Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/16/2001 * 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 October 16, 2001 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. RESOLUTION TOPICS FOR THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh Duffy, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; Ms. Dana Tranberg, Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Mr. Jon Paladini, Deputy City Attorney. Each year, the League or Arizona Cities and Towns (League) asks jurisdictions to submit legislative resolutions for consideration by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolution Committee. The Resolution Committee determines the League's legislative priorities for the upcoming legislative session. At today's Workshop session, Intergovernmental Relations staff presented the resolutions which were reviewed by City of Glendale staff. They were seeking Council recommendations. Recommendations by the Glendale City Council will be forwarded to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Resolutions Committee. Proposed legislative resolutions can include changes to current laws that are burdensome or that 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 implemented and the identification of additional funding sources if appropriate). At the September 18, 2001 Council Workshop, the Intergovernmental Relations Department provided an explanation of the resolutions process. On September 28, 2001 , the League of Arizona Cities and Towns held a pre-conference meeting, at which time each proposed resolution was discussed. Those resolutions which received the committee's approval will be considered at the Resolutions Committee meeting on October 24, 2001. 1 The recommendation was to review the proposed resolutions and provide policy direction for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Councilmember Clark said, contrary to staff's recommendation that they remain neutral, she would like the Council to vote in favor of five resolutions. She explained that she was not requesting that Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy or Ms. Tranberg advocate for the resolutions, only that the Council vote in favor of the resolutions at the upcoming League Conference. She said she believed they should support Resolution 9 because it is important that the City retain and/or develop trauma centers. With regard to Resolution 36, Councilmember Clark suggested that they support going to the International Building Code. She said Resolution 40 may never move forward, but in- home care will become more important as the current generation ages. She expressed her opinion that Resolutions 43 and 44 should be supported to protect economically disadvantaged residents from the high interest rates and usury fees charged by payday loan establishments and predatory mortgage lending. In response to Councilmember Clark's comments regarding Resolution 9, Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy agreed that the issue of trauma centers should be addressed. She stated, however, that she did not believe they would be able to secure the necessary state funding to do so this year. Mayor Scruggs noted that many of the resolutions that made it through the pre- conference meeting would fall out at the Yuma meeting because they did not fit within the criteria. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the State came up with a lot of money for major surgeries on undocumented people. He expressed his opinion that the State could also come up with the money to support trauma centers. He said he was in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Goulet said he would also like to see the Council support Resolution 9. He noted that alcohol often plays a part in why people go to trauma centers. He suggested that they hold the industry at least partially responsible for the costs associated with trauma center visits if alcohol is involved. Mr. Paladini said, while it is possible to hold bars or liquor stores liable for selling liquor to a person who is obviously intoxicated, it involves a litigation process. He said the proposed resolution centers around uninsured and underinsured people who use the trauma centers and cannot afford to pay the exorbitant costs charged for their care. Councilmember Goulet asked if the State had considered placing a tax on liquor that could act as a base for funding. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy said they had not discussed it in detail, but she would assume it would have a lot of opposition at the Legislature, given that group's lobbyists. Councilmember Goulet agreed that there would be opposition. He stated, however, that he believed the industry should be held responsible for the costs of treating people who are injured due, at least in part, to alcohol. Mr. Paladini said the resolution is geared toward situations where an injured person has no insurance and no one is at fault for the injury. Mayor Scruggs said the City of Tucson had done nothing to demonstrate what percentage of trauma patients is related to accidents involving alcohol. 2 Councilmember Martinez asked if trauma centers were typically found only in larger cities. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy said there was one trauma center in the City of Tucson, five in Maricopa County, and two in Pima County. Councilmember Martinez asked if trauma centers treat injured persons regardless of insurance. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy said they did. Ms. Rudibaugh restated staff's position that this would not be a good year to address the issue because of the State's current budget situation. Mayor Scruggs stated that the events of September 11 emphasized the need for trauma centers. She suggested that the cities of Tucson and Florence should have structured a resolution that directed the State to begin working with providers to find ways to disperse trauma care throughout the city. Councilmember Frate agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He said he believed the Council should remain neutral on the issue. Councilmember Clark said, regardless of whether the resolution ultimately succeeds, supporting the resolution would send a message to the Legislature. She noted that HMOs (health maintenance organizations) are dropping coverage in rural areas of the State and she asked where people in those areas are expected to go for service. She stated that Arizona is one of the few states that do not already financially support trauma centers. She agreed that the terrorist attacks called attention to the need for trauma centers. Vice Mayor Eggleston said, while the resolution was well intended, it was not completely thought out. Mayor Scruggs said the Council would remain neutral, but she would try to speak in favor of the State commencing discussions with providers to determine ways in which they could create trauma centers throughout the State. Councilmember Martinez asked if other cities were supporting the resolution. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy said it had not been discussed in great length at the pre-conference meeting. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the issue be assigned to a committee for further research. She said those who attended the pre-conference meeting were torn between believing that the resolution was the right thing to do and the State's lack of money. With regard to Resolutions 35 and 36, Councilmember Lieberman said the problem with PVC pipes had not gone away. He asked if the resolution would cost money or simply create stricter codes. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy said the issues addressed in Resolutions 35 and 36 were very complex and more information was needed to determine their true impacts. She recommended that Council remain neutral until additional information was obtained and reviewed. She said the Council cannot support both resolutions and should consider each one separately. Councilmember Clark asked about voluntary consensus. Mayor Scruggs explained that although the building inspectors set codes, other departments that are impacted by the codes provide input. 3 Councilmember Clark withdrew her request for consideration of Resolutions 35 and 36. Councilmember Clark restated her concerns regarding Resolution 40. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Federal government had a similar program in place. Councilmember Clark stated that the Department of Economic Security (DES) provides limited resources to seniors. Ms. Tranberg said she was not aware of any particular programs. She noted, however, that the DES and the City of Glendale provide some funding. She explained that their reason for remaining neutral was that it asked for additional State funding. Councilmember Frate said DES was in the process of developing new funding allocation formulas and, therefore, it would be a bad time to advocate for extra money. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council would remain neutral. Councilmember Clark restated her concerns regarding Resolutions 43 and 44. Ms. Rudibaugh Duffy explained that Resolution 43 was looking to reduce the current maximum fee from 15% to 12%. She said staff had recommended the Council remain neutral because they felt it was an "unusable powers" issue. Councilmember Martinez said he could support Resolutions 43 and 44. Councilmember Lieberman stated he, also, supported both resolutions because he is in favor of anything that strengthens usury laws. Ms. Tranberg noted that Congress was actively looking at a Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act. She said it was possible that anything the State passes would be superceded by Federal law and, therefore, their recommendation was to remain neutral. Councilmember Lieberman noted that an anti-harassment law is already in place and limits the hours that loan companies and banks can call in an attempt to collect. Mayor Scruggs said she supported Resolution 43. She suggested that they ask the City of Phoenix to define their position with regard to the Congressional action. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Paladini said short term lenders are regulated by the State Banking Authority and are assessed a license fee. He noted that the Federal regulation would only affect federally-insured lenders. He said he did not know if payday lenders were federally insured. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that the Council should support Resolution 43 and remain neutral on Resolution 44 to see what Congress does. With regard to Resolutions 14 and 15, Councilmember Goulet suggested that they send a message urging the Legislature to work with citizen groups to find other funding sources. Councilmember Frate mentioned Resolution 32. He asked what the Council could do to gain more support. Ms. Tranberg explained that they were not actively lobbying, but wanted to communicate the importance of the funding. She said, although the resolution had a lot of support, they encouraged the Council to continue talking with the delegation to stress its importance. 4 2. GLENDALE GATEWAY AND MANISTEE TOWN CENTER (COYOTES) DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. Tim Martens, with the law firm of Gammage Burnham; and Mr. Steve Ellman with The Ellman Companies. City Staff provided an update on the Coyotes - Glendale Gateway/Manistee Town Center development projects. Specific items discussed include a review of the financial structure, including financial concepts being considered for inclusion in the development agreement. In April of 2001 , the Council unanimously approved a memorandum of agreement with the Coyotes and Ellman Companies to develop the Glendale Gateway Arena/Mixed- Use Project and redevelop the Manistee Town Center. Council directed staff to negotiate development agreements for two development projects that met the mutual objectives of the Coyotes/Ellman Companies and the City of Glendale. Staff has been working with the Coyotes/Ellman Companies to structure the agreement in such a manner as to ensure a positive, long-term working relationship between all parties. As a result of the action taken by the Council, the City of Glendale will be the home to the National Hockey League (NHL) Coyotes and a mixed-use development consisting of at least 1.6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office, and residential development. In addition, the Ellman Companies have agreed to redevelop the Manistee Town Center site, which will result in a major improvement to the city center area and provide a new amenity to the City. Staff is working with the Mayor and Council, as well as various other community groups, to discuss the project and answer questions. The City of Glendale has dedicated a portion of its web site to these projects and has also established a special phone hotline for those without Internet access. The City has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Ellman Companies to develop Glendale Gateway and redevelop the Manistee Town Center. The City's financial commitment is to provide funding of up to $180 million, over a thirty-year period, in exchange for a specific amount of development (at least 1.6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office, and residential development) according to the terms and conditions, which will be outlined in the development agreement. 5 The planned development will result in increased revenue, which will help support general services, pay the debt service on the $180 million, and provide additional police and fire service throughout the City. This project will also accelerate development in the Glendale Gateway Area, resulting in increased amenities, job opportunities, and tax base; and significantly increase property values and assessed valuation. This item was presented to the Council for information, discussion and staff direction. Councilmember Goulet asked when the first public meeting would be held. Mr. Ellman said the site plan should be ready this Friday (Qctober 19t ) and the first public meeting on Loop 101 would be held tonight (October 16"). Councilmember Frate stated that he was surprised to see the project progressing as quickly as it has been. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Colson about the City's position on demolition. Mr. Colson said they had arranged for the City to do the demolition and be reimbursed at a later date so that the City could retain control of the site. Councilmember Clark asked about the leasing agreements. Mr. Colson explained that the Ellman Company would purchase land through a promissory note and repay the City through the proceeds of the sale and lease of the various parcels. He noted that the agreement states repayment will be complete by the end of the third year. Mr. Martens stressed that the agreement does not state the City will act as a landlord. Councilmember Clark asked if development could extend as long as December 2007. Mr. Martens said the agreement effective date acts as the trigger and the City's note has to be repaid in full within 60 days of that date. Councilmember Clark asked why the agreement was not written for repayment in three to four years if that was the expected repayment period. Mr. Martens stated that it would be unfair for the City to hold Mr. Ellman to the tightest possible timeframe. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Mr. Lynch clarified that "net" is based on actual costs. Councilmember Goulet stated that a lot of people were concerned about the buffering and landscaping that would be provided. He thanked Mr. Ellman for addressing those concerns. He said he was encouraged by the list of potential tenants and believed the project would forever change that area of the City. Councilmember Martinez noted that the City purchased the property because it was on the verge of being utilized for one big swap meet. He thanked everyone involved for their hard work. He said he was confident that the few remaining issues would be resolved. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the developer had been determined. Mr. Ellman responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Lieberman asked to see a copy of the City's note. Mr. Martens said copies of the City's Note and the Deed of Trust would be provided once the agreement has been completed. Councilmember Lieberman said he would be delighted to see Manistee Town Center active again. Mayor Scruggs asked when the blanks in the agreement discussed at the last meeting would be filled in. Mr. Colson explained that there are a couple specific issues still on the table. He stated that they hoped to make a recommendation for approval within the next two weeks. Mr. Lynch said they were working through the financial analysis to 6 ensure that costs have been clearly identified. Mr. Martens said, based on his recent conversations with Mr. Ellman's attorneys, they were in agreement on the fundamental concepts in the agreement. He said one more meeting would be necessary to finalize the numbers. Mayor Scruggs asked how they could guarantee repaying 100% of the City's costs within five years before the site plan had been finalized. Mr. Lynch explained that the guarantee is based on the conceptual site plan. He acknowledged that substantial changes to the plan could effect the amount of development and, in turn, extend the repayment period. He said their ultimate goal was to have a viable project that would contribute over the long term through sales tax. Mayor Scruggs said the City entered into the project to remove blight from a non- performing part of the City; however, they have a fiduciary responsibility to other areas of the City to return funds to the General Fund as soon as possible. Mr. Ellman said they had received the draft agreement and had made minor modifications. He said he did not believe there were any significant issues that would keep the development agreement from being signed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 7