested that this item would be more appropriate for school entities and the Department of Commerce. Mayor Scruggs stated that the first 33 issues have already passed through the Pre- Conference Resolutions Committee and, regardless of staff's recommendation, they will pass as one motion. With regard to Resolution 31, Councilmember Martinez referred to staff's comments that anything that helps another city is viewed as positive. He said that, since the issue does not affect the City of Glendale in any way, they should support it. Ms. Paschke said that, ideally, smaller communities would have one legislative representative; however, population and demographics make that difficult to achieve. Mayor Scruggs noted that there are some cities that are all within one district and they are begging to get another. Councilmember Goulet asked why staff was neutral with regard to Resolution 19. Ms. Rudibaugh explained that they had decided to remain neutral because they believed it could be difficult to implement. She said that if a city or town chose to take advantage of the opportunity, they would support them in their efforts. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Ms. Paschke to comment on Resolution 12. Ms. Paschke stated that the City of Peoria supported the resolution last session, but it died at the end. She said that they had brought it back in hopes of receiving full League support this year. She pointed out that it would require a constitutional amendment. She said they supported it last year and would support it next session as well. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he hoped the two newly elected representatives in District 17 were better informed as to how cities operate and had a more helpful attitude towards the City of Glendale. Mayor Scruggs asked the Councilmembers present if they had any objections to Resolutions 34, 35, 36, 37, or 38. No objections were voiced to staff's recommendations. The meeting was recessed for a short break. 11 5. WEST VALLEY STADIUM PROJECT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. James Mason, Business Development Manager. Councilmember Clark returned to the meeting for discussion of Agenda Item No. 5. At the Workshop session held on September 5, 2000, staff updated the Mayor and Council on the possibility of the West Valley cities and the City of Phoenix preparing a feasibility study for a new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals. This came about because of a site between near Loop 101 and Thomas Road being offered by Mr. John F. Long. At this Workshop session, the Mayor and Council gave direction to participate in a feasibility study if every West Valley city participated and with the understanding that the costs would be apportioned in the following manner: one-third from the City of Phoenix, one-third from the Long Properties, and one-third from the West Valley cities. The City Council directed staff to pursue participation in a feasibility study to accurately determine the costs and benefits of a football stadium at the John F. Long site and to provide the City Council with the information necessary to determine the City's future participation in the project. Since that time, there have been significant changes in the proposed process. First, the cost sharing will have to be increased. The first estimate of the feasibility study ranged from $30,000 to $75,000. It is now estimated to be $85,000, plus 4% to 5% for administrative costs to Westmarc. Secondly, Long Properties has indicated that they will not participate in the cost of a feasibility study. The new cost sharing model tentatively has the City of Phoenix contributing $25,000 and the City of Peoria contributing $15,000, with the remaining $45,000 and administrative costs to be raised by the other West Valley cities and possibly private sector contributions. It was staff's desire to discuss the latest proposal and the feasibility study and then discuss a possible contribution from the City of Glendale, based on the value of the feasibility study. The City Council reviewed the concept for the football stadium in the West Valley at its Workshop session held on September 5, 2000. There have been ongoing discussions between elected officials and staff from many of the West Valley cities regarding this issue. As previously discussed, the off-site improvements could cost between $40-126 million. The level of financial participation in the feasibility study and the value of participating therein would need to be discussed by the Mayor and City Council. The recommendation was to review the information presented to the Council and provide staff with direction. 12 Councilmember Lieberman said he thought that the Council had already decided to help fund the feasibility study. Mr. Mason stated that the Council had decided to help fund the feasibility study, but his help was based on the criteria the Council had set. Councilmember Lieberman asked for an explanation of the indirect benefits. Mr. Colson explained that indirect benefits would be the ancillary development that occurs around the stadium as a result of the first investment. He said that they include hotel, retail, and other development. Mayor Scruggs asked what information from the Glendale Scope was included in the Ernst and Young study. Mr. Mason explained that the Ernst and Young plan looks at site demographics, regional access, direct impacts of the stadium, and property comparables. He noted that the City wanted the study to include more specific traffic studies for the area, an environmental study, indirect impacts, and an actual appraisal of the property. He said that they were looking for justification of why each party should contribute a specific amount. He added that, at this point, it was up to the communities and John F. Long to negotiate. Mayor Scruggs asked if they had to be at that level of detail before submitting the proposal on November 7, 2000. Mr. Mason replied that it would be helpful. Mr. Colson said it was their position that, if the Council made the decision to invest or not based only on direct costs, the decision would be hard to justify. He suggested that Ernst and Young increase the size of the study by five miles. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if October 1, 2000 was still the deadline for the proposals. Mr. Mason said that October 1st was the original deadline; however, they were being flgxible. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that the election will be helk on November 7t . Mr. Mason said that submitting the proposal prior to November 7� was key. He noted that they did not know if any other proposals would be submitted. Councilmember Martinez asked how much money they had for the study. Mr. Beasley stated that it would cost $93,500 and they still needed $20,000 to $24,000. Councilmember Martinez asked if the other cities in the West Valley had contributed what they could afford. Mr. Beasley stated that this was the indication he had been given. Mayor Scruggs referred to a list of contributors, which states that contributions for each city were as follows: City of Phoenix - $25,000; City of Peoria - $15,000; City of Avondale - $5,000; City of Goodyear - $5,000; and City of Tolleson - $5,000. She said that the City of Surprise had decided to give $5,000 and the City of Litchfield Park would talk to its Council about contributing $3,000 to $5,000. She stated that she had not heard if the Town of Wickenburg had made a decision, but that it was going to discuss a contribution of $3,000 to $5,000. She said that FORA and the Sun City Homeowners Association said they would make a contribution, but did not know the amount. She stated that the Northwest Valley Chamber of Commerce would also make a contribution, thereby picking up the Town of Youngtown and the City of El Mirage. She stated that there would also be private sector contributions. Councilmember Clark stated that it would be appropriate for Westmarc to donate the administrative fees. She said that they were still $33,500 short in commitments at this point. She said it was interesting that they were going to ask each city how much they were willing to commit in principal to the project, based on a very general feasibility study. She stated that someone was paying $89,000 for a feasibility study that does not answer anyone's questions. She suggested that they require Ernst and Young to provide the information the cities need. 13 Mayor Scruggs asked if an explanation was given by Ernst and Young as to why the study was more expensive than the ones they had done for the Cities of Tempe and Mesa. Mr. Beasley said that the cost was higher because Mr. Skip Rimza, Mayor of the City of Phoenix, wanted the operational costs included and because the site is multi- functional. Mayor Scruggs stated that, at a meeting she had attended, Mayor Rimza did bring up operational issues, specifically additional police at events, public safety, and so forth. Councilmember Clark stated that those costs relate specifically to onsite operational costs. Councilmember Martinez asked, assuming the City participated in the feasibility study, what would happen if they did not raise the full amount. He also asked, assuming the study was done and it was determined that they did not want to continue, if it could be dropped at that point. Mr. Beasley stated that the option to do so was still available; however, the study had already begun. He suggested that they look at the contribution as a symbol of regional support rather than a business venture. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City of Glendale would be a partner if it made a contribution and the study came back favorable. Mr. Beasley stated that the City of Glendale would be a partner as long as it wanted to be, or until the next cash call. Councilmember Martinez said that, while the benefits could be great, he would like to think that the City could get its money back. He expressed his opinion that the City of Glendale should participate. He stated that they would know more as to whether or not they should proceed once the feasibility study had been completed. Councilmember Lieberman agreed that the City of Glendale should participate. He said that the City would benefit from the indirect benefits of the Loop 101 in Glendale. He noted that, at last year's balloon race event, the City estimated its police and in-kind services were worth $93,000. Councilmember Clark said that she was not averse to considering a charitable contribution. She stated that Item 4 of the feasibility study concerned her because it asked each community what its future level of involvement would be. She questioned how the City would begin to make that decision when their questions had not yet been answered and would not be answered in the feasibility study. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Councilmember Clark and said that they should be cautious. He noted that it is easy to say the indirect benefits will be substantial, but we do not really know what will come of this approach. He said that he had a lot of reservations about any further expenditure. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he did not believe this was a reasonable expenditure and he did not want to make a contribution. He said that the City was asked to participate because it would help guarantee a win at the election. He said that his opinion would be different if the stadium was going to be located within the City of Glendale. Councilmember Frate said that, although it goes against the City's conservative approach to fiscal responsibility, he was willing to participate as long as it was being considered as a charitable contribution. Councilmember Clark stated that no other district would benefit more than hers, but she did not believe it would pass at the election. She said that she did not want to be the one to stop the process; therefore, in terms of a charitable contribution and a show of support for her sister cities, she suggested that they match the City of Peoria's contribution of $15,000. She explained that, if the study was being done at its original 14 cost estimate, $15,000 would have made up the balance. She reiterated her opinion that, based on the information the study would generate, the City would not be able to determine the extent to which it would be willing to expend funds towards the project. She suggested that the donation be made, noting that it was a charitable contribution and there was no way the City would be able to answer Item 4 of the feasibility study based on the information it would receive. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City would be expected to indicate whether Glendale was in or out of the project when the feasibility study was completed. She noted that the City would not have the information on which to base that decision. She also noted that the City of Phoenix was in the project only if it could talk the Legislature into the tax increment funding scheme that ties in the Civic Center. She asked if the feasibility study was just a placeholder to get them past the election and, if it passes, they would then be asked to determine if they wanted to continue. Mr. Colson agreed that the City would not have a full understanding of the indirect benefits or costs involved after this feasibility study was completed. He stated, however, that the City would be expected to make a decision and participate in generating a proposal prior to the election. Clearly, a feasibility study that would identify where the indirect benefit was and was based on that benefit, who could participate, and how to create a financing mechanism would be of value to Glendale. Mayor Scruggs stated that she was very uncomfortable because she did not see Glendale going any further than the feasibility study. She said, however, in order to keep the West Valley involved, she would agree to participate in the feasibility study. She questioned why the City of Glendale should contribute $15,000, when private sector entities would benefit tremendously from the facility. She said that, while she did not agree that the City should contribute $15,000, she did agree that a smaller donation should be designated as a charitable contribution to show regional support. Councilmember Martinez said he would support contributing $15,000. He added that, if the Council felt this amount was too high, he would agree to contributing $10,000. Mayor Scruggs said that she believed the City would eventually drop out of this project because there would be no information regarding repayment or funding mechanisms. She pointed out that they would receive the results of the feasibility study on October 23` , giving them from October 24th to November 6th to develop a proposal. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the purpose of the feasibility study was to determine whether a stadium could and would exist, make a profit, and show a return to investors. Mr. Colson disagreed. He stated that this study would only report on direct benefits. Councilmember Lieberman disagreed that they would not learn anything from the feasibility study. He acknowledged that the study would not show indirect benefits, but said that it would show the direct benefits and whether there would be a return for the investors. He asked why the proposal had to be made prior to the election when they would not know until after the election if there was anything to make a proposal for. He said that he was in favor of a $15,000 investment. Mr. Colson expressed his concern that the direct benefit would not be sufficient to justify pursuing the project. He said staff feels that they know what the direct benefits of the stadium would be, based on substantial preliminary research the City has done. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the law states in terms of submitting the proposal prior to the election. Mr. Verburg stated that the State Statute does not require a proposal prior to the election. He explained that the Stadium District is requiring that anyone interested in participating should submit a proposal as part of its Request for Proposal (RFP) process. He noted that there is a sunset clause in the 15 legislation, creating a strict time constraint. Councilmember Lieberman stated that proposals were being required prior to the election because they would help sell the idea to the public. Mayor Scruggs asked for a definition of direct benefits. Mr. Colson explained that direct benefits was revenue derived from activities held in the stadium. He said that it would also include concessions and parking. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that the indirect benefits information they need relates to hotel, restaurant, and shopping revenue. Mr. Colson explained that indirect benefits relate to any additional ancillary investments made by developers. Mayor Scruggs stated that most of the City's previous economic development packages have been where a private entity spends money for investments and improvements in the public right-of-way and the City pays them back out of revenues generated at the site. She said that, in this situation, the City would be putting up the money in hopes that, as a result, something will occur that generates money within the City. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the feasibility study may show that it would not be in the City's best interest to proceed. Mayor Scruggs disagreed. She stated that the feasibility study would only show what would happen at the stadium location. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the feasibility study would identify funds available to be returned to investors, including municipalities. Mr. Colson said that, based on their knowledge, the best performing NFL (National Football League) stadium in the country has less than a one percent return. He said that the studies they had looked at indicated there was minimal or no direct benefit to a stadium. He pointed out that growth would occur in the area regardless of whether the stadium was approved. Councilmember Clark asked if the City could hire someone to look at the indirect benefits to the City of Glendale rather than spending money on this feasibility study. Mr. Colson stated that it would be possible if they were able to piggyback on the other study. He cautioned, however, that some decisions would still have to be made on assumptions. Councilmember Clark said that it would allow the City to know if there were any indirect benefits associated with the project. Mr. Colson agreed. Councilmember Goulet reiterated that, even under the best market conditions, the return was still very small. He said that they supported the concept, but the methodology to make an informed financial decision was not there. Councilmember Martinez stated that the Council supported making a contribution, but needed a consensus on the size of the contribution. He asked if the Council would support a $15,000 contribution. The Council decided that it would not. Councilmember Martinez asked if they would support a $10,000 contribution. Councilmember Lieberman noted that one percent of a $250 million season was not a bad profit. He said that, until the feasibility study was completed, there was no need to look into the indirect benefits. He said that he would support a $10,000 contribution. Vice Mayor Eggleston said that, at the last meeting, Mr. Colson had explained it was not a financially feasible plan for the West Valley. Mr. Colson clarified that his position was that, even under the best circumstances, the direct return was less than one percent and that it typically does not have a great impact. He said that this does not mean it is a bad deal. Vice Mayor Eggleston said that he would go along with the amount contributed by the Cities of Tolleson, Goodyear and Avondale. 16 Councilmember Clark stated that she would support "throwing away" $10,000 to show the City of Glendale's support of the West Valley communities. She said that she did not believe she would support the stadium based on the information they would receive from the feasibility study. Councilmember Frate said that it was hard to believe the Sun City Homeowners Association was willing to contribute. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that they had not decided on the amount. She said that their Presidents were going to the Board to recommend a contribution in the interest of supporting the West Valley. Mr. Frate suggested that the City refer to its contribution as a symbol of its support. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council had consensus on a $10,000 contribution. She said that, from her point of view, the contribution would allow the West Valley to stay in the game. She stated that, if they were to go further, they would have to commission an additional study and spend additional money. She stated that she was told by the Mesa Council that they would not proceed without first going to a vote of their people. She suggested that the City of Glendale may need to do the same. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 17