[0:06] >> Mayor Lane: good afternoon,

[0:07] everyone.

[0:09] I would like to call to order

[0:13] our 4 P.M. Work study session.

[0:14] And we'll start with a roll

[0:18] call, please.

[0:18] City clerk carolyn jagger:

[0:19] mayor jim lane.

[0:19] Mayor lane: present.

[0:20] Carolyn jagger: vice mayor guy

[0:20] phillips.

[0:21] Vice mayor phillips: here.

[0:22] Carolyn jagger: councilmembers

[0:23] suzanne klapp.

[0:23] Councilwoman Klapp: here.

[0:24] Carolyn jagger: virginia korte.

[0:25] Councilmember korte: here.

[0:25] carolyn jagger: bob littlefield.

[0:26] Councilman Littlefield: here.

[0:27] Carolyn jagger: linda milhaven.

[0:28] Councilwoman Milhaven: here.

[0:28] Carolyn jagger: dennis robbins.

[0:29] Councilman Robbins: here.

[0:30] Carolyn jagger: city manager

[0:30] fritz behring.

[0:33] Fritz behring: here.

[0:34] Carolyn jagger: city attorney

[0:34] bruce washburn.

[0:36] Bruce washburn: here.

[0:36] Carolyn jagger: city treasurer

[0:37] jeff nichols.

[0:38] Jeff nichols: here.

[0:39] Carolyn jagger: city auditor

[0:39] sharron walker.

[0:40] Sharron walker: here.

[0:41] Carolyn jagger: and the clerk is

[0:41] present.

[0:42] >> Mayor Lane: thank you.

[0:43] I will go ahead and mention for

[0:45] the record this is the work

[0:47] study session of December 2nd,

[0:47] 2014.

[0:52] It's approximately 4:00.

[0:55] And we have no public comment on

[0:57] this item and we only have one

[0:57] item on this.

[0:59] I might just go ahead and

[1:00] mention that this is a work

[1:00] study session.

[1:02] So there are no decisions or

[1:03] votes to be taken here.

[1:06] this is primarily to interact

[1:08] with council and staff.

[1:09] Our interaction between the

[1:11] council and the staff with

[1:14] regard to the subject matter on

[1:16] this, which is special taxing

[1:18] district financial policies and

[1:20] this is a request really for

[1:21] presentation, discussion and

[1:23] possible direction to staff

[1:24] regarding the city's special

[1:26] taxing district financial

[1:27] policies, including

[1:29] revitalization districts,

[1:31] community facility districts and

[1:33] improvement districts and the

[1:34] presenters for this today will

[1:37] be -- we'll go ahead and get

[1:38] started and we can work from the

[1:42] table or the podium, whichever

[1:45] you prefer is our city treasurer

[1:48] jeff nichols.

[1:50] I gave you the option.

[1:54] >> you gave me the option.

[1:54] >> Mayor Lane: yes, sit right

[1:56] down.

[1:58] >> that being said, I just

[2:00] realized someone has to move the

[2:01] slides.

[2:03] Although I trust brian

[2:09] immensely, can I go back there?

[2:11] >> Mayor Lane: I'm sorry, I gave

[2:12] you options.

[2:16] It's way too complicated.

[2:18] >> well, Mr. Mayor, members of

[2:20] the council, as the mayor

[2:22] mentioned, at the end of the

[2:24] November 18 meeting, staff was

[2:26] given direction to bring this

[2:27] topic back for work study, and

[2:29] that's why we are here tonight.

[2:31] What I thought I would do is

[2:32] start off with the policies that

[2:34] we currently have in place

[2:36] within our financial policies.

[2:39] Under debt management, number

[2:41] 32, we do have a policy that

[2:42] deals with improvement districts

[2:46] and community facility

[2:46] districts.

[2:47] Some of this language probably

[2:49] needs to be cleaned up.

[2:51] For instance, like in this first

[2:52] slide, it says that it's

[2:53] expected that they will be

[2:55] issued for their full term.

[2:56] I'm not sure why that wording is

[2:57] in there.

[2:59] I'm not sure who put it in

[3:03] there, to even find out, but

[3:05] regardless, I.D.S and

[3:07] C.F.D.S we do have a policy

[3:07] for.

[3:09] here's improvement districts and

[3:10] you notice the debt ratio, prior

[3:12] to the improvements being

[3:14] installed is a minimum of 3 to

[3:15] 1, and after issuance of the

[3:18] debt, and the improvements,

[3:21] ratio of 5 to 1 after

[3:21] construction.

[3:23] Some of the other things that I

[3:25] would like to talk about that

[3:27] are embedded in these policies

[3:31] is the fact that we use the net

[3:35] assessed valuation, but we also

[3:37] have in there that if someone

[3:39] doesn't like the assessed

[3:41] valuation, I.E., they feel that

[3:44] the county is lagging or their

[3:48] valuation of the -- of their

[3:49] valuations of the properties,

[3:50] that they can have an appraisal

[3:51] of the properties done.

[3:52] It would be paid for by the

[3:56] politic and administered by the

[3:56] city.

[3:57] And in addition, one of the

[3:58] other things that I would like

[4:00] to cover later on, that we will

[4:02] discuss, it says the city's

[4:03] cumulative improvement district,

[4:06] that will not exceed 5% of the

[4:08] city's secondary assessed

[4:09] valuation.

[4:10] while I'm in agreement with

[4:13] that, it also has that same

[4:15] language and the community

[4:17] facility district debt and let's

[4:23] say now we are bringing them to

[4:25] the -- the revitalization

[4:27] district, if that was 5%, well,

[4:28] now you are talking a total of

[4:32] up to 15% of the net assessed

[4:33] valuation within the city and

[4:34] I'm not sure I would be in

[4:36] agreement with that.

[4:38] However, similar to that, you

[4:42] see under CFDs, minimum of 3

[4:44] to 1 prior to the issuance of

[4:44] debt.

[4:46] 5 to 1 or higher after the

[4:48] construction of the improvement.

[4:50] The difference that I see

[4:51] between the two, at least in my

[4:53] experience, normally improvement

[4:57] districts are done to existing

[4:58] infrastructure.

[5:00] The city of scottsdale, four out

[5:02] of the five districts, it's just

[5:05] been vacant land and the person

[5:07] that owned the land within the

[5:09] cfd, they owned 100% of the land

[5:10] within the cfd.

[5:12] so those are the two districts

[5:15] that we have.

[5:17] And so like I said, community

[5:19] facility districts most often

[5:20] formed to construct

[5:21] infrastructure improvements on

[5:22] vacant land.

[5:24] That's been our experience.

[5:25] >> Mayor Lane: pardon me just a

[5:25] moment.

[5:27] We do have a question of you

[5:29] from Councilman Robbins.

[5:30] >> d. Robbins: can you just go

[5:31] back one slide.

[5:33] i want to put a couple of things

[5:34] in context so we are all on the

[5:36] same page.

[5:38] The 3 to 1 and the 5 to 1, that

[5:40] means the debt can be 33% of the

[5:44] total valuation beforehand is

[5:46] that saying it in a different

[5:47] term?

[5:47] >> yes, sir.

[5:49] If the total value of the land

[5:50] was $1 million, they could

[5:53] construct up to $333,000 of

[5:53] improvements.

[5:55] >> d. Robbins: okay and then

[5:57] afterwards, the 5 to 1, that's a

[5:58] 20%?

[5:59] >> that's correct.

[6:00] >> d. Robbins: and then can you

[6:02] put in context, the 5% of the

[6:03] city's assessed valuation, what

[6:04] would that number be?

[6:06] >> to put that into context, the

[6:11] number I figured was

[6:12] approximately $250 million in

[6:13] debt would be 5% of the city's

[6:18] net assessed valuation.

[6:19] >> d. Robbins: and do you happen

[6:21] to know what our CFDs are at

[6:21] presently?

[6:23] >> I dot that have that answer,

[6:27] but to my left, I see lee

[6:34] lee

[6:34] guillory.

[6:36] >> we have no improvement debt

[6:38] outstanding.

[6:38] >> d. Robbins: okay.

[6:39] All right.

[6:41] That kind of puts it in context,

[6:41] though.

[6:43] Thank you.

[6:44] >> l. Milhaven: I have a

[6:45] question.

[6:46] >> Mayor Lane: yes, Councilwoman

[6:49] Milhaven.

[6:50] >> l. Milhaven: if this is for

[6:53] total assessed value in the

[6:54] city, or is it the assessed

[6:58] value in the district?

[6:59] >> the way the policy -- I

[7:02] believe, the way I interpret the

[7:03] policy, as it's currently

[7:06] written, it will not exceed 5%

[7:09] of the city's secondary assessed

[7:10] valuation.

[7:12] So it would be the whole city.

[7:13] >> is that by our policy or is

[7:15] that by the authorizing

[7:16] legislation?

[7:18] >> I don't remember if it's in

[7:19] the authorizing legislation.

[7:23] I do know it's in our policy.

[7:28] >> l. Milhaven: thank you.

[7:30] >> mayor lane and Councilwoman

[7:33] Milhaven, that's a city policy.

[7:34] it's not part of the state

[7:36] statute, the 5% of the city's

[7:38] assessed valuation.

[7:40] >> l. Milhaven: thank you.

[7:43] >> Mayor Lane: lee, can I just

[7:44] for further clarification, is

[7:45] this any stipulated amount as

[7:52] far as the statute is concerned?

[7:54] >> I'm looking towards my

[7:57] outside bond counsel and he said

[7:59] that as far as -- if there are

[8:01] general obligation bonds

[8:02] outstanding, there are

[8:03] limitations, but if they are

[8:06] assessment bonds, there is not.

[8:07] I believe the general obligation

[8:09] bonds would be subject to the 6

[8:11] and 20% assessed valuation.

[8:12] No, I'm being told no.

[8:13] So I will return the floor to

[8:25] scott ruby.

[8:26] >> Mayor Lane: for the record,

[8:27] if you would identify yourself,

[8:28] scott.

[8:29] >> certainly, mayor.

[8:31] Scott ruby with the law firm of

[8:31] gust rosen feld.

[8:34] We serve as your bond counsel on

[8:37] your city issues and city

[8:37] district issues.

[8:39] I was hoping to be the potted

[8:41] plant tonight, but apparently

[8:42] not.

[8:44] The cfd statutes have really

[8:45] only one restriction with

[8:47] respect to the bonds.

[8:50] They can issue -- CFDs can

[8:52] issue three types of bonds,'s

[8:53] isment

[8:57] ,assessment bonds, general

[8:58] obligation bonds.

[9:00] The cfd has their own debt limit

[9:02] for general obligation bonds and

[9:06] that debt limit is 65% of market

[9:10] value plus the value of the

[9:12] improvements, which is a very

[9:13] high debt limit.

[9:15] I don't think anybody ever comes

[9:16] close to that.

[9:17] >> are we

[9:21] >> Mayor Lane: are we more

[9:22] restrictive then by our policy?

[9:24] >> our policies, as I have

[9:26] quickly reviewed them, do not

[9:28] speak to the general obligation

[9:30] bond aspect of it.

[9:31] Typically when we have done

[9:33] general obligation bonds and

[9:35] community facilities districts,

[9:36] and I mean throughout the state,

[9:39] we're more concerned about a tax

[9:41] rate and what we do is try to

[9:44] size a debt issuance that will

[9:45] produce a certain tax rate.

[9:48] Now, obviously, that has some

[9:49] disadvantages when your assessed

[9:51] valuation starts fluctuating.

[9:53] That means the tax rate goes up

[9:56] and down depending on which way

[9:56] the A.V. Goes.

[9:59] But normally those types of debt

[10:02] issues target you a tax rate.

[10:03] >> Mayor Lane: but those

[10:04] percentages you just mentioned

[10:05] go to the district property and

[10:06] improvements rather than the

[10:10] city's total bond issuance or

[10:12] value -- valuation?

[10:13] >> that is correct, mayor.

[10:15] I know this conversation was

[10:17] focused a bit on the 5% limit

[10:19] that you have by policy, and

[10:22] that is unique to scottsdale.

[10:23] That I'm aware of.

[10:27] Now there May some other

[10:29] jurisdiction in arizona that I'm

[10:31] not aware that speaks to this

[10:32] issue in that context, but I

[10:34] suspect I would know.

[10:34] >> Mayor Lane: you can go back

[10:36] to the plant status for a little

[10:36] bit.

[10:40] >> thank you very much.

[10:40] >> Mayor Lane: oh, I'm sorry.

[10:41] Wait a minute.

[10:42] Forget that.

[10:46] >> v. Korte: one more follow-up

[10:46] question.

[10:47] >> Mayor Lane: Councilwoman

[10:47] Korte.

[10:48] >> v. Korte: in your experience

[10:49] working with other

[10:51] municipalities, what is the

[10:58] standard as far as 5%, 10%, 7%?

[10:59] >> mayor, councilmember korte,

[11:02] the relationship to assessed

[11:03] valuation for this type of debt,

[11:06] either cfd or I.D. Is unique to

[11:07] scottsdale.

[11:10] I have never seen it in any

[11:11] other jurisdiction.

[11:12] That's not to say it's a bad

[11:13] thing, because improvement

[11:15] district debt, in particular,

[11:17] there is contingent liability to

[11:18] the city, and so I think the

[11:20] city would have some concern and

[11:23] I know years and years ago, when

[11:26] the city of chandler was quite

[11:28] aggressive on their

[11:29] infrastructure financing through

[11:30] improvement districts, the

[11:32] rating agencies took that

[11:33] contingent liability into

[11:36] account and actually shut their

[11:37] rating down for a while, while

[11:40] they had significant exposure

[11:41] there.

[11:43] So it's a number or a limitation

[11:46] that is -- that merits

[11:47] discussion but, again,

[11:48] scottsdale is the only place I

[11:52] know that has that.

[11:53] >> Mayor Lane: thank you again,

[11:53] scott.

[11:55] I think we'll give you a little

[11:59] bit of time.

[12:00] Mr. Nichols, if you would like

[12:01] to continue then.

[12:02] >> yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.

[12:04] And so what I wanted to do was

[12:06] to have discussion regarding our

[12:09] current policies and then also

[12:11] foster discussion on

[12:13] revitalization districts.

[12:16] As you see here, community

[12:17] facility districts, at least

[12:19] within the city of scottsdale

[12:21] are used to form infrastructure

[12:24] improvements on vacant land.

[12:26] It's most often brought forward

[12:29] by persons or entities that own

[12:30] 100% of the net assessed

[12:32] valuation of the land within the

[12:32] district and I

[12:35] I give you the

[12:35] examples there.

[12:37] And the practice has been to

[12:39] issue cfd debt for a period of

[12:41] 25 years, and so my question,

[12:43] does the council want to

[12:44] continue past practices and

[12:46] include those past practices in

[12:48] a policy that would be brought

[12:51] forward for your consideration?

[12:52] The second item there,

[12:54] improvement districts are most

[12:56] often formed to construct

[12:57] infrastructure improvements to

[12:58] existing infrastructure and I

[12:59] give the example of the most

[13:03] recent one, bell road two and

[13:05] does council wish to improve

[13:06] district debt to infrastructure

[13:07] improvements to existing

[13:09] infrastructure?

[13:11] Existing

[13:11] infrastructure?

[13:12] >> Mayor Lane: thank you, and we

[13:14] do have -- Councilman

[13:15] Littlefield has a question or a

[13:19] comment.

[13:20] >> r. Littlefield: actually, i

[13:22] think I will wait.

[13:23] >> Mayor Lane: okay.

[13:24] Number one, I just wanted to

[13:25] sort of further quantify what we

[13:26] are doing.

[13:28] You mentioned earlier on that we

[13:29] do not have any improvement

[13:31] district debt outstanding.

[13:33] >> we currently have no

[13:34] improvement district debt

[13:34] outstanding.

[13:37] We have a history of improvement

[13:38] districts in scottsdale that go

[13:40] back to about 1959.

[13:42] and we have done a lot of

[13:43] improvements within the city

[13:44] through improvement districts.

[13:45] >> Mayor Lane: so it's a

[13:46] mechanism that has been utilized

[13:48] and successfully?

[13:50] >> that's correct.

[13:51] >> Mayor Lane: and it just so

[13:52] happens that it's paid off and

[13:54] not been utilized since.

[13:55] Is there some distinction, if I

[13:58] May ask this for my own

[13:58] edification, maybe everyone's

[14:00] else, what is the distinction?

[14:02] the improvement district is for

[14:03] existing infrastructure and a

[14:08] cfd is for new?

[14:08] >> Mr. Payer,

[14:11] mayer, when I looked at

[14:15] the improvement districts in the

[14:17] scottsdale, it was for new

[14:18] neighborhoods coming into the

[14:19] city, they wanted to put in

[14:20] infrastructure, which it was

[14:23] paving, sewer, water, those

[14:25] sorts of improvements.

[14:26] They would form an improvement

[14:27] district.

[14:28] They would make the improvements

[14:31] so their district and then those

[14:32] improvements then would be

[14:33] deeded over to the city.

[14:36] My assumption is to operate and

[14:37] maintain those improvements that

[14:39] people within the district are

[14:41] voting to tax themselves.

[14:42] Normally we sold improvement

[14:43] district debt and it was retired

[14:46] over a period of about 10 years.

[14:47] >> Mayor Lane: so barring the

[14:48] use some of kind of development

[14:49] agreement, where you would end

[14:51] up having impact fees for a

[14:53] community or a neighborhood for

[14:55] new now -- a new infrastructure

[14:58] that would be built, the

[14:59] improvement district was

[15:00] something that the property

[15:01] owners got together and formed

[15:03] it district under the city's

[15:05] guidance, of course, and

[15:08] control, but, nevertheless,

[15:10] assessed their own properties

[15:12] with the cost of carrying the

[15:13] debt for those improvements.

[15:15] So did the impact fees and those

[15:16] kinds of things, did that sort

[15:20] of move away from that or was it

[15:21] the development -- master

[15:23] developments and development of

[15:25] whole neighborhoods and new

[15:26] neighborhoods where those fees

[15:27] were sort of mixed in together

[15:31] with the total -- the total

[15:34] project?

[15:35] >> Mr. Mayor, I would have to

[15:36] look into that particular

[15:37] question of whether the

[15:39] assessments related to those

[15:40] improvements outside the

[15:42] improvement district assessment

[15:43] itself, how those were handled.

[15:45] i have not reviewed that.

[15:46] >> Mayor Lane: but the

[15:47] improvement district is property

[15:49] owners getting together to build

[15:51] a district and a mechanism to

[15:53] fund those kinds of improvements

[15:55] that they need to expand or grow

[15:57] or frankly, to build the

[15:59] infrastructure for their

[15:59] neighborhoods?

[16:00] >> that's correct.

[16:03] >> Mayor Lane: okay.

[16:04] yes, Councilman Littlefield.

[16:05] >> r. Littlefield: okay.

[16:07] So we currently have CFDs and

[16:08] improvement districts in

[16:10] scottsdale but not any

[16:13] revitalization district?

[16:14] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

[16:15] Littlefield, that's correct.

[16:16] >> r. Littlefield: so how big

[16:18] can an improvement or a

[16:19] revitalization district be?

[16:21] Are there legal limits on the

[16:22] geography?

[16:26] can it be only be so big, so

[16:27] small?

[16:29] Could a revitalization district

[16:31] or improvement district

[16:37] encompass the entire city?

[16:39] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

[16:40] Littlefield, I will defer to

[16:42] bruce washburn on that.

[16:44] I am not certain, however, just

[16:47] by their very nature, with

[16:49] revitalization districts, it has

[16:51] to be property owners that own

[16:53] 51% of the net assessed

[16:55] valuation within the district

[16:57] and also 51% of the property

[16:58] owners within the district.

[17:02] I would assume that the larger

[17:04] you make the district, the more

[17:05] difficult those numbers are

[17:07] going to be to reach.

[17:08] >> r. Littlefield: I get that.

[17:09] I'm just curious as to what the

[17:16] limit is.

[17:18] >> potted plant, can we get you

[17:20] back up here?

[17:21] >> r. Littlefield: this must be

[17:26] mr. Washington, right?

[17:33] >> mayor, councilmember

[17:34] littlefield, with respect to the

[17:35] community facilities districts,

[17:37] improvement districts and

[17:38] revisallization districts,

[17:40] there's really no limits on how

[17:41] big they can be.

[17:43] I say that, though, with a

[17:45] caveat and it goes, I think to

[17:47] somebody who raised a point,

[17:49] could we have one who is quote,

[17:50] terminus with the boundaries of

[17:51] the city?

[17:52] There is some law to the effect

[17:55] that if you tried to form an

[17:56] improvement district or a

[17:57] community facilities district

[18:00] that had boundaries go terminus

[18:02] with the city's boundaries then

[18:04] in essence, you have city

[18:05] obligations, city bonds and you

[18:08] need to follow then your debt

[18:10] limits with respect to city

[18:12] obligations, 6%, 20%, and that

[18:13] sort of thing.

[18:18] And so the cases put that kind

[18:19] of governor on it.

[18:20] These are not special districts

[18:21] and consequently should not

[18:26] include all the area located

[18:28] within the city.

[18:28] >> r. Littlefield: okay.

[18:29] But you could have one for half

[18:34] the city, a third.

[18:35] Legally.

[18:37] I understand there are practical

[18:37] implications.

[18:40] I'm asking what the legal

[18:41] implications are.

[18:42] >> slightly.

[18:43] There are, again, backing up a

[18:45] little bit -- improvement

[18:47] districts are based upon the

[18:48] theory that all the property

[18:49] within the district benefits

[18:51] from the proposed improvement.

[18:54] So if you are doing half the

[18:57] city in an improvement district,

[18:58] obviously benefits half the

[18:59] city.

[19:02] Example maybe you build a water

[19:03] treatment plant and that May

[19:05] have a wide benefit.

[19:09] so you certainly could do that

[19:12] and we have CFDs that are

[19:13] 8,800 acres.

[19:15] I mean, it's not unusual to have

[19:17] large areas.

[19:19] >> r. Littlefield: thank you.

[19:20] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,

[19:21] Councilman.

[19:23] Vice mayor phillips.

[19:24] >> Vice Mayor Phillips: thank

[19:24] you, mayor.

[19:26] Well, Mr. Nichols, just so you

[19:28] know where I'm coming from and

[19:30] staff understands, I'm against

[19:32] revitalization districts and the

[19:34] improvement districts and I was

[19:40] against michele reagan's bill

[19:41] and I fought against it because

[19:41] I don't believe it's good for

[19:42] the residents.

[19:44] I think it's a tax burden and

[19:46] then they end up -- it's hard to

[19:47] tell your property when you have

[19:50] an extra tax placed on your

[19:50] property.

[19:53] So I would not be in favor of

[19:55] any kind of things if they come

[19:56] up in the future and I would

[19:58] prefer to see them as restricted

[20:01] as much as possible.

[20:01] >> Mayor Lane: thank you, vice

[20:02] mayor.

[20:03] I would weigh in on the same

[20:05] note as far as that is

[20:05] concerned.

[20:07] One of the things with this

[20:09] revitalization district plan was

[20:11] put forward several years ago

[20:14] now, the intent was really

[20:16] almost intergovernmental kind

[20:18] of -- or multijurisdictional

[20:20] kind of funding mechanism and

[20:22] frankly district policy.

[20:24] And at the time, one of the

[20:25] things that was being considered

[20:27] and it never gained any traction

[20:29] was with the -- with the tribe

[20:31] and as well as with the city of

[20:33] tempe on the eastern-most

[20:36] portion of Mcdowell road, in

[20:36] that section.

[20:38] It frankly, was sort of designed

[20:40] around that and I think it's --

[20:42] it ended up with an animal that

[20:46] is somewhat more unique and its

[20:47] implementation or attempted

[20:48] implementation of it or use of

[20:50] it lass caused

[20:53] has caused some concern, even

[20:56] when it was presented in the

[20:57] past for our consideration.

[20:58] One of the things we tried to

[21:00] deal with several months ago, in

[21:02] fact, maybe as much as a year or

[21:04] two ago was to get some

[21:05] clarification as to how that

[21:06] statute would ever be employed

[21:08] by the city.

[21:09] Personally, I am not an advocate

[21:11] of the revitalization district

[21:12] for a couple of reasons and one

[21:14] of them is stated in the first

[21:18] paragraph, and that is the --

[21:20] and it's shared with the

[21:20] improvement district, something

[21:23] I was not really aware of, but

[21:24] that 49% of the property owners

[21:27] either by valuation or total

[21:29] ownership could be subjected to

[21:31] this type of structure against

[21:31] their will.

[21:34] And I find that to be a

[21:36] difficult thing to swallow.

[21:39] And it May be one of the reasons

[21:41] the improvement district is no

[21:43] longer being used.

[21:47] The other is the revitalization

[21:49] district does the same thing.

[21:50] So I'm not an advocate in both

[21:52] of these cases.

[21:53] When we talk about the

[21:55] improvement in revitalization

[21:58] districts, I'm not sure whether

[22:03] or not the districts possibility

[22:08] at the 51/49% kind of setup, the

[22:09] 51% setup, whether I do want to

[22:10] continue that policy.

[22:12] i think it would probably be

[22:14] something we would rather go to,

[22:15] either a higher number or

[22:15] eliminate.

[22:17] But I certainly don't want to

[22:20] apply it to the revitalization

[22:20] district.

[22:22] There is another element here

[22:25] too, in that I have been trying

[22:26] to figure for quite sometime

[22:30] now, as to what -- what

[22:32] advantage and, you know, we have

[22:35] had an awful lot of conversation

[22:39] as to what it is to the city's

[22:40] advantage to the property

[22:42] owner's, what advantage this

[22:43] kind of structure with an

[22:45] independent board -- I'm talking

[22:46] about revitalization district,

[22:50] where the city and -- well, the

[22:51] city relinquishes both control

[22:53] over bonds and taxing in that

[22:55] district area, even though the

[22:56] dedication of the streets and

[22:57] the roads May be given over to

[22:58] the city.

[22:59] We lose control over it.

[23:01] And it does not seem to play

[23:03] very well when we think about it

[23:04] in those terms.

[23:07] I'm not anxious about turning

[23:10] over responsibility to a mini

[23:12] town within our city of taxing

[23:14] and bonding under these

[23:15] circumstances, particularly when

[23:17] I don't see that there's any

[23:19] particular thing that is served

[23:21] that couldn't be easier served

[23:26] either by a cfd or even an

[23:28] I.D.A., where in the case of an

[23:30] I.D.A., we have maintained a lot

[23:31] of control and we reduce the

[23:33] risk and it goes to the private

[23:35] property owner but it still

[23:36] remains taxable property in the

[23:36] city limits.

[23:39] The same thing with the cfd.

[23:41] And you want to throw in the

[23:43] I.D.A.'s advantage, I suppose is

[23:45] the fees that are accumulated

[23:46] through that process that we

[23:47] have found to be beneficial for

[23:49] the city at different times for

[23:52] different reasons.

[23:54] so in answer to both of these, I

[23:58] wouldn't want to continue either

[23:59] of these.

[24:02] Now, it says the property value

[24:03] ratio, okay, the second -- or

[24:05] the first question says should

[24:07] this be a consideration when

[24:09] setting policy related to the

[24:12] debt to encumbered property

[24:15] value ratio?

[24:16] Well, that is in the

[24:17] establishment of the district

[24:19] and help me -- maybe I'm not

[24:21] clear on that first question.

[24:22] >> well, my thought in this, and

[24:26] I was the one that created this,

[24:27] should this be a consideration

[24:28] whether setting the policy

[24:31] related to the debt to

[24:32] encumbered property value ratio

[24:34] was you have people within the

[24:35] district that May be in the

[24:36] district that didn't vote to be

[24:37] in the district.

[24:39] As a matter of fact, they were

[24:41] on the losing side of that, and

[24:44] does this governing body still

[24:46] have a duty to those people that

[24:47] are in the district that didn't

[24:49] want to be in the district and

[24:51] therefore, if you set the ratio

[24:52] higher, which when it was

[24:53] brought forward before, as i

[24:56] mentioned earlier, it was 3 to 1

[24:57] before improvements and 5 to 1

[24:58] after.

[25:01] So would it be for I.D.S and

[25:02] revitalization districts since

[25:05] some people May not care for the

[25:07] improvements even though they

[25:07] benefit from them.

[25:11] Should the ratio before and

[25:13] after, should there be a larger

[25:13] spread?

[25:15] should it be a 3 to 1 before or

[25:16] a 7 to 1 after?

[25:18] I mean, I don't have that

[25:18] recommendation on that.

[25:20] I just wanted it to be a

[25:22] discussed item.

[25:23] >> Mayor Lane: Mr. Nichols, is

[25:25] there anything in particular

[25:26] that you can cite or that we

[25:30] could consider as to why -- why

[25:33] either the improvement or the

[25:35] revitalization district couldn't

[25:37] or the purpose that somebody

[25:39] might use for those couldn't be

[25:40] better served as far as the city

[25:44] is concerned with the cfd?

[25:45] >> Mr. Mayor, members of the

[25:47] council, in my opinion, and this

[25:48] is strictly my opinion or my

[25:50] advice that I would give to you,

[25:52] is like I do in my personal

[25:53] life, I would do whatever I had

[25:55] to do and make it as easy as

[25:57] possible up front.

[25:59] So if CFDs could accomplish

[26:03] the goal and the council was

[26:05] still -- and oversaw that

[26:06] district as the governing body

[26:08] of that district, then you use

[26:08] that.

[26:10] To me revitalization would be

[26:11] the last option I would look at,

[26:13] because I believe that there are

[26:15] other mechanisms, other tools,

[26:16] if you will to accomplish the

[26:17] same things.

[26:18] And I think you should go from

[26:21] simple to complicated and not

[26:22] just skip everything in between

[26:24] and just go to complicated.

[26:25] >> Mayor Lane: well, I think one

[26:26] of the -- if I were just to

[26:29] focus for a moment on just the

[26:30] revitalization district, that

[26:32] seems to be the greatest

[26:33] departure from sort of a

[26:36] structure of governance and

[26:38] control, than either the other

[26:39] two, either the improvement

[26:44] district and/or the cfd.

[26:44] >> Mr. Mayor, members of

[26:45] council, I would agree with you,

[26:47] but I think that was with

[26:48] purpose.

[26:50] And, again, because when you are

[26:51] looking at multijurisdictions

[26:53] within a district, and as an

[26:56] example, I would say, where the

[26:58] city of tempe and phoenix and

[26:59] scottsdale meet, over by the

[27:01] papago area, if, in fact, we

[27:02] were wanting to get to go and

[27:04] make some improvements for, that

[27:05] well, I'm sure phoenix would be

[27:07] willing to say, we'll take

[27:08] charge of that and tempe and

[27:09] scottsdale would say, no thank

[27:10] you.

[27:14] And the same if tempe said it or

[27:15] scottsdale said it.

[27:17] So I think it makes sense in

[27:17] certain circumstances when you

[27:19] are crossing governing bodies or

[27:21] getting more than one governing

[27:23] body together for a district,

[27:25] and I -- again, when we get

[27:26] further in this, my question to

[27:29] you is: do you want to limit

[27:30] revitalization districts to

[27:33] those instances?

[27:33] >> Mayor Lane: yeah.

[27:34] >> because, again, I would offer

[27:36] my opinion, if you have three

[27:37] governing bodies, the state of

[27:40] arizona allows to enter into

[27:41] intergovernmental agreements.

[27:44] And perhaps you could accomplish

[27:45] the same thing and it's a tool,

[27:47] I think, that you work out all

[27:50] the what ifs beforehand within

[27:53] the I.G. And go I.G.

[27:54] Negotiations.

[27:55] My concern is -- and, again,

[27:58] it's more of a legal issue, is

[28:00] with these revitalization

[28:01] districts, if we get too

[28:02] involved in forming the

[28:05] district, or setting up the

[28:08] parameters of the district, we

[28:10] May find ourselves in a position

[28:11] where we do hold some

[28:12] responsibility for that district

[28:15] in the future.

[28:16] >> Mayor Lane: you mean that

[28:17] riis wok shift over to the city?

[28:19] >> -- risk would shift over to

[28:20] the city?

[28:21] >> we could assume some of the

[28:22] liability if we get too hands on

[28:23] with it.

[28:24] >> Mayor Lane: because it

[28:25] redefines itself?

[28:27] >> that's correct.

[28:27] >> Mayor Lane: well, I will

[28:28] leave it at that as far as my

[28:29] opinion is on it.

[28:31] I think there May some other

[28:32] comments on it.

[28:33] I think really truly, I don't

[28:34] know that we have a continuing

[28:36] need for the improvement

[28:37] district and the revitalization

[28:38] district.

[28:40] i would say as you just

[28:41] mentioned, simple first.

[28:44] If we are we can accomplish with

[28:46] existing mechanisms right now

[28:48] and there's no detriment to

[28:50] anyone, and no further

[28:51] denigration of the city's

[28:53] control over bonding and taxing

[28:56] and control of a segment of our

[28:57] communicate, I certainly would

[28:58] rather opt to that.

[28:59] in fact, I have even heard as

[29:02] much, that one of the reasons

[29:04] that some have approached us on

[29:06] this is frankly to bypass this

[29:09] body politically and the general

[29:12] public in their efforts to tax

[29:14] or bond a segment of our

[29:15] communicate on

[29:17] community on the overall.

[29:20] so I'm concerned about any

[29:21] policy that sort of locks us in

[29:23] for that consideration.

[29:26] So I guess on both of these, I

[29:27] wouldn't be worried about how

[29:29] many years on the R.D. Because I

[29:31] wouldn't think it would be an

[29:33] option I would like to be

[29:33] following.

[29:37] On the improvement district, I

[29:38] suppose it might stay with the

[29:39] policy you have now.

[29:41] it seems to have been harmless

[29:43] and it doesn't certainly

[29:44] relinquish all the control

[29:48] mechanisms that the R.D. Does.

[29:49] So that's my position on it, as

[29:51] it is right now.

[29:52] Councilman Littlefield.

[29:53] >> r. Littlefield: I guess I'm

[29:55] curious as to what motivates

[29:58] this discussion.

[29:59] Obviously, the question whether

[30:00] or not you would want these

[30:01] would be what you are trying to

[30:02] accomplish.

[30:03] So I guess I'm curious as to

[30:05] what it is that we thought we

[30:07] might want to accomplish that

[30:10] prompted this discussion.

[30:11] Is there anything on the table

[30:14] where somebody said we think we

[30:16] would like to have an

[30:17] improvement district or

[30:19] revitalization district?

[30:21] i mean we have plenty of CFDs

[30:23] laying around.

[30:24] >> Mayor Lane: Councilman, if I

[30:27] could, I might just say that --

[30:27] >> r. Littlefield: well, yeah.

[30:28] >> Mayor Lane: I'm not sure what

[30:30] the ties might be with some of

[30:32] the folks and the charter

[30:33] officers, and they May be but

[30:34] certainly the city has been

[30:36] approached a couple of different

[30:39] times with regard to the use of

[30:41] this, and they were both found

[30:45] to be just outside the box

[30:47] for -- and a lot of it was

[30:48] centered on the idea of this

[30:49] control that we are talking

[30:51] about on taxing and bonds but

[30:52] also just the overall control

[30:54] for a district that might

[30:56] encompass a great deal of area.

[30:57] But there are also some thoughts

[30:59] as to what motivated those

[31:01] people who brought it to us.

[31:07] And there May have been some

[31:08] less than straight forward kinds

[31:11] of considerations as to -- in

[31:14] the depth of the recession, even

[31:17] to the point of trying to get

[31:18] something refinanced, they are

[31:20] otherwise wouldn't be able to

[31:21] get refinanced and bail the

[31:25] original owners out on debt.

[31:26] >> r. Littlefield: well, that

[31:27] was exactly my question, not

[31:30] that I'm a suspicious person or

[31:30] anything.

[31:31] >> Mayor Lane: no.

[31:31] No.

[31:32] >> r. Littlefield: okay.

[31:34] But there's nothing on the table

[31:36] at the moment?

[31:37] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

[31:38] Littlefield, the reason I

[31:39] personally brought this forward,

[31:42] i mean, for discussion, is

[31:43] because it's November 18th

[31:45] November 18th council

[31:45] meeting --

[31:46] >> r. Littlefield: yes, we asked

[31:48] you to.

[31:49] >> I was directed to.

[31:50] >> r. Littlefield: is there some

[31:54] proposal on the table somewhere?

[31:54] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

[31:55] Littlefield, the city manager

[31:57] and I had met with a person that

[32:01] was interested in using this

[32:02] financial mechanism.

[32:07] it is in the area that was my

[32:08] understanding because it wasn't

[32:08] here.

[32:09] It was brought forward before.

[32:13] It is a different -- a different

[32:14] project, however, the person

[32:16] that brought it forward I had

[32:17] reached out to them and I had

[32:18] asked them.

[32:19] I said from everything that I

[32:21] see, it's a small number of

[32:23] people formed an llc.

[32:25] They own 100% of the land.

[32:27] Is there any reason, you know,

[32:29] that you just don't come

[32:29] forward.

[32:31] We have a policy related to

[32:34] CFDs that you do this under.

[32:35] There's not a need for

[32:36] revitalization districts.

[32:37] So I pointed that out.

[32:38] Yes, there was a person that

[32:40] brought forward a project that

[32:42] is interested and we have no

[32:46] formal process currently for

[32:49] applying to the city to form a

[32:50] revitalization district.

[32:51] That's what we were going to try

[32:54] to accomplish with this

[32:54] discussion.

[32:56] >> r. Littlefield: was this a

[32:58] Mcdowell road project?

[33:00] >> no, it was a project up in

[33:02] the northeast part of the city.

[33:03] >> r. Littlefield: all right.

[33:03] Thank you.

[33:05] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,

[33:06] Councilman.

[33:06] Councilwoman Milhaven.

[33:07] >> l. Milhaven: thank you,

[33:08] mayor.

[33:09] This is a conversation that I

[33:13] started four years ago, and for

[33:14] me, this conversation is about

[33:16] the redevelopment district but

[33:17] it's also about all of the

[33:19] taxing districts, some of what

[33:22] we have heard here is this

[33:23] policy is unique to

[33:26] unique to scottsdale

[33:28] and is not in the authorizing

[33:28] legislation.

[33:29] I remember four years ago when

[33:31] we started this conversation, I

[33:32] read all the authorizing

[33:33] legislation for all three

[33:33] districts.

[33:35] I would have to brush up again

[33:37] to remind myself of what it

[33:37] said.

[33:39] But at the time the former

[33:40] treasurer and I had

[33:41] conversations around the

[33:42] policies related to these

[33:45] districts and I realized our

[33:46] differences in looking at the

[33:48] policies come from our different

[33:48] points of view.

[33:51] He was looking at the treasurer

[33:52] issuing bonds for the city and I

[33:54] was looking at it as a 30-year

[33:55] lender helping finance projects

[33:57] and the way you look at

[33:58] collateral is different from

[34:01] those two points of view.

[34:04] So -- and this is clearly pretty

[34:05] complex and we have heard things

[34:07] about contingent liabilities for

[34:09] the cfd and the potential of

[34:11] creating additional reliability

[34:14] or risk depending on what we do.

[34:18] So rather than us make any

[34:19] decisions tonight, what I would

[34:22] like to see happen is some more

[34:23] work around this.

[34:25] These can be important economic

[34:26] development tools.

[34:28] And I would like to know that

[34:29] your policies are appropriate

[34:31] that would allow us to use this

[34:36] and with all due respect to

[34:37] Councilman Phillips who doesn't

[34:40] like these, if these districts

[34:43] made it possible for D.C. Ranch,

[34:45] Mcdowell mountain ranch and,

[34:48] some of those beautiful

[34:50] communities in our city, and the

[34:51] citizens certainly don't have

[34:52] any issue buying and telling

[34:54] their homes, I think it could be

[34:55] a positive thing for economic

[34:56] development in our city.

[34:58] So what I would like to see

[34:59] happen is the industrial

[35:00] development authority has a lot

[35:02] of experience with bonding.

[35:04] Have them take a look at the

[35:05] statutes and maybe work through

[35:08] and say, what does the statute

[35:08] require?

[35:10] What is the city's policy with

[35:11] regard to this?

[35:13] What do the policies in other

[35:15] cities to make sure our policies

[35:16] aren't so restricted that it

[35:17] becomes a tool that folks

[35:18] condition use?

[35:21] But with an eye on what the --

[35:23] what the risk is to the city for

[35:24] each of these and watt uses

[35:25] might be and have them come back

[35:26] with an overview.

[35:27] Here's the pro.

[35:28] Here's the con.

[35:29] Here's the use.

[35:30] Here's the policy.

[35:32] Here's the risk and help us be

[35:33] better informed before we make

[35:34] some of these decisions.

[35:39] That would be my hope.

[35:41] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,

[35:42] Councilwoman.

[35:42] Councilwoman Korte.

[35:43] >> v. Korte: thank you, mayor.

[35:46] This revitalization district is

[35:48] about 4 years old in the state.

[35:50] Is there any other community

[35:55] that has utilized this funding

[35:55] mechanism?

[35:58] In the state?

[36:00] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman

[36:04] Korte, I'm going to defer.

[36:05] I have heard -- let me defer to

[36:06] bruce.

[36:07] i heard of one through bruce.

[36:10] I'm not -- I'm not certain.

[36:11] >> City Atty. Washburn: the only

[36:13] one I know of is there is one in

[36:14] flagstaff and maybe Mr. Ruby

[36:22] knows of another.

[36:24] >> you are right, Mr. Washburn.

[36:25] There's one in flagstaff.

[36:26] My understanding is it has not

[36:30] issued debt.

[36:31] >> v. Korte: this revitalization

[36:33] district certainly wasn't

[36:35] created -- we didn't create the

[36:36] wheel on this.

[36:37] Are there other states that have

[36:42] used this type of mechanism and

[36:43] how have those states used that?

[36:45] I think that would be important

[36:46] for us to look at before we

[36:50] throw the baby out with the bath

[36:52] water.

[36:53] I -- I understand perhaps the

[36:54] state of florida has used this

[36:57] type of mechanism often.

[37:00] I would like to see how that is

[37:05] used and how it has benefited

[37:09] the community and economic

[37:10] development.

[37:13] And in parallel thinking with

[37:16] Councilwoman Milhaven, these are

[37:17] tools.

[37:18] These are tools that are

[37:21] important for us to just have in

[37:22] our tool box, which we use them

[37:27] or not.

[37:28] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,

[37:29] Councilwoman.

[37:30] I would simply say that I think

[37:31] simplicity rules here.

[37:33] If we have mechanisms that have

[37:36] been used and used successfully,

[37:37] even if there are some folks who

[37:39] don't particularly care for the

[37:43] CFDs and the I.D.S, that I

[37:44] would -- I'm okay with

[37:46] continuing those policies

[37:47] myself.

[37:48] And frankly, I would just -- we

[37:51] can study this until the cows

[37:52] come home, I suppose.

[37:54] And maybe it is that complex

[37:55] because this thing has been used

[37:57] and utilized, I think,

[37:58] sometimes -- well, it's been

[38:02] used in flagstaff, I don't know

[38:03] how successfully if there's no

[38:04] debt issued.

[38:06] I'm concerned about the control

[38:08] issues that the city

[38:09] relinquishes and for what

[38:09] reason?

[38:11] I'm talking about -- now we have

[38:12] talked an awful lot to the

[38:13] benefit of the city, but why

[38:15] would we be turning off --

[38:17] turning over a section of our

[38:19] community to someone else's

[38:21] governance and control outside

[38:24] of this body where we would not

[38:25] have any control over it?

[38:27] When we have mechanisms, you can

[38:28] call it whatever you want, we

[38:30] can use it for revitalization,

[38:32] we can use I.D.A.S, that's

[38:33] what they are intended for and

[38:35] in that case we have a, you

[38:37] know, similar mechanism and we

[38:38] earn fees from it.

[38:40] But we maintain control of

[38:41] private property within our city

[38:42] limits.

[38:44] In this case, we relinquish

[38:46] control of private property to a

[38:47] district's control, at least in

[38:48] those areas that I had

[38:48] mentioned.

[38:51] so I'm concerned about just

[38:52] simply that.

[38:54] And know the circumstances and

[38:56] how this was developed and why,

[38:57] and I'm not sure it May have

[39:03] been mirrored or May have

[39:04] mimicked some other state or

[39:06] city across the country, in its

[39:08] use, but it really hasn't come

[39:09] into play where this

[39:14] particular -- the R.D. Now, is

[39:16] particularly useful outside of

[39:17] the realm of tools we already

[39:18] have.

[39:20] It's just because it's labeled

[39:21] revitalization, it doesn't mean

[39:23] it's the only thing that could

[39:26] facilitate revitalization.

[39:27] Councilwoman Klapp.

[39:29] >> s. Klapp: I also would echo

[39:30] that I believe that we need to

[39:32] have a policy.

[39:34] We have got revitalization

[39:34] districts.

[39:35] We have no policy.

[39:40] And I think this body is pretty

[39:41] biased one way or the other and

[39:43] I really think a third party,

[39:45] such as the I.D.A., to take a

[39:45] look at this.

[39:47] They are not making a decision,

[39:47] though.

[39:49] I think the suggestion to have

[39:50] them look at this, and to

[39:53] determine what policies might be

[39:54] appropriate to recommend to the

[39:56] council as well as review all

[39:57] the uses of this district and

[39:59] other districts and look at

[40:01] other states and look at how

[40:04] they could be utilized in our

[40:06] city is a good thing.

[40:08] It's still up to the council to

[40:10] decide what we want to do.

[40:14] but I think we look rather

[40:15] foolish, when we have people

[40:17] come to the city and want to

[40:18] consider using a district and we

[40:20] say, well, we don't have any

[40:21] policies about it.

[40:22] And so then we try to force them

[40:25] to go a different direction when

[40:28] in reality, we encourage

[40:30] revitalization districts when

[40:33] the legislation was approved and

[40:36] so now it seems to me that the

[40:38] smart move would be to send this

[40:40] question to the I.D.A. And ask

[40:41] them to take a look at it.

[40:43] Come back and give us a report

[40:45] and discuss with the pros and

[40:46] cons of whether or not we should

[40:47] or should not have districts and

[40:48] what the policy should be.

[40:50] I think that's just smart

[40:53] business.

[40:55] I don't know if we need a

[40:56] motion.

[40:57] This is a work study.

[40:58] >> Mayor Lane: there's no

[40:59] motion.

[40:59] >> s. Klapp: I think we are just

[41:00] giving direction.

[41:02] So I would -- I would like to

[41:03] direct staff to do that, to work

[41:07] with the I.D.A., in coming up

[41:09] with some -- ask the I. D.A. To

[41:12] take a look at the districts,

[41:15] the pros and cons, the

[41:18] relationship of revitalization

[41:20] districts to the other two types

[41:25] of districts that we do have

[41:25] policies.

[41:28] Lay out for us why we should or

[41:30] should not have a revitalization

[41:31] district policy and if we

[41:32] should, what is it?

[41:33] and what should the limitations

[41:34] be?

[41:35] I think it was mentioned that

[41:38] the more we get involved in the

[41:39] districts, the more our

[41:40] liability might be.

[41:41] So it might be good to ask a

[41:44] third party to discuss this,

[41:47] rather than us putting our

[41:49] opinions upon it without in some

[41:51] cases knowing all the

[41:51] ramifications of whether or not

[41:53] it's a good idea to have the

[41:55] revitalization districts in

[41:56] scottsdale and if we did, what

[41:57] should the policies be.

[41:59] So I would like to ask staff to

[42:00] do that.

[42:02] So the city manager and

[42:03] treasurer work with the I.D.A.

[42:04] >> Mayor Lane: we can put that

[42:07] in the form of a directive vote

[42:11] or to get a consensus on that.

[42:12] Mr. Behring, did you have a

[42:14] button pushed here?

[42:15] >> Mr. Mayor, it was me that

[42:16] pushed.

[42:16] I'm sorry.

[42:18] i pushed your button.

[42:20] I do that quite often.

[42:21] >> Mayor Lane: you know how to

[42:21] push his buttons.

[42:23] >> I know how to push his

[42:23] buttons.

[42:25] That's absolutely correct.

[42:27] I will take that direction.

[42:28] The own thing I

[42:30] only thing I would caution,

[42:33] it's not something I would feel

[42:34] comfortable turning off to the

[42:35] I.D.A.

[42:36] I think we should work with

[42:36] them.

[42:39] i would like to, as a parallel

[42:40] process use staff to look at the

[42:43] issue from an internal

[42:43] perspective.

[42:47] We will get an external pearle

[42:48] perspective.

[42:49] We will get an internal

[42:50] perspective and marry those two

[42:55] and bring it back for council's

[42:55] consideration.

[42:56] >> s. Klapp: I didn't mean to

[42:57] imply that you would be separate

[42:58] from that process.

[42:59] That would be fine.

[43:00] >> Mayor Lane: I'm going to say

[43:02] the idea of having some policies

[43:05] that revolve around any of these

[43:07] but for particular district

[43:08] funding mechanisms is fine and

[43:10] review of them, I think that's

[43:11] purposeful and a good thing.

[43:15] And it May be that the I.D.A. Is

[43:17] a committee that we can rely

[43:19] upon to do, that but my greatest

[43:20] concern in this and this goes

[43:22] back to staff and to management

[43:25] and to legal, and that is what

[43:27] we are doing in the sense of

[43:28] turning over governance over

[43:30] city -- over land that's within

[43:31] the city boundaries and

[43:33] that's -- that's something that

[43:35] I think weighs heavily on the

[43:36] other side and when we talk

[43:39] about what mechanisms we use,

[43:42] that this one maybe falls down

[43:44] the less when we think what we

[43:46] are trading off in the way of

[43:47] governance.

[43:48] I don't think that's something

[43:48] that the I.D.A. Should be

[43:49] looking at.

[43:51] That's not their realm.

[43:53] We as a policy making body

[43:55] should be looking at that, on

[43:57] the best advice from our

[43:58] professionals sitting there at

[43:58] the table.

[44:00] so, you know, I would go with

[44:02] the motion and I will say that

[44:05] it's a motion and we will vote

[44:08] on it from the standpoint of

[44:09] directive, or direction on that.

[44:12] I will second that but we do

[44:12] have -- I'm sorry.

[44:13] -- maybe just depending what

[44:18] the city attorney has to say.

[44:21] >> City Atty. Washburn: I wanted

[44:23] to point out that the I.D.A. Is

[44:26] created by statute and has

[44:27] specified duties.

[44:29] I haven't looked at the I.D.A.

[44:31] Statute recently, they are not

[44:32] an advisory body like most of

[44:34] our boards and commissions.

[44:35] That hasn't been said.

[44:36] I think that it's certainly

[44:39] possible for staff to work with

[44:40] them, to, you know, request that

[44:42] they provide whatever expertise

[44:44] or input they might have on

[44:45] this.

[44:47] So I'm assuming the motion would

[44:48] essentially encompass the idea

[44:52] that staff should do whatever

[44:53] was -- of course, the I.D.A.S

[44:56] do whatever is in their lawful

[44:57] authority to assist on this

[44:58] issue.

[45:00] >> Mayor Lane: thank you.

[45:02] just one final comment from my

[45:04] perspective and I think it's

[45:05] shared by a couple of other

[45:07] members here and that is the

[45:08] great concern over the

[45:09] governance issue, the control

[45:10] and how this mechanism could be

[45:12] used to the detriment of the

[45:14] city, even if it only besmudges

[45:16] our reputation and our bond

[45:18] rating by virtue of a failure of

[45:19] such a property and that is

[45:22] something I want to at least be

[45:23] considered in the entire picture

[45:25] too.

[45:28] So with that, a motion and a

[45:29] second, with those qualifiers on

[45:30] the guidance.

[45:32] I think we are then ready to at

[45:34] least vote on that to see where

[45:34] on that.

[45:36] All of those in favor of that

[45:39] motion as has been expressed

[45:40] please indicate by aye if you

[45:41] agree and nay if you oppose.

[45:46] The motion does pass, 5-2, with

[45:47] Councilman Littlefield and vice

[45:54] mayor phillips dissenting.

[45:55] So that is the guidance and then

[45:57] that is where we need to be.

[46:01] We have a few minutes before our

[46:01] meeting.

[46:03] So we'll certainly -- I'll take

[46:05] a motion to adjourn this

[46:07] particular meeting.

[46:08] >> r. Littlefield: so moved.

[46:08] >> second.

[46:09] >> Mayor Lane: all those in

[46:10] favor of adjourning the session,

[46:12] please indicate by aye.

[46:13] [Chorus of ayes]

[46:14] We are adjourned.

[46:15] Thank you.

[46:16] Thank you, staff.

City Council Meeting - Work Study

Agenda

Transcript