Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/7/2004 * 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 7, 2004 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, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FINANCING PLANS FOR STADIUM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Art Lynch, Chief Financial Officer and Horatio Skeete, Deputy City Manager This is a request for the City Council to review and provide direction regarding two financing alternatives for financing stadium-related infrastructure improvements. The alternatives include a Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) bonds financing alternative and a Cardinals/Arizona Sports and Tourism (AZSTA) financing alternative. Staff will present both items to the Council, outline the advantages and disadvantages of both, and request direction in order to finalize the financial structure for all stadium related infrastructure. The goal is to finalize an agreement with the Arizona Cardinals and the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) that either incorporates the MPC bonds financing structure or the Cardinals/AZSTA finance structure in an effort to deliver the best possible sports facility and public infrastructure to the community, residents of Glendale, and the National Football League (NFL). On July 13, 2004, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the City Manager to continue negotiations with the Arizona Cardinals and AZSTA concerning utilizing AZSTA bonds instead of a Community Facilities District (CFD). Prior to the AZSTA/Cardinals proposal to finance the infrastructure, the CFD was put in place as the financing mechanism. 1 Since July 13, 2004, staff has been working with the Cardinals and AZSTA to define the conceptual finance structure. Staff also continued to analyze another finance plan, the MPC, as an alternative to the plan presented on July 13, 2004. The MPC method was provided to the City Council as another alternative given certain unfavorable aspects of the AZSTA proposal, as originally presented. Since then, staff has held numerous meetings with the Cardinals and AZSTA and has negotiated a revised AZSTA finance plan. If the MPC is recommended as the finance method by the City Council, the MPC would replace the need for the Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance the city's $32 million obligation in infrastructure that specifically relates to the stadium, as stated in the amended development agreement approved in July of 2003. However, the CFD would not be eliminated until the completion of the financing of all infrastructure, and when all potential liabilities to the city have been eliminated. Staff will present the revised Cardinals/AZSTA finance structure in addition to the MPC structure. The revised Cardinals/AZSTA plan is a result of meetings with city staff, Cardinals, and the AZSTA. The advantages and disadvantages of this plan are also outlined below. Staff has also attached to the council communication for this Workshop the August 12, 2004 Memorandum to the City Council which outlined the two finance structures prior to the recent negotiations with the AZSTA/Cardinals and the changes to their proposal. The city and AZSTA entered into a development agreement in August of 2002 and September of 2002. Each agreement was amended in July of 2003. At the July 1, 2003 City Council Workshop, staff provided an overview of the CFD process. On July 22, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3699 to form a CFD. On April 27, 2004, the City Council met as the CFD Board of Directors. On July 13, 2004, the Council adopted a resolution to conceptually approve an alternate AZSTA funding approach. City staff has since been working with the Cardinals and AZSTA as a result of direction from the City Council to finalize a Memorandum of Agreement. The economic benefits to the community include: • Increased sales tax revenue from future development; • Creation and retention of jobs in Glendale; • A quality commercial development; • Delivery of a state-of-the-art sports facility to the community; • Provision of needed infrastructure improvements; • Provision of a minimum 4,000-5,000 overflow parking spaces for game days; • Allow 4,000-5000 overflow parking to also be used as youth fields for the community; • Enhanced synergy with adjacent developments; • Extension of 95th Avenue improves traffic flow for the Sports Complex; and 2 • Minimizes neighborhood - impacts east of 91st Avenue. The elimination of the CFD will not impact the finances of the city. In either plan, excess excise taxes would be received by the city and used for additional services. In the MPC, the city will receive 1/3 of excise taxes and ticket surcharges for tickets sold above 42,000, based on the July 2003 Cardinals/AZSTA proposal. In the current AZSTA proposal, the city will receive 1/6 of excess excise taxes and 50% sales of ticket surcharges for tickets sold above 42,000. The MPC financing structure proposed to the City Council provides some benefits for all parties involved. The advantages to using this financing structure are as follows: • Previously agreeable to the Cardinals/AZSTA; • City has successfully issued MPC bonds for the last 19 years; • Allows the city to sell the bonds within 45-60 days; • Revenues generated from the stadium will reimburse the city for excise taxes used to pay debt service; and • Takes advantage of city's higher bond ratings. The disadvantages are as follows: • Slightly reduce the available bond capacity by the amount of the debt; • City to establish bond reserves in order to minimize impact of attendance fluctuation; • City to fund cost overruns, contingencies, and capitalized interest during construction; and • City to fund bonds utilizing the third level priority for repayment, which could be more costly. The advantages and disadvantages to the Cardinals/AZSTA finance plan, as revised in the recent AZSTA proposal, are also outlined below and provide benefits for all parties involved: Advantages • The NFL Cardinals are responsible for all overruns in cost of on-site parking and 95th Avenue; • Any initial city advanced costs with Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to be reimbursed by the Cardinals; • The city shares in excess revenues after debt service; • The city is not responsible for building 93`d Avenue or the 300 foot alignment; • The AZSTA does not retain all the sales tax in perpetuity; • Cardinals/AZSTA do not receive any state shared revenue from the agreement; 3 • Required overflow parking is reduced from 6,000 spaces to 5,000; and • Cardinals/AZSTA to pay for the Pedestrian Plaza. Disadvantages • The City receives no interest earning on new cost advanced to the project. The recommendation was to review this item and provide direction to the City Manager so that a Memorandum of Agreement with the Arizona Cardinals, AZSTA and the city can be finalized and brought forward for formal approval. Mayor Scruggs asked if there is a limit on how much MPC debt the city can have outstanding at any one time. Mr. Lynch responded yes, explaining the limit is based on revenue coverage. He said revenue has to be two-times the amount of debt. Mayor Scruggs asked how close the city is to that ratio at this time. Mr. Lynch said the city currently has 5.5 times coverage. He pointed out the importance of revenue coverage in terms of the city's bond ratings. Mayor Scruggs asked if the two times revenue to debt ratio applies solely to MPC debt. Mr. Lynch responded yes. Mayor Scruggs asked what the city's ratio would be if it were to engage in the MPC financing. Mr. Lynch said the proposed issuance is approximately $32 million, which would result in about $3 million per year in additional cost. He estimated the revenue to debt ratio would be closer to 3.5 or 4. He expressed his opinion the impact of the $32 million would be slight since the excise base is a growing base. Mayor Scruggs asked if using MPC bonds would delay or prevent any other planned project the city has in its CIP that would have otherwise used MPC bonds. Mr. Lynch answered no, explaining there has not been additional financing proposed. He pointed out, however, additional projects could be done with the capacity if not used for this purpose. Mayor Scruggs asked if using MPC bonds for the stadium financing would preclude the city from using MPC bonds for other projects over the next few years. Mr. Lynch said there could be a slight impact, but he could not say it would preclude their use. Mayor Scruggs asked what excise taxes have been considered for paying debt service. Mr. Lynch stated the sales taxes generated within the Community Facility District (CFD). Mayor Scruggs asked if they are referring to sales taxes generated by anything built at any point in time within the district. Mr. Lynch said, while it would no longer be a CFD, the revenue streams remain the same as if the CFD still exists. Mr. Paladini clarified the sales tax revenue will come from transactions or business activities associated with events within the facility site. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs sales tax revenue generated by uses developed on the residual property would be excluded. Councilmember Lieberman clarified the revenue to debt ratio relates to the city's annual payments on the debt service rather than the total amount of the debt. He asked how certain is the $32 million figure. Mr. Lynch said it has been their intention since the beginning to issue bonds in the $32 million range. Councilmember Lieberman said he heard the total debt could reach as high as $60 million, depending on the final contractor's price. He asked if the city has anything in writing from the contractor indicating the actual cost. Mr. Skeete explained the $60 million figure was an estimate they received from the Cardinals on the total cost of the infrastructure, noting other revenue sources are expected to contribute $28 million toward that cost. Councilmember Lieberman asked if 95d' and 93`d Avenues are included in the $32 million. Mr. Beasley said revisions have occurred based on what the AZSTA ha§s recommended. He stated 93r Avenue is not being considered at this time, but 95 4 Avenue is being considered bec@use of the impact it has in terms of traffic mitigation. He confirmed the funding for 95t Avenue will come through the CIP and will not have an impact on the city's bonding ratio. Councilmember Lieberman asked how confident the city is that attendance will exceed 42,000. Mr. Lynch said their discussions with the AZSTA and the Cardinals have always involved attendance above 42,000. He stated, while attendance has historically varied season to season, there is a significant feeling that a lot of that is related directly to the summer heat in Arizona and the facilities. Councilmember Lieberman asked if sales taxes from Super Bowl Experience events held on the grounds surrounding the stadium will go into the bonding fund. Mr. Lynch stated he anticipates events held directly around the facility will be restricted to the NFL. Mr. Paladini explained the only restriction is on ticket sales, stating everything else generated outside the stadium is taxable. He stated the MPC financing has all stadium, NFL Experience and event sales tax revenue going to the city which is then used to pay debt service. He said the Alternate Funding proposal has events on the stadium facility site going to pay debt service on the STA bonds. Mayor Scruggs asked if there is a new agreement that depicts what is being discussed today. Mr. Beasley explained the provisions that have been negotiated and discussed over the past two weeks are outlined in their presentation. He said the September 2004 agreement will be updated once Council provides direction. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the presentation highlights only excerpts of the agreement staff felt were important; stating Council may have questions about other aspects of the agreement. She asked staff to make copies of the agreement for Council. Councilmember Clark referred to a memo in Council's packet, stating the third bullet in the memo which says the city keeps all excise revenues for additional future projects differs slightly from the agreement. She asked which bullet point is the most current. Mr. Lynch explained the excise tax revenues generated within the "former" CFD district would go back into the city. He said the city will still have the excise taxes if MPC bonds are issued, but other revenue streams will also go toward paying the debt service. Councilmember Clark asked what specific infrastructure costs the $32 million will cover. Mr. Lynch stated it will cover the debt funded portion of the streets, water and sewer improvements. He offered to provide the project description, detailing the various components. Mr. Skeete presented a list of all infrastructure needs around the stadium, stating the debt service will cover a portion of the list. Councilmember Clark asked if the city's CIP contribution toward the infrastructure continues to be $3.5 million. Mr. Skeete responded yes. He stated the $61 miljjon in infrastructure improvements include Bethany Home Foad between 91St and 99t Avenues, a Park-and-Ride lot, the Maryland overpass, 95 Avenue Metween Maryland and Bethany Home Road, Maryland improvements between 95 and 99th Avenues, the pedestrian plgga, sewer and water infrastructure along Bethany Home Road and some portion of 95 Avenue, an odor control sanitary lift station and odor control site, storm drain improvements, and the installation of electrical, water, and natural gas lines. He said they have not yet decided which of those infrastructure improvements will be covered specifically with the $32 million. Councilmember Clark asked if the city's share will be capped at $32 million, regardless of which financing structure is ultimately chosen and whether or not the cost of the total infrastructure package increases. Mr. Skeete said their intention is to use $32 million as the gauge of what is delivered. He stated additional improvements or increased costs associated with those improvements are expected to 5 be funded from another revenue source. Mr. Lynch agreed the city's cost could increase if the infrastructure costs increase. Mayor Scruggs summarized the $32 million in the MPC bonds or AZSTA financing proposal would remain the same, but the $28 million could rise. She noted CTOC previously refused a request to use half-cent sales tax funds for projects that were not initially included on the ballot. She asked where money would come from to fund these street improvement projects if CTOC once again refuses to use half-cent sales tax funds. Mr. Skeete explained the agreement they are currently negotiating with the STA calls for the bonds to remain at $32 million and the city or STA to be assigned responsibility for the remaining projects. He said the responsible party will be held responsible for any cost overruns associated with their projects. Councilmember Clark read from the agreement, stating, "The city will pay for, manage, construct and install or provide for the payment, management, construction and installation of the following improvements, including permitting and inspection fees, cost overruns and land acquisition where needed." She said the agreement goes on to list approximately six items for which the city is directly responsible. Councilmember Martinez asked what happens if revenues are not sufficient to cover the debt service on the $32 million. Mr. Lynch explained if the MPC issuance is the responsibility of the city, the city will have to pay the debt service. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the cost of transference of the plumbing from the cooling district is included in the cost of the stadium or if a separate bond issue will be done in the future to cover that cost. Mr. Beasley explained the cooling district was built to adequate capacity and was an anticipated cost that was incorporated into the stadium costs. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the Amended and Restated Cardinal Stadium Development Agreement says Glendale will hire contract inspectors funded by the CFD to conduct all necessary reviews and inspections for the facility and CFD infrastructure. She asked where the money for those contract inspectors will come from under the MPC scenario. Mr. Lynch explained, under either scenario, the inspections to be carried out will be paid for from the proceeds of the bonds. Mayor Scruggs noted the city's General Fund budget did not take into account the cost of the inspectors and other people who will work on the project. Mr. Lynch agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked again what will happen if CTOC decides it will not absorb the cost of certain street improvements. Mr. Lynch said the city would have to look at prioritizing the proceeds if a project that was part of the prior $32 million bond issuance could not be funded. Mr. Skeete noted the original project list included the Maryland overpass and Bethany Home Road interchange; explaining contributions for that project were scheduled to come from ADOT, federal funds and a city match using CTOC funds. He stated the request taken to CTOC last week was for CTOC to cover any cost overruns in the event the costs associated with those projects were greater than originally anticipated. He said CTOC approved, in principal, the additional funding needed to cover only the cost overruns on projects with which they are already associated. He stated CTOC found there was sufficient data in the narrative of the ballot to fund associated overruns. Councilmember Clark said the MPC financing mechanism was originally touted as providing significant advantages to the city, but is now considered to have cost disadvantages. Mr. Lynch explained the cost of issuing MPC bonds is less than issuing 6 CFD bonds; however, issuing a third lien bond, as compared to an MPC bond is slightly higher. Mayor Scruggs asked how much will the city establish in bond reserves to minimize the impact of attendance fluctuation. She expressed her opinion the disadvantages appear to be risky and expensive. Mr. Lynch explained the reserve is intended to provide the same protection that the August 2002 proposal called for when it required the Cardinals to establish a $5 million bond reserve guarantee. He said either $5 million of the $32 million could be placed in reserve, or the city could add an additional $5 million to the bond issuance to be held in reserve. He pointed out the monies are restricted and not expended unless an unforeseen event that meets specific criteria under the bond covenants occurs. Mayor Scruggs asked if the total bond issuance will increase to $37 million to allow for a $5 million bond reserve. Mr. Lynch said, while that is one option, they could also build the reserve up from excess revenues. Mayor Scruggs pointed out build up of revenue will not occur until later down the road and will not help with overruns that occur early in the project. Mr. Lynch explained the structure of the bonds could stipulate that the funds go to pay the debt first and then contribute to the reserve with revenues over and above that distributed to pay for other items in the waterfall. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs the money for contingencies and capitalized interest will also come out of the MPC bond sale. Mayor Scruggs asked about the impact of attendance fluctuations. Mr. Lynch explained attendance is directly related to the revenues the city will use to repay the obligations. He said a number of scenarios have been run using 42,000 attendees as the base case scenario. Mr. Skeete pointed out 42,000 would provide the city with the necessary two- times coverage. Mr. Paladini noted the 42,000 attendance figure is the number they have always used to determine revenues. He said the Cardinal's $5 million reserve will not change if the city does the MPC and those funds will be used first if revenues are not sufficient to cover the debt service. He stated additional revenue generated by an attendance in excess of 42,000 would first go toward servicing the debt and then 50 percent will go to the $5 million reserve fund and 50 percent to reimburse the Cardinals for the land acquisition cost. He expressed his opinion attendance will exceed 42,000 per game for the first few years just because of the novelty of the new stadium. He explained the city's $5 million reserve fund will prevent the city from having to tap into the General Fund should attendance drop below 42,000 at some point in the future. Councilmember Martinez expressed concern about using 42,000 attendance as the minimum attendance level, noting a newspaper article stated averageattendanceis about 36,000. He pointed out the AZSTA proposal only gives the city 116th of the excise taxes and 50 percent of ticket surcharges over 42,000 attendance. Mr. Paladini explained revenues for the first three years of the life of the MPC bonds will go to repay the debt service, with excess revenues split 50 percent to the reserve and 50 percent to repay the Cardinals for the land acquisition. He said it is not until after the sale of the bonds in approximately 30 years that the excess revenues are split with the STA, noting at that time the city will also receive half of the parking revenue and one-third of the sales tax revenue. He said the city's share of parking and sales tax revenue will be cut in half if the STA sells the bonds. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city receives taxes from the Fiesta Bowl. Mr. Paladini said the city receives sales tax, but parking revenue for the Fiesta Bowl goes to the Fiesta Bowl. Councilmember Lieberman said issuing $37 million in MPC bonds is a possibility, as long as the $5 million is placed in a reserve account that cannot be used to cover cost overruns. Mr. Lynch assured Councilmember Lieberman the $5 million reserve would be used only for debt service. 7 Mayor Scruggs said she believes the Cardinals indicated they no longer want to establish a $5 million reserve. Mr. Lynch said the Cardinal's $5 million reserve was last mentioned in the July 2003 proposal, noting it was removed from the most recent AZSTA proposal dated July 13, 2004. Mr. Paladini explained if the city chooses to proceed with the MPC financing mechanism, the July 2003 development agreement with the Cardinals obligates the Cardinals to establish a $5 million reserve. He said the reserve is not part of the alternate financing proposal, but will not have a negative effect on the city because the city is not involved in selling the bonds and repayment of the bonds will be the responsibility of the STA. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the Assistant City Manager's signature on the 2003 agreement was dated July 24, 2003, but the notary's signature was dated July 24, 2002. Mr. Paladini clarified the agreement was signed in 2003. Councilmember Clark asked if the AZSTA alternative allows the city to charge for turf parking if it is building the 5,000 overflow parking spaces. Mr. Skeete responded no. Councilmember Clark asked if staffs presentation summarizes the draft agreement. Mr. Skeete cautioned they have not reviewed the draft agreement in minute detail, clarifying their presentation reflects the discussions they have had during the month of August. Councilmember Clark referenced Page 3 of the agreement, Item 1.4B City Pledged Stadium Taxes, stating it sounds like the city is once again pledging city revenues to support the bonds. Mr. Skeet explained that section is in both alternatives and refers to the 1.2 percent sales taxes collected inside the stadium that will be used to repay the debt. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out an inconsistency in the documents, explaining one of the bullet points says in either plan excise taxes would be received by the city and used for additional services, whereas Item 1.4B says the city irrevocably assigns, transfers and pledges all sales, transition, privilege, license, excise or similar taxes to the Authority. Mr. Skeete reiterated his caution not to rely too heavily on the document given to Council, explaining they have not had a chance to correct any misstatements. Councilmember Lieberman stated he cannot make up his mind until a final memorandum of agreement is available. Councilmember Martinez said it was his understanding that the Cardinals and STA have approved the document. Mr. Beasley said the parties have reached a conceptual agreement, but the final agreements cannot be developed until Council has determined which structure will be utilized. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if staff has a higher level of comfort with one of the proposed financing mechanisms. Mr. Beasley said there are advantaged and disadvantages to each proposal. Mr. Lynch said the AZSTA proposal has some advantages in that it allows the city to share in excess revejiues and excise taxes in the future and removes certain construction challenges on 93 Avenue. He expressed his opinion, however, the revenue difference between the MPC and AZSTA proposals will not be substantial since revenue sharing is a component in both plans. Councilmember Clark asked which proposal provides the city with a greater share of the revenue. Mr. Lynch said the MPC alternative provides the city with a higher revenue share, but over the 30 years, there is little difference. Councilmember Clark asked if the AZSTA proposal gives the city a lesser share of responsibility, but at the cost of lower revenue sharing in the future. Mr. Lynch agreed AZSTA is compensated for taking on some of the risk; pointing out, though, the excess revenues under either scenario go toward maintaining and renovating the stadium. Councilmember Clark 8 asked if the county has to make any provision for maintaining the facility. Mr. Lynch responded no. Councilmember Clark asked if the city is in any way a bond guarantor under the AZSTA proposal. Mr. Lynch stated there is no plan for the city to guarantee the bonds. Councilmember Clark referenced Section 3.6 on Page 6 of the draft agreement, stating the title leads her to believe the city is indemnifying the completion bonds. Mr. Overdorff said the STA is contemplating securing the bonds with a pledge of their state received taxes as well as excise taxes and ticket surcharges. He stated it is not uncommon in a security transaction where they are relying on information the city provides about its excise taxes to get indemnification that the information and offering document is correct. He said they do not believe it would be acceptable for the indemnification to go beyond that and it in no way is intended to be a guarantee of the bonds. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the city cannot provide historical data on taxes produced on the property because it has been a farm. She said the only information they could provide would be tax information based on their estimated attendance levels. Mr. John Overdorff, Bond Counsel, said the city is not responsible for any projections. He assured the Council they will closely scrutinize that section of the agreement. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Lynch explained the original proposal called for interest to be paid on any funds advanced to accelerate a project. He said the AZSTA proposal offers no interest on advanced funds since it is a reimbursement transaction. Councilmember Martinez said he likes that, under the AZSTA proposal, the STA would sell the bonds to fund the $32 million in infrastructure projects. He pointed out the August 12 memo listed 17 disadvantages, whereas the present proposal only identifies one disadvantage. He expressed his opinion the AZSTA proposal is the better option. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city will still lease land for overflow parking and youth sports as had been discussed in a previous executive session. Mr. Skeete responded yes, stating, however, they intend to pursue a smaller portion of land. Mayor Scruggs said it was her understanding the city cannot charge for parking or other events to offset the cost of leasing the land. She asked that a future discussion involve the cost aspect of the land and the city's responsibility to provide overflow parking. Mr. Skeete agreed to address those issues at a future meeting. He confirmed the costs will be in the expense column for the city's General Fund unless an alterative revenue source can be found. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city will still be required to contribute $1.5 million towards construction of the youth fields. Mr. Skeete said their discussions have been that the STA will give the city up to $1 million and the city will be responsible for the remaining $500,000. Mayor Scruggs said, based on staffs presentation, she strongly favors the AZSTA proposal because she believes the sooner the city can extract itself from their business the better off it will be. She said revenues to pay the cost of building the infrastructure come from the same source, regardless of which party is responsible. She stated, while excess revenue to the city many years down the road may be lower, the real benefit to the city will come from the activities spawned by the stadium itself. She said she is somewhat concerned about doing away with the CFD once the bond transaction is completed and would like assurances that there is no other reason the CFD will be needed. She directed the City Manager to negotiate and draft a Memorandum of Agreement and return to the Council at a workshop for further discussion. 9 Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Martinez and Mayor Scruggs; stating, however; it is apparent the city will have to find alternative revenue sources to cover maintenance of the turf parking area. She said she is concerned that the city's revenue sharing is decreased from one-third to one-sixth, suggesting they increase the share slightly to cover the cost of maintaining the turf parking. She stated she is comfortable moving forward with the AZSTA proposal as long as the bullet points referenced in staffs presentation remain unchanged. Mr. Paladini pointed out the current draft of the agreement restricts revenue generation with regard to the turf parking strictly during events. He said the city is free to charge fees for using the turf area for other purposes. He referenced Section 1.4C in the draft agreement, stating the forgiveness of a $2.9 million reimbursement was the trade-off for the turf parking revenue. Councilmember Clark pointed out the language says the Cardinals will be reimbursed the $2.9 million out of excess revenues after repayment of the bonds. Mr. Paladini agreed, but clarified that the city will no longer have a $2.9 million debt obligation to the Cardinals. Mr. Beasley offered to return to Council with alternatives for addressing the maintenance issue. Councilmember Lieberman said it has not been proven to him that there will be adequate revenue for the city to repay the bonds. He said he would like to reduce the minimum attendance level to 40,000, questioning whether the Cardinals have ever averaged 42,000 attendees. He said he will need to see more complete documents for both proposals before he is comfortable making a decision. Mayor Scruggs summarized she and Councilmembers Clark, Martinez and Goulet are comfortable proceeding with the AZSTA proposal. She said she and Councilmembers Clark, Eggleston, and Martinez were concerned about the maintenance costs associated with the turf parking/youth sports field and would like staff to negotiate with the STA and the Cardinals to secure a way for the city to recoup some of that cost. She stated Councilmembers Clark and Martinez agree with Councilmember Lieberman that the attendance level should be reduced to 40,000, but she believes staffs negotiations should focus on recouping maintenance costs for the turf parking. Councilmember Frate said he would like additional information about retaining the CFD. Councilmember Clark agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to develop language that protects the city's ability to retain the CFD without scaring the Cardinals and STA into thinking the city will arbitrarily impose a property tax. Mr. Overdorff pointed out a vote of the property owners and residents is required to impose a property tax. Councilmember Martinez commented that, despite how far apart they were at the beginning, the agreement shows that reasonableness prevails. Mayor Scruggs congratulated and thanked everyone who worked on the agreement. She said the City of Glendale did not enter the deal with the intention of making a profit so much as benefiting development in the western area of the city. She expressed her opinion the agreement is fair to all parties. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scruggs announced Mr. Paladini is going on active duty and will be leaving Friday for the middle-east. She and the Council wished Mr. Paladini a safe tour of duty. 10 The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. 11