1
00:00:06,167 --> 00:00:07,350
>> Mayor Lane: good afternoon,

2
00:00:07,350 --> 00:00:09,350
everyone.

3
00:00:09,537 --> 00:00:13,341
I would like to call to order

4
00:00:13,341 --> 00:00:14,842
our 4 P.M. Work study session.

5
00:00:14,842 --> 00:00:18,780
And we'll start with a roll

6
00:00:18,780 --> 00:00:18,712
call, please.

7
00:00:18,712 --> 00:00:19,179
City clerk carolyn jagger:

8
00:00:19,179 --> 00:00:19,713
mayor jim lane.

9
00:00:19,713 --> 00:00:20,414
Mayor lane: present.

10
00:00:20,414 --> 00:00:20,781
Carolyn jagger: vice mayor guy

11
00:00:20,781 --> 00:00:21,782
phillips.

12
00:00:21,782 --> 00:00:22,482
Vice mayor phillips: here.

13
00:00:22,482 --> 00:00:23,150
Carolyn jagger: councilmembers

14
00:00:23,150 --> 00:00:23,817
suzanne klapp.

15
00:00:23,817 --> 00:00:24,551
Councilwoman Klapp: here.

16
00:00:24,551 --> 00:00:25,218
Carolyn jagger: virginia korte.

17
00:00:25,218 --> 00:00:25,952
Councilmember korte: here.

18
00:00:25,952 --> 00:00:26,653
carolyn jagger: bob littlefield.

19
00:00:26,653 --> 00:00:27,387
Councilman Littlefield: here.

20
00:00:27,387 --> 00:00:28,540
Carolyn jagger: linda milhaven.

21
00:00:28,540 --> 00:00:28,788
Councilwoman Milhaven: here.

22
00:00:28,788 --> 00:00:29,689
Carolyn jagger: dennis robbins.

23
00:00:29,689 --> 00:00:30,356
Councilman Robbins: here.

24
00:00:30,356 --> 00:00:30,790
Carolyn jagger: city manager

25
00:00:30,790 --> 00:00:32,790
fritz behring.

26
00:00:33,359 --> 00:00:34,600
Fritz behring: here.

27
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:34,527
Carolyn jagger: city attorney

28
00:00:34,527 --> 00:00:36,620
bruce washburn.

29
00:00:36,620 --> 00:00:36,762
Bruce washburn: here.

30
00:00:36,762 --> 00:00:37,196
Carolyn jagger: city treasurer

31
00:00:37,196 --> 00:00:38,831
jeff nichols.

32
00:00:38,831 --> 00:00:39,498
Jeff nichols: here.

33
00:00:39,498 --> 00:00:39,965
Carolyn jagger: city auditor

34
00:00:39,965 --> 00:00:40,532
sharron walker.

35
00:00:40,532 --> 00:00:41,266
Sharron walker: here.

36
00:00:41,266 --> 00:00:41,867
Carolyn jagger: and the clerk is

37
00:00:41,867 --> 00:00:42,568
present.

38
00:00:42,568 --> 00:00:43,936
>> Mayor Lane: thank you.

39
00:00:43,936 --> 00:00:45,437
I will go ahead and mention for

40
00:00:45,437 --> 00:00:47,172
the record this is the work

41
00:00:47,172 --> 00:00:47,506
study session of December 2nd,

42
00:00:47,506 --> 00:00:49,506
2014.

43
00:00:52,343 --> 00:00:54,343
It's approximately 4:00.

44
00:00:55,446 --> 00:00:57,148
And we have no public comment on

45
00:00:57,148 --> 00:00:57,882
this item and we only have one

46
00:00:57,882 --> 00:00:59,830
item on this.

47
00:00:59,830 --> 00:01:00,251
I might just go ahead and

48
00:01:00,251 --> 00:01:00,985
mention that this is a work

49
00:01:00,985 --> 00:01:02,386
study session.

50
00:01:02,386 --> 00:01:03,620
So there are no decisions or

51
00:01:03,620 --> 00:01:06,620
votes to be taken here.

52
00:01:06,657 --> 00:01:08,959
this is primarily to interact

53
00:01:08,959 --> 00:01:09,960
with council and staff.

54
00:01:09,960 --> 00:01:11,661
Our interaction between the

55
00:01:11,661 --> 00:01:14,264
council and the staff with

56
00:01:14,264 --> 00:01:16,900
regard to the subject matter on

57
00:01:16,900 --> 00:01:18,334
this, which is special taxing

58
00:01:18,334 --> 00:01:20,703
district financial policies and

59
00:01:20,703 --> 00:01:21,671
this is a request really for

60
00:01:21,671 --> 00:01:23,720
presentation, discussion and

61
00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:24,874
possible direction to staff

62
00:01:24,874 --> 00:01:26,475
regarding the city's special

63
00:01:26,475 --> 00:01:27,810
taxing district financial

64
00:01:27,810 --> 00:01:29,611
policies, including

65
00:01:29,611 --> 00:01:31,611
revitalization districts,

66
00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:33,581
community facility districts and

67
00:01:33,581 --> 00:01:34,683
improvement districts and the

68
00:01:34,683 --> 00:01:37,385
presenters for this today will

69
00:01:37,385 --> 00:01:38,853
be -- we'll go ahead and get

70
00:01:38,853 --> 00:01:42,657
started and we can work from the

71
00:01:42,657 --> 00:01:45,426
table or the podium, whichever

72
00:01:45,426 --> 00:01:48,429
you prefer is our city treasurer

73
00:01:48,429 --> 00:01:50,429
jeff nichols.

74
00:01:50,797 --> 00:01:53,797
I gave you the option.

75
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:54,768
>> you gave me the option.

76
00:01:54,768 --> 00:01:56,503
>> Mayor Lane: yes, sit right

77
00:01:56,503 --> 00:01:58,503
down.

78
00:01:58,571 --> 00:02:00,473
>> that being said, I just

79
00:02:00,473 --> 00:02:01,240
realized someone has to move the

80
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:03,176
slides.

81
00:02:03,176 --> 00:02:05,576
Although I trust brian

82
00:02:09,515 --> 00:02:11,750
immensely, can I go back there?

83
00:02:11,750 --> 00:02:12,918
>> Mayor Lane: I'm sorry, I gave

84
00:02:12,918 --> 00:02:14,918
you options.

85
00:02:16,988 --> 00:02:18,556
It's way too complicated.

86
00:02:18,556 --> 00:02:20,758
>> well, Mr. Mayor, members of

87
00:02:20,758 --> 00:02:22,493
the council, as the mayor

88
00:02:22,493 --> 00:02:24,562
mentioned, at the end of the

89
00:02:24,562 --> 00:02:26,630
November 18 meeting, staff was

90
00:02:26,630 --> 00:02:27,765
given direction to bring this

91
00:02:27,765 --> 00:02:29,433
topic back for work study, and

92
00:02:29,433 --> 00:02:31,680
that's why we are here tonight.

93
00:02:31,680 --> 00:02:32,536
What I thought I would do is

94
00:02:32,536 --> 00:02:34,171
start off with the policies that

95
00:02:34,171 --> 00:02:36,974
we currently have in place

96
00:02:36,974 --> 00:02:39,142
within our financial policies.

97
00:02:39,142 --> 00:02:41,440
Under debt management, number

98
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:42,745
32, we do have a policy that

99
00:02:42,745 --> 00:02:45,145
deals with improvement districts

100
00:02:46,820 --> 00:02:46,449
and community facility

101
00:02:46,449 --> 00:02:47,683
districts.

102
00:02:47,683 --> 00:02:49,218
Some of this language probably

103
00:02:49,218 --> 00:02:51,530
needs to be cleaned up.

104
00:02:51,530 --> 00:02:52,388
For instance, like in this first

105
00:02:52,388 --> 00:02:53,756
slide, it says that it's

106
00:02:53,756 --> 00:02:55,357
expected that they will be

107
00:02:55,357 --> 00:02:56,725
issued for their full term.

108
00:02:56,725 --> 00:02:57,392
I'm not sure why that wording is

109
00:02:57,392 --> 00:02:59,261
in there.

110
00:02:59,261 --> 00:03:03,231
I'm not sure who put it in

111
00:03:03,231 --> 00:03:05,200
there, to even find out, but

112
00:03:05,200 --> 00:03:07,350
regardless, I.D.S and

113
00:03:07,350 --> 00:03:07,702
C.F.D.S we do have a policy

114
00:03:07,702 --> 00:03:09,360
for.

115
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:10,638
here's improvement districts and

116
00:03:10,638 --> 00:03:12,206
you notice the debt ratio, prior

117
00:03:12,206 --> 00:03:14,341
to the improvements being

118
00:03:14,341 --> 00:03:15,976
installed is a minimum of 3 to

119
00:03:15,976 --> 00:03:18,450
1, and after issuance of the

120
00:03:18,450 --> 00:03:20,445
debt, and the improvements,

121
00:03:21,448 --> 00:03:21,882
ratio of 5 to 1 after

122
00:03:21,882 --> 00:03:23,550
construction.

123
00:03:23,550 --> 00:03:25,418
Some of the other things that I

124
00:03:25,418 --> 00:03:27,654
would like to talk about that

125
00:03:27,654 --> 00:03:30,654
are embedded in these policies

126
00:03:31,958 --> 00:03:35,270
is the fact that we use the net

127
00:03:35,270 --> 00:03:37,796
assessed valuation, but we also

128
00:03:37,796 --> 00:03:39,598
have in there that if someone

129
00:03:39,598 --> 00:03:41,660
doesn't like the assessed

130
00:03:41,660 --> 00:03:44,503
valuation, I.E., they feel that

131
00:03:44,503 --> 00:03:48,103
the county is lagging or their

132
00:03:48,339 --> 00:03:49,307
valuation of the -- of their

133
00:03:49,307 --> 00:03:50,542
valuations of the properties,

134
00:03:50,542 --> 00:03:51,409
that they can have an appraisal

135
00:03:51,409 --> 00:03:52,443
of the properties done.

136
00:03:52,443 --> 00:03:56,470
It would be paid for by the

137
00:03:56,470 --> 00:03:56,347
politic and administered by the

138
00:03:56,347 --> 00:03:57,810
city.

139
00:03:57,810 --> 00:03:58,649
And in addition, one of the

140
00:03:58,649 --> 00:04:00,684
other things that I would like

141
00:04:00,684 --> 00:04:02,786
to cover later on, that we will

142
00:04:02,786 --> 00:04:03,954
discuss, it says the city's

143
00:04:03,954 --> 00:04:05,954
cumulative improvement district,

144
00:04:06,156 --> 00:04:08,992
that will not exceed 5% of the

145
00:04:08,992 --> 00:04:09,359
city's secondary assessed

146
00:04:09,359 --> 00:04:10,560
valuation.

147
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:13,560
while I'm in agreement with

148
00:04:13,997 --> 00:04:15,865
that, it also has that same

149
00:04:15,865 --> 00:04:17,833
language and the community

150
00:04:17,833 --> 00:04:20,833
facility district debt and let's

151
00:04:23,572 --> 00:04:25,174
say now we are bringing them to

152
00:04:25,174 --> 00:04:27,309
the -- the revitalization

153
00:04:27,309 --> 00:04:28,944
district, if that was 5%, well,

154
00:04:28,944 --> 00:04:32,313
now you are talking a total of

155
00:04:32,313 --> 00:04:33,648
up to 15% of the net assessed

156
00:04:33,648 --> 00:04:34,983
valuation within the city and

157
00:04:34,983 --> 00:04:36,484
I'm not sure I would be in

158
00:04:36,484 --> 00:04:38,352
agreement with that.

159
00:04:38,352 --> 00:04:41,352
However, similar to that, you

160
00:04:42,123 --> 00:04:44,358
see under CFDs, minimum of 3

161
00:04:44,358 --> 00:04:44,658
to 1 prior to the issuance of

162
00:04:44,658 --> 00:04:46,126
debt.

163
00:04:46,126 --> 00:04:48,629
5 to 1 or higher after the

164
00:04:48,629 --> 00:04:50,163
construction of the improvement.

165
00:04:50,163 --> 00:04:51,998
The difference that I see

166
00:04:51,998 --> 00:04:53,567
between the two, at least in my

167
00:04:53,567 --> 00:04:55,567
experience, normally improvement

168
00:04:57,870 --> 00:04:58,338
districts are done to existing

169
00:04:58,338 --> 00:05:00,106
infrastructure.

170
00:05:00,106 --> 00:05:02,241
The city of scottsdale, four out

171
00:05:02,241 --> 00:05:05,244
of the five districts, it's just

172
00:05:05,244 --> 00:05:07,246
been vacant land and the person

173
00:05:07,246 --> 00:05:09,481
that owned the land within the

174
00:05:09,481 --> 00:05:10,482
cfd, they owned 100% of the land

175
00:05:10,482 --> 00:05:12,351
within the cfd.

176
00:05:12,351 --> 00:05:15,200
so those are the two districts

177
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:17,200
that we have.

178
00:05:17,422 --> 00:05:19,257
And so like I said, community

179
00:05:19,257 --> 00:05:20,124
facility districts most often

180
00:05:20,124 --> 00:05:21,993
formed to construct

181
00:05:21,993 --> 00:05:22,493
infrastructure improvements on

182
00:05:22,493 --> 00:05:24,295
vacant land.

183
00:05:24,295 --> 00:05:25,960
That's been our experience.

184
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:25,429
>> Mayor Lane: pardon me just a

185
00:05:25,429 --> 00:05:27,429
moment.

186
00:05:27,633 --> 00:05:29,867
We do have a question of you

187
00:05:29,867 --> 00:05:30,667
from Councilman Robbins.

188
00:05:30,667 --> 00:05:31,268
>> d. Robbins: can you just go

189
00:05:31,268 --> 00:05:33,170
back one slide.

190
00:05:33,170 --> 00:05:34,938
i want to put a couple of things

191
00:05:34,938 --> 00:05:36,173
in context so we are all on the

192
00:05:36,173 --> 00:05:38,173
same page.

193
00:05:38,375 --> 00:05:40,677
The 3 to 1 and the 5 to 1, that

194
00:05:40,677 --> 00:05:44,460
means the debt can be 33% of the

195
00:05:44,460 --> 00:05:46,446
total valuation beforehand is

196
00:05:46,816 --> 00:05:47,116
that saying it in a different

197
00:05:47,116 --> 00:05:47,583
term?

198
00:05:47,583 --> 00:05:49,251
>> yes, sir.

199
00:05:49,251 --> 00:05:50,119
If the total value of the land

200
00:05:50,119 --> 00:05:52,519
was $1 million, they could

201
00:05:53,555 --> 00:05:53,989
construct up to $333,000 of

202
00:05:53,989 --> 00:05:55,390
improvements.

203
00:05:55,390 --> 00:05:57,626
>> d. Robbins: okay and then

204
00:05:57,626 --> 00:05:58,293
afterwards, the 5 to 1, that's a

205
00:05:58,293 --> 00:05:59,561
20%?

206
00:05:59,561 --> 00:06:00,362
>> that's correct.

207
00:06:00,362 --> 00:06:02,263
>> d. Robbins: and then can you

208
00:06:02,263 --> 00:06:03,998
put in context, the 5% of the

209
00:06:03,998 --> 00:06:04,966
city's assessed valuation, what

210
00:06:04,966 --> 00:06:06,968
would that number be?

211
00:06:06,968 --> 00:06:10,568
>> to put that into context, the

212
00:06:11,405 --> 00:06:12,106
number I figured was

213
00:06:12,106 --> 00:06:13,674
approximately $250 million in

214
00:06:13,674 --> 00:06:17,274
debt would be 5% of the city's

215
00:06:18,712 --> 00:06:19,513
net assessed valuation.

216
00:06:19,513 --> 00:06:21,581
>> d. Robbins: and do you happen

217
00:06:21,581 --> 00:06:21,948
to know what our CFDs are at

218
00:06:21,948 --> 00:06:23,650
presently?

219
00:06:23,650 --> 00:06:27,250
>> I dot that have that answer,

220
00:06:27,887 --> 00:06:32,870
but to my left, I see lee

221
00:06:34,593 --> 00:06:34,960
lee

222
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:36,629
guillory.

223
00:06:36,629 --> 00:06:38,397
>> we have no improvement debt

224
00:06:38,397 --> 00:06:38,997
outstanding.

225
00:06:38,997 --> 00:06:39,398
>> d. Robbins: okay.

226
00:06:39,398 --> 00:06:41,990
All right.

227
00:06:41,990 --> 00:06:41,433
That kind of puts it in context,

228
00:06:41,433 --> 00:06:43,235
though.

229
00:06:43,235 --> 00:06:44,369
Thank you.

230
00:06:44,369 --> 00:06:45,870
>> l. Milhaven: I have a

231
00:06:45,870 --> 00:06:46,671
question.

232
00:06:46,671 --> 00:06:49,710
>> Mayor Lane: yes, Councilwoman

233
00:06:49,974 --> 00:06:50,775
Milhaven.

234
00:06:50,775 --> 00:06:53,210
>> l. Milhaven: if this is for

235
00:06:53,210 --> 00:06:54,745
total assessed value in the

236
00:06:54,745 --> 00:06:58,150
city, or is it the assessed

237
00:06:58,150 --> 00:06:59,983
value in the district?

238
00:06:59,983 --> 00:07:02,119
>> the way the policy -- I

239
00:07:02,119 --> 00:07:03,200
believe, the way I interpret the

240
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:05,420
policy, as it's currently

241
00:07:06,222 --> 00:07:09,222
written, it will not exceed 5%

242
00:07:09,893 --> 00:07:10,259
of the city's secondary assessed

243
00:07:10,259 --> 00:07:12,259
valuation.

244
00:07:12,295 --> 00:07:13,830
So it would be the whole city.

245
00:07:13,830 --> 00:07:15,310
>> is that by our policy or is

246
00:07:15,310 --> 00:07:16,933
that by the authorizing

247
00:07:16,933 --> 00:07:18,834
legislation?

248
00:07:18,834 --> 00:07:19,935
>> I don't remember if it's in

249
00:07:19,935 --> 00:07:21,935
the authorizing legislation.

250
00:07:23,138 --> 00:07:27,338
I do know it's in our policy.

251
00:07:28,610 --> 00:07:30,979
>> l. Milhaven: thank you.

252
00:07:30,979 --> 00:07:33,470
>> mayor lane and Councilwoman

253
00:07:33,470 --> 00:07:34,582
Milhaven, that's a city policy.

254
00:07:34,582 --> 00:07:36,184
it's not part of the state

255
00:07:36,184 --> 00:07:38,185
statute, the 5% of the city's

256
00:07:38,185 --> 00:07:40,185
assessed valuation.

257
00:07:40,254 --> 00:07:42,654
>> l. Milhaven: thank you.

258
00:07:43,223 --> 00:07:44,591
>> Mayor Lane: lee, can I just

259
00:07:44,591 --> 00:07:45,292
for further clarification, is

260
00:07:45,292 --> 00:07:48,292
this any stipulated amount as

261
00:07:52,265 --> 00:07:54,670
far as the statute is concerned?

262
00:07:54,670 --> 00:07:56,467
>> I'm looking towards my

263
00:07:57,303 --> 00:07:59,372
outside bond counsel and he said

264
00:07:59,372 --> 00:08:01,373
that as far as -- if there are

265
00:08:01,373 --> 00:08:02,608
general obligation bonds

266
00:08:02,608 --> 00:08:03,809
outstanding, there are

267
00:08:03,809 --> 00:08:06,178
limitations, but if they are

268
00:08:06,178 --> 00:08:07,779
assessment bonds, there is not.

269
00:08:07,779 --> 00:08:09,748
I believe the general obligation

270
00:08:09,748 --> 00:08:11,450
bonds would be subject to the 6

271
00:08:11,450 --> 00:08:12,851
and 20% assessed valuation.

272
00:08:12,851 --> 00:08:13,985
No, I'm being told no.

273
00:08:13,985 --> 00:08:18,185
So I will return the floor to

274
00:08:25,662 --> 00:08:26,430
scott ruby.

275
00:08:26,430 --> 00:08:27,765
>> Mayor Lane: for the record,

276
00:08:27,765 --> 00:08:28,365
if you would identify yourself,

277
00:08:28,365 --> 00:08:29,233
scott.

278
00:08:29,233 --> 00:08:31,233
>> certainly, mayor.

279
00:08:31,468 --> 00:08:31,935
Scott ruby with the law firm of

280
00:08:31,935 --> 00:08:33,935
gust rosen feld.

281
00:08:34,838 --> 00:08:37,730
We serve as your bond counsel on

282
00:08:37,730 --> 00:08:37,874
your city issues and city

283
00:08:37,874 --> 00:08:39,576
district issues.

284
00:08:39,576 --> 00:08:41,844
I was hoping to be the potted

285
00:08:41,844 --> 00:08:42,145
plant tonight, but apparently

286
00:08:42,145 --> 00:08:44,145
not.

287
00:08:44,447 --> 00:08:45,981
The cfd statutes have really

288
00:08:45,981 --> 00:08:47,851
only one restriction with

289
00:08:47,851 --> 00:08:50,251
respect to the bonds.

290
00:08:50,686 --> 00:08:52,955
They can issue -- CFDs can

291
00:08:52,955 --> 00:08:53,655
issue three types of bonds,'s

292
00:08:53,655 --> 00:08:55,655
isment

293
00:08:57,692 --> 00:08:58,493
,assessment bonds, general

294
00:08:58,493 --> 00:09:00,493
obligation bonds.

295
00:09:00,929 --> 00:09:02,630
The cfd has their own debt limit

296
00:09:02,630 --> 00:09:05,630
for general obligation bonds and

297
00:09:06,567 --> 00:09:10,167
that debt limit is 65% of market

298
00:09:10,437 --> 00:09:12,439
value plus the value of the

299
00:09:12,439 --> 00:09:13,307
improvements, which is a very

300
00:09:13,307 --> 00:09:15,307
high debt limit.

301
00:09:15,809 --> 00:09:16,643
I don't think anybody ever comes

302
00:09:16,643 --> 00:09:17,944
close to that.

303
00:09:17,944 --> 00:09:19,944
>> are we

304
00:09:21,181 --> 00:09:22,682
>> Mayor Lane: are we more

305
00:09:22,682 --> 00:09:24,784
restrictive then by our policy?

306
00:09:24,784 --> 00:09:26,986
>> our policies, as I have

307
00:09:26,986 --> 00:09:28,454
quickly reviewed them, do not

308
00:09:28,454 --> 00:09:30,389
speak to the general obligation

309
00:09:30,389 --> 00:09:31,991
bond aspect of it.

310
00:09:31,991 --> 00:09:33,492
Typically when we have done

311
00:09:33,492 --> 00:09:35,270
general obligation bonds and

312
00:09:35,270 --> 00:09:36,862
community facilities districts,

313
00:09:36,862 --> 00:09:39,131
and I mean throughout the state,

314
00:09:39,131 --> 00:09:41,633
we're more concerned about a tax

315
00:09:41,633 --> 00:09:44,169
rate and what we do is try to

316
00:09:44,169 --> 00:09:45,770
size a debt issuance that will

317
00:09:45,770 --> 00:09:48,539
produce a certain tax rate.

318
00:09:48,539 --> 00:09:49,974
Now, obviously, that has some

319
00:09:49,974 --> 00:09:51,642
disadvantages when your assessed

320
00:09:51,642 --> 00:09:53,244
valuation starts fluctuating.

321
00:09:53,244 --> 00:09:56,480
That means the tax rate goes up

322
00:09:56,480 --> 00:09:56,914
and down depending on which way

323
00:09:56,914 --> 00:09:59,314
the A.V. Goes.

324
00:09:59,952 --> 00:10:02,552
But normally those types of debt

325
00:10:02,552 --> 00:10:03,220
issues target you a tax rate.

326
00:10:03,220 --> 00:10:04,200
>> Mayor Lane: but those

327
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:05,722
percentages you just mentioned

328
00:10:05,722 --> 00:10:06,756
go to the district property and

329
00:10:06,756 --> 00:10:09,156
improvements rather than the

330
00:10:10,993 --> 00:10:12,695
city's total bond issuance or

331
00:10:12,695 --> 00:10:13,863
value -- valuation?

332
00:10:13,863 --> 00:10:15,397
>> that is correct, mayor.

333
00:10:15,397 --> 00:10:17,566
I know this conversation was

334
00:10:17,566 --> 00:10:19,768
focused a bit on the 5% limit

335
00:10:19,768 --> 00:10:22,637
that you have by policy, and

336
00:10:22,637 --> 00:10:23,738
that is unique to scottsdale.

337
00:10:23,738 --> 00:10:26,138
That I'm aware of.

338
00:10:27,942 --> 00:10:29,644
Now there May some other

339
00:10:29,644 --> 00:10:31,379
jurisdiction in arizona that I'm

340
00:10:31,379 --> 00:10:32,914
not aware that speaks to this

341
00:10:32,914 --> 00:10:34,181
issue in that context, but I

342
00:10:34,181 --> 00:10:34,982
suspect I would know.

343
00:10:34,982 --> 00:10:36,350
>> Mayor Lane: you can go back

344
00:10:36,350 --> 00:10:36,617
to the plant status for a little

345
00:10:36,617 --> 00:10:38,617
bit.

346
00:10:40,187 --> 00:10:40,954
>> thank you very much.

347
00:10:40,954 --> 00:10:41,523
>> Mayor Lane: oh, I'm sorry.

348
00:10:41,523 --> 00:10:42,556
Wait a minute.

349
00:10:42,556 --> 00:10:44,556
Forget that.

350
00:10:46,193 --> 00:10:46,560
>> v. Korte: one more follow-up

351
00:10:46,560 --> 00:10:47,294
question.

352
00:10:47,294 --> 00:10:47,594
>> Mayor Lane: Councilwoman

353
00:10:47,594 --> 00:10:48,395
Korte.

354
00:10:48,395 --> 00:10:49,963
>> v. Korte: in your experience

355
00:10:49,963 --> 00:10:51,731
working with other

356
00:10:51,731 --> 00:10:54,131
municipalities, what is the

357
00:10:58,106 --> 00:10:59,438
standard as far as 5%, 10%, 7%?

358
00:10:59,438 --> 00:11:01,438
>> mayor, councilmember korte,

359
00:11:02,700 --> 00:11:03,575
the relationship to assessed

360
00:11:03,575 --> 00:11:06,712
valuation for this type of debt,

361
00:11:06,712 --> 00:11:07,112
either cfd or I.D. Is unique to

362
00:11:07,112 --> 00:11:09,112
scottsdale.

363
00:11:10,148 --> 00:11:11,183
I have never seen it in any

364
00:11:11,183 --> 00:11:12,584
other jurisdiction.

365
00:11:12,584 --> 00:11:13,818
That's not to say it's a bad

366
00:11:13,818 --> 00:11:15,818
thing, because improvement

367
00:11:15,953 --> 00:11:17,256
district debt, in particular,

368
00:11:17,256 --> 00:11:18,656
there is contingent liability to

369
00:11:18,656 --> 00:11:20,458
the city, and so I think the

370
00:11:20,458 --> 00:11:23,260
city would have some concern and

371
00:11:23,260 --> 00:11:26,396
I know years and years ago, when

372
00:11:26,396 --> 00:11:28,231
the city of chandler was quite

373
00:11:28,231 --> 00:11:29,434
aggressive on their

374
00:11:29,434 --> 00:11:30,667
infrastructure financing through

375
00:11:30,667 --> 00:11:32,202
improvement districts, the

376
00:11:32,202 --> 00:11:33,370
rating agencies took that

377
00:11:33,370 --> 00:11:35,370
contingent liability into

378
00:11:36,730 --> 00:11:37,440
account and actually shut their

379
00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:40,810
rating down for a while, while

380
00:11:40,810 --> 00:11:41,110
they had significant exposure

381
00:11:41,110 --> 00:11:43,110
there.

382
00:11:43,979 --> 00:11:46,315
So it's a number or a limitation

383
00:11:46,315 --> 00:11:47,850
that is -- that merits

384
00:11:47,850 --> 00:11:48,684
discussion but, again,

385
00:11:48,684 --> 00:11:52,284
scottsdale is the only place I

386
00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:53,555
know that has that.

387
00:11:53,555 --> 00:11:53,855
>> Mayor Lane: thank you again,

388
00:11:53,855 --> 00:11:55,156
scott.

389
00:11:55,156 --> 00:11:59,356
I think we'll give you a little

390
00:11:59,494 --> 00:12:00,461
bit of time.

391
00:12:00,461 --> 00:12:01,429
Mr. Nichols, if you would like

392
00:12:01,429 --> 00:12:02,430
to continue then.

393
00:12:02,430 --> 00:12:04,131
>> yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.

394
00:12:04,131 --> 00:12:06,901
And so what I wanted to do was

395
00:12:06,901 --> 00:12:09,470
to have discussion regarding our

396
00:12:09,470 --> 00:12:11,380
current policies and then also

397
00:12:11,380 --> 00:12:13,380
foster discussion on

398
00:12:13,640 --> 00:12:15,640
revitalization districts.

399
00:12:16,810 --> 00:12:17,977
As you see here, community

400
00:12:17,977 --> 00:12:19,145
facility districts, at least

401
00:12:19,145 --> 00:12:21,514
within the city of scottsdale

402
00:12:21,514 --> 00:12:24,250
are used to form infrastructure

403
00:12:24,250 --> 00:12:26,352
improvements on vacant land.

404
00:12:26,352 --> 00:12:29,352
It's most often brought forward

405
00:12:29,488 --> 00:12:30,889
by persons or entities that own

406
00:12:30,889 --> 00:12:32,191
100% of the net assessed

407
00:12:32,191 --> 00:12:32,925
valuation of the land within the

408
00:12:32,925 --> 00:12:34,925
district and I

409
00:12:35,460 --> 00:12:35,927
I give you the

410
00:12:35,927 --> 00:12:37,362
examples there.

411
00:12:37,362 --> 00:12:39,130
And the practice has been to

412
00:12:39,130 --> 00:12:41,866
issue cfd debt for a period of

413
00:12:41,866 --> 00:12:43,101
25 years, and so my question,

414
00:12:43,101 --> 00:12:44,702
does the council want to

415
00:12:44,702 --> 00:12:46,938
continue past practices and

416
00:12:46,938 --> 00:12:48,272
include those past practices in

417
00:12:48,272 --> 00:12:51,410
a policy that would be brought

418
00:12:51,410 --> 00:12:52,376
forward for your consideration?

419
00:12:52,376 --> 00:12:54,344
The second item there,

420
00:12:54,344 --> 00:12:56,460
improvement districts are most

421
00:12:56,460 --> 00:12:57,481
often formed to construct

422
00:12:57,481 --> 00:12:58,181
infrastructure improvements to

423
00:12:58,181 --> 00:12:59,883
existing infrastructure and I

424
00:12:59,883 --> 00:13:03,253
give the example of the most

425
00:13:03,253 --> 00:13:05,288
recent one, bell road two and

426
00:13:05,288 --> 00:13:06,723
does council wish to improve

427
00:13:06,723 --> 00:13:07,626
district debt to infrastructure

428
00:13:07,626 --> 00:13:09,592
improvements to existing

429
00:13:09,592 --> 00:13:11,260
infrastructure?

430
00:13:11,260 --> 00:13:11,727
Existing

431
00:13:11,727 --> 00:13:12,762
infrastructure?

432
00:13:12,762 --> 00:13:14,163
>> Mayor Lane: thank you, and we

433
00:13:14,163 --> 00:13:15,130
do have -- Councilman

434
00:13:15,130 --> 00:13:18,730
Littlefield has a question or a

435
00:13:19,601 --> 00:13:20,369
comment.

436
00:13:20,369 --> 00:13:22,769
>> r. Littlefield: actually, i

437
00:13:22,871 --> 00:13:23,471
think I will wait.

438
00:13:23,471 --> 00:13:24,406
>> Mayor Lane: okay.

439
00:13:24,406 --> 00:13:25,707
Number one, I just wanted to

440
00:13:25,707 --> 00:13:26,441
sort of further quantify what we

441
00:13:26,441 --> 00:13:28,209
are doing.

442
00:13:28,209 --> 00:13:29,944
You mentioned earlier on that we

443
00:13:29,944 --> 00:13:31,912
do not have any improvement

444
00:13:31,912 --> 00:13:33,247
district debt outstanding.

445
00:13:33,247 --> 00:13:34,548
>> we currently have no

446
00:13:34,548 --> 00:13:34,949
improvement district debt

447
00:13:34,949 --> 00:13:36,949
outstanding.

448
00:13:37,510 --> 00:13:38,519
We have a history of improvement

449
00:13:38,519 --> 00:13:40,287
districts in scottsdale that go

450
00:13:40,287 --> 00:13:42,155
back to about 1959.

451
00:13:42,155 --> 00:13:43,560
and we have done a lot of

452
00:13:43,560 --> 00:13:44,591
improvements within the city

453
00:13:44,591 --> 00:13:45,292
through improvement districts.

454
00:13:45,292 --> 00:13:46,793
>> Mayor Lane: so it's a

455
00:13:46,793 --> 00:13:48,661
mechanism that has been utilized

456
00:13:48,661 --> 00:13:50,960
and successfully?

457
00:13:50,960 --> 00:13:51,264
>> that's correct.

458
00:13:51,264 --> 00:13:52,398
>> Mayor Lane: and it just so

459
00:13:52,398 --> 00:13:54,100
happens that it's paid off and

460
00:13:54,100 --> 00:13:55,901
not been utilized since.

461
00:13:55,901 --> 00:13:58,700
Is there some distinction, if I

462
00:13:58,700 --> 00:13:58,771
May ask this for my own

463
00:13:58,771 --> 00:14:00,105
edification, maybe everyone's

464
00:14:00,105 --> 00:14:02,400
else, what is the distinction?

465
00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:03,408
the improvement district is for

466
00:14:03,408 --> 00:14:05,808
existing infrastructure and a

467
00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:08,980
cfd is for new?

468
00:14:08,980 --> 00:14:10,980
>> Mr. Payer,

469
00:14:11,416 --> 00:14:14,416
mayer, when I looked at

470
00:14:15,853 --> 00:14:17,154
the improvement districts in the

471
00:14:17,154 --> 00:14:18,289
scottsdale, it was for new

472
00:14:18,289 --> 00:14:19,757
neighborhoods coming into the

473
00:14:19,757 --> 00:14:20,824
city, they wanted to put in

474
00:14:20,824 --> 00:14:23,224
infrastructure, which it was

475
00:14:23,894 --> 00:14:25,195
paving, sewer, water, those

476
00:14:25,195 --> 00:14:26,830
sorts of improvements.

477
00:14:26,830 --> 00:14:27,197
They would form an improvement

478
00:14:27,197 --> 00:14:28,398
district.

479
00:14:28,398 --> 00:14:31,368
They would make the improvements

480
00:14:31,368 --> 00:14:32,936
so their district and then those

481
00:14:32,936 --> 00:14:33,703
improvements then would be

482
00:14:33,703 --> 00:14:36,539
deeded over to the city.

483
00:14:36,539 --> 00:14:37,707
My assumption is to operate and

484
00:14:37,707 --> 00:14:39,542
maintain those improvements that

485
00:14:39,542 --> 00:14:41,177
people within the district are

486
00:14:41,177 --> 00:14:42,545
voting to tax themselves.

487
00:14:42,545 --> 00:14:43,812
Normally we sold improvement

488
00:14:43,812 --> 00:14:46,315
district debt and it was retired

489
00:14:46,315 --> 00:14:47,820
over a period of about 10 years.

490
00:14:47,820 --> 00:14:48,450
>> Mayor Lane: so barring the

491
00:14:48,450 --> 00:14:49,584
use some of kind of development

492
00:14:49,584 --> 00:14:51,953
agreement, where you would end

493
00:14:51,953 --> 00:14:53,688
up having impact fees for a

494
00:14:53,688 --> 00:14:55,590
community or a neighborhood for

495
00:14:55,590 --> 00:14:58,760
new now -- a new infrastructure

496
00:14:58,760 --> 00:14:59,360
that would be built, the

497
00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:00,270
improvement district was

498
00:15:00,270 --> 00:15:01,329
something that the property

499
00:15:01,329 --> 00:15:03,731
owners got together and formed

500
00:15:03,731 --> 00:15:05,232
it district under the city's

501
00:15:05,232 --> 00:15:07,632
guidance, of course, and

502
00:15:08,835 --> 00:15:10,103
control, but, nevertheless,

503
00:15:10,103 --> 00:15:12,500
assessed their own properties

504
00:15:12,500 --> 00:15:13,273
with the cost of carrying the

505
00:15:13,273 --> 00:15:15,108
debt for those improvements.

506
00:15:15,108 --> 00:15:16,709
So did the impact fees and those

507
00:15:16,709 --> 00:15:20,309
kinds of things, did that sort

508
00:15:20,313 --> 00:15:21,847
of move away from that or was it

509
00:15:21,847 --> 00:15:23,150
the development -- master

510
00:15:23,150 --> 00:15:25,415
developments and development of

511
00:15:25,518 --> 00:15:26,418
whole neighborhoods and new

512
00:15:26,418 --> 00:15:27,786
neighborhoods where those fees

513
00:15:27,786 --> 00:15:31,123
were sort of mixed in together

514
00:15:31,123 --> 00:15:34,626
with the total -- the total

515
00:15:34,626 --> 00:15:35,427
project?

516
00:15:35,427 --> 00:15:36,161
>> Mr. Mayor, I would have to

517
00:15:36,161 --> 00:15:37,962
look into that particular

518
00:15:37,962 --> 00:15:39,430
question of whether the

519
00:15:39,430 --> 00:15:40,565
assessments related to those

520
00:15:40,565 --> 00:15:42,133
improvements outside the

521
00:15:42,133 --> 00:15:43,601
improvement district assessment

522
00:15:43,601 --> 00:15:45,803
itself, how those were handled.

523
00:15:45,803 --> 00:15:46,470
i have not reviewed that.

524
00:15:46,470 --> 00:15:47,838
>> Mayor Lane: but the

525
00:15:47,838 --> 00:15:49,707
improvement district is property

526
00:15:49,707 --> 00:15:51,508
owners getting together to build

527
00:15:51,508 --> 00:15:53,210
a district and a mechanism to

528
00:15:53,210 --> 00:15:55,178
fund those kinds of improvements

529
00:15:55,178 --> 00:15:57,714
that they need to expand or grow

530
00:15:57,714 --> 00:15:59,182
or frankly, to build the

531
00:15:59,182 --> 00:15:59,616
infrastructure for their

532
00:15:59,616 --> 00:16:00,517
neighborhoods?

533
00:16:00,517 --> 00:16:02,517
>> that's correct.

534
00:16:03,586 --> 00:16:04,787
>> Mayor Lane: okay.

535
00:16:04,787 --> 00:16:05,455
yes, Councilman Littlefield.

536
00:16:05,455 --> 00:16:07,156
>> r. Littlefield: okay.

537
00:16:07,156 --> 00:16:08,958
So we currently have CFDs and

538
00:16:08,958 --> 00:16:10,593
improvement districts in

539
00:16:10,593 --> 00:16:12,993
scottsdale but not any

540
00:16:13,695 --> 00:16:14,363
revitalization district?

541
00:16:14,363 --> 00:16:15,864
>> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

542
00:16:15,864 --> 00:16:16,632
Littlefield, that's correct.

543
00:16:16,632 --> 00:16:18,767
>> r. Littlefield: so how big

544
00:16:18,767 --> 00:16:19,801
can an improvement or a

545
00:16:19,801 --> 00:16:21,469
revitalization district be?

546
00:16:21,469 --> 00:16:22,904
Are there legal limits on the

547
00:16:22,904 --> 00:16:24,904
geography?

548
00:16:26,941 --> 00:16:27,241
can it be only be so big, so

549
00:16:27,241 --> 00:16:29,241
small?

550
00:16:29,277 --> 00:16:31,450
Could a revitalization district

551
00:16:31,450 --> 00:16:33,450
or improvement district

552
00:16:37,985 --> 00:16:39,186
encompass the entire city?

553
00:16:39,186 --> 00:16:40,320
>> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

554
00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:42,255
Littlefield, I will defer to

555
00:16:42,255 --> 00:16:44,591
bruce washburn on that.

556
00:16:44,591 --> 00:16:47,193
I am not certain, however, just

557
00:16:47,193 --> 00:16:49,295
by their very nature, with

558
00:16:49,295 --> 00:16:51,695
revitalization districts, it has

559
00:16:51,764 --> 00:16:53,466
to be property owners that own

560
00:16:53,466 --> 00:16:55,801
51% of the net assessed

561
00:16:55,801 --> 00:16:57,536
valuation within the district

562
00:16:57,536 --> 00:16:58,971
and also 51% of the property

563
00:16:58,971 --> 00:17:01,371
owners within the district.

564
00:17:02,407 --> 00:17:04,342
I would assume that the larger

565
00:17:04,342 --> 00:17:05,744
you make the district, the more

566
00:17:05,744 --> 00:17:07,846
difficult those numbers are

567
00:17:07,846 --> 00:17:08,613
going to be to reach.

568
00:17:08,613 --> 00:17:09,747
>> r. Littlefield: I get that.

569
00:17:09,747 --> 00:17:13,947
I'm just curious as to what the

570
00:17:16,620 --> 00:17:18,389
limit is.

571
00:17:18,389 --> 00:17:20,570
>> potted plant, can we get you

572
00:17:20,570 --> 00:17:21,458
back up here?

573
00:17:21,458 --> 00:17:24,458
>> r. Littlefield: this must be

574
00:17:26,563 --> 00:17:28,563
mr. Washington, right?

575
00:17:33,169 --> 00:17:34,103
>> mayor, councilmember

576
00:17:34,103 --> 00:17:35,872
littlefield, with respect to the

577
00:17:35,872 --> 00:17:37,673
community facilities districts,

578
00:17:37,673 --> 00:17:38,474
improvement districts and

579
00:17:38,474 --> 00:17:40,175
revisallization districts,

580
00:17:40,175 --> 00:17:41,176
there's really no limits on how

581
00:17:41,176 --> 00:17:43,576
big they can be.

582
00:17:43,612 --> 00:17:45,747
I say that, though, with a

583
00:17:45,747 --> 00:17:47,315
caveat and it goes, I think to

584
00:17:47,315 --> 00:17:49,885
somebody who raised a point,

585
00:17:49,885 --> 00:17:50,852
could we have one who is quote,

586
00:17:50,852 --> 00:17:51,553
terminus with the boundaries of

587
00:17:51,553 --> 00:17:52,887
the city?

588
00:17:52,887 --> 00:17:55,256
There is some law to the effect

589
00:17:55,256 --> 00:17:56,324
that if you tried to form an

590
00:17:56,324 --> 00:17:57,792
improvement district or a

591
00:17:57,792 --> 00:17:59,792
community facilities district

592
00:18:00,940 --> 00:18:02,960
that had boundaries go terminus

593
00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:04,164
with the city's boundaries then

594
00:18:04,164 --> 00:18:05,299
in essence, you have city

595
00:18:05,299 --> 00:18:08,299
obligations, city bonds and you

596
00:18:08,668 --> 00:18:10,637
need to follow then your debt

597
00:18:10,637 --> 00:18:12,405
limits with respect to city

598
00:18:12,405 --> 00:18:13,600
obligations, 6%, 20%, and that

599
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:15,600
sort of thing.

600
00:18:18,478 --> 00:18:19,512
And so the cases put that kind

601
00:18:19,512 --> 00:18:20,880
of governor on it.

602
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:21,814
These are not special districts

603
00:18:21,814 --> 00:18:24,214
and consequently should not

604
00:18:26,718 --> 00:18:28,253
include all the area located

605
00:18:28,253 --> 00:18:28,921
within the city.

606
00:18:28,921 --> 00:18:29,688
>> r. Littlefield: okay.

607
00:18:29,688 --> 00:18:33,888
But you could have one for half

608
00:18:34,926 --> 00:18:35,260
the city, a third.

609
00:18:35,260 --> 00:18:37,260
Legally.

610
00:18:37,428 --> 00:18:37,862
I understand there are practical

611
00:18:37,862 --> 00:18:39,862
implications.

612
00:18:40,465 --> 00:18:41,899
I'm asking what the legal

613
00:18:41,899 --> 00:18:42,366
implications are.

614
00:18:42,366 --> 00:18:43,734
>> slightly.

615
00:18:43,734 --> 00:18:45,269
There are, again, backing up a

616
00:18:45,269 --> 00:18:47,538
little bit -- improvement

617
00:18:47,538 --> 00:18:48,505
districts are based upon the

618
00:18:48,505 --> 00:18:49,706
theory that all the property

619
00:18:49,706 --> 00:18:51,308
within the district benefits

620
00:18:51,308 --> 00:18:53,708
from the proposed improvement.

621
00:18:54,410 --> 00:18:57,470
So if you are doing half the

622
00:18:57,470 --> 00:18:58,548
city in an improvement district,

623
00:18:58,548 --> 00:18:59,249
obviously benefits half the

624
00:18:59,249 --> 00:19:01,249
city.

625
00:19:02,752 --> 00:19:03,653
Example maybe you build a water

626
00:19:03,653 --> 00:19:05,488
treatment plant and that May

627
00:19:05,488 --> 00:19:07,888
have a wide benefit.

628
00:19:09,925 --> 00:19:12,961
so you certainly could do that

629
00:19:12,961 --> 00:19:13,362
and we have CFDs that are

630
00:19:13,362 --> 00:19:15,362
8,800 acres.

631
00:19:15,630 --> 00:19:17,265
I mean, it's not unusual to have

632
00:19:17,265 --> 00:19:19,234
large areas.

633
00:19:19,234 --> 00:19:20,668
>> r. Littlefield: thank you.

634
00:19:20,668 --> 00:19:21,680
>> Mayor Lane: thank you,

635
00:19:21,680 --> 00:19:23,680
Councilman.

636
00:19:23,338 --> 00:19:24,105
Vice mayor phillips.

637
00:19:24,105 --> 00:19:24,505
>> Vice Mayor Phillips: thank

638
00:19:24,505 --> 00:19:26,505
you, mayor.

639
00:19:26,807 --> 00:19:28,420
Well, Mr. Nichols, just so you

640
00:19:28,420 --> 00:19:30,578
know where I'm coming from and

641
00:19:30,578 --> 00:19:32,460
staff understands, I'm against

642
00:19:32,460 --> 00:19:34,214
revitalization districts and the

643
00:19:34,214 --> 00:19:37,214
improvement districts and I was

644
00:19:40,420 --> 00:19:41,154
against michele reagan's bill

645
00:19:41,154 --> 00:19:41,888
and I fought against it because

646
00:19:41,888 --> 00:19:42,455
I don't believe it's good for

647
00:19:42,455 --> 00:19:44,424
the residents.

648
00:19:44,424 --> 00:19:46,920
I think it's a tax burden and

649
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:47,193
then they end up -- it's hard to

650
00:19:47,193 --> 00:19:50,162
tell your property when you have

651
00:19:50,162 --> 00:19:50,529
an extra tax placed on your

652
00:19:50,529 --> 00:19:52,529
property.

653
00:19:53,699 --> 00:19:55,100
So I would not be in favor of

654
00:19:55,100 --> 00:19:56,535
any kind of things if they come

655
00:19:56,535 --> 00:19:58,300
up in the future and I would

656
00:19:58,300 --> 00:20:01,390
prefer to see them as restricted

657
00:20:01,390 --> 00:20:01,940
as much as possible.

658
00:20:01,940 --> 00:20:02,240
>> Mayor Lane: thank you, vice

659
00:20:02,240 --> 00:20:03,875
mayor.

660
00:20:03,875 --> 00:20:05,760
I would weigh in on the same

661
00:20:05,760 --> 00:20:05,443
note as far as that is

662
00:20:05,443 --> 00:20:07,443
concerned.

663
00:20:07,579 --> 00:20:09,313
One of the things with this

664
00:20:09,313 --> 00:20:11,215
revitalization district plan was

665
00:20:11,215 --> 00:20:14,215
put forward several years ago

666
00:20:14,518 --> 00:20:16,200
now, the intent was really

667
00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:18,200
almost intergovernmental kind

668
00:20:18,255 --> 00:20:20,624
of -- or multijurisdictional

669
00:20:20,624 --> 00:20:22,959
kind of funding mechanism and

670
00:20:22,959 --> 00:20:24,127
frankly district policy.

671
00:20:24,127 --> 00:20:25,395
And at the time, one of the

672
00:20:25,395 --> 00:20:27,397
things that was being considered

673
00:20:27,397 --> 00:20:29,198
and it never gained any traction

674
00:20:29,198 --> 00:20:31,434
was with the -- with the tribe

675
00:20:31,434 --> 00:20:33,669
and as well as with the city of

676
00:20:33,669 --> 00:20:36,690
tempe on the eastern-most

677
00:20:36,405 --> 00:20:36,839
portion of Mcdowell road, in

678
00:20:36,839 --> 00:20:38,507
that section.

679
00:20:38,507 --> 00:20:40,809
It frankly, was sort of designed

680
00:20:40,809 --> 00:20:42,944
around that and I think it's --

681
00:20:42,944 --> 00:20:46,147
it ended up with an animal that

682
00:20:46,147 --> 00:20:47,649
is somewhat more unique and its

683
00:20:47,649 --> 00:20:48,850
implementation or attempted

684
00:20:48,850 --> 00:20:50,118
implementation of it or use of

685
00:20:50,118 --> 00:20:52,118
it lass caused

686
00:20:53,855 --> 00:20:56,230
has caused some concern, even

687
00:20:56,230 --> 00:20:57,240
when it was presented in the

688
00:20:57,240 --> 00:20:58,726
past for our consideration.

689
00:20:58,726 --> 00:21:00,961
One of the things we tried to

690
00:21:00,961 --> 00:21:02,663
deal with several months ago, in

691
00:21:02,663 --> 00:21:04,640
fact, maybe as much as a year or

692
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:05,499
two ago was to get some

693
00:21:05,499 --> 00:21:06,833
clarification as to how that

694
00:21:06,833 --> 00:21:08,201
statute would ever be employed

695
00:21:08,201 --> 00:21:09,469
by the city.

696
00:21:09,469 --> 00:21:11,370
Personally, I am not an advocate

697
00:21:11,370 --> 00:21:12,739
of the revitalization district

698
00:21:12,739 --> 00:21:14,407
for a couple of reasons and one

699
00:21:14,407 --> 00:21:18,607
of them is stated in the first

700
00:21:18,878 --> 00:21:20,112
paragraph, and that is the --

701
00:21:20,112 --> 00:21:20,980
and it's shared with the

702
00:21:20,980 --> 00:21:22,980
improvement district, something

703
00:21:23,449 --> 00:21:24,883
I was not really aware of, but

704
00:21:24,883 --> 00:21:27,419
that 49% of the property owners

705
00:21:27,419 --> 00:21:29,855
either by valuation or total

706
00:21:29,855 --> 00:21:31,389
ownership could be subjected to

707
00:21:31,389 --> 00:21:31,956
this type of structure against

708
00:21:31,956 --> 00:21:33,956
their will.

709
00:21:34,993 --> 00:21:36,361
And I find that to be a

710
00:21:36,361 --> 00:21:38,761
difficult thing to swallow.

711
00:21:39,297 --> 00:21:41,866
And it May be one of the reasons

712
00:21:41,866 --> 00:21:43,667
the improvement district is no

713
00:21:43,667 --> 00:21:45,667
longer being used.

714
00:21:47,905 --> 00:21:49,390
The other is the revitalization

715
00:21:49,390 --> 00:21:50,841
district does the same thing.

716
00:21:50,841 --> 00:21:52,375
So I'm not an advocate in both

717
00:21:52,375 --> 00:21:53,510
of these cases.

718
00:21:53,510 --> 00:21:55,311
When we talk about the

719
00:21:55,311 --> 00:21:57,311
improvement in revitalization

720
00:21:58,481 --> 00:22:01,481
districts, I'm not sure whether

721
00:22:03,519 --> 00:22:06,519
or not the districts possibility

722
00:22:08,257 --> 00:22:09,825
at the 51/49% kind of setup, the

723
00:22:09,825 --> 00:22:10,559
51% setup, whether I do want to

724
00:22:10,559 --> 00:22:12,494
continue that policy.

725
00:22:12,494 --> 00:22:14,262
i think it would probably be

726
00:22:14,262 --> 00:22:15,630
something we would rather go to,

727
00:22:15,630 --> 00:22:15,997
either a higher number or

728
00:22:15,997 --> 00:22:17,665
eliminate.

729
00:22:17,665 --> 00:22:20,100
But I certainly don't want to

730
00:22:20,100 --> 00:22:20,902
apply it to the revitalization

731
00:22:20,902 --> 00:22:22,870
district.

732
00:22:22,870 --> 00:22:25,720
There is another element here

733
00:22:25,720 --> 00:22:26,774
too, in that I have been trying

734
00:22:26,774 --> 00:22:29,774
to figure for quite sometime

735
00:22:30,411 --> 00:22:32,790
now, as to what -- what

736
00:22:32,790 --> 00:22:35,315
advantage and, you know, we have

737
00:22:35,315 --> 00:22:38,915
had an awful lot of conversation

738
00:22:39,285 --> 00:22:40,720
as to what it is to the city's

739
00:22:40,720 --> 00:22:42,355
advantage to the property

740
00:22:42,355 --> 00:22:43,790
owner's, what advantage this

741
00:22:43,790 --> 00:22:45,910
kind of structure with an

742
00:22:45,910 --> 00:22:46,993
independent board -- I'm talking

743
00:22:46,993 --> 00:22:48,993
about revitalization district,

744
00:22:50,620 --> 00:22:51,463
where the city and -- well, the

745
00:22:51,463 --> 00:22:53,298
city relinquishes both control

746
00:22:53,298 --> 00:22:55,200
over bonds and taxing in that

747
00:22:55,200 --> 00:22:56,168
district area, even though the

748
00:22:56,168 --> 00:22:57,869
dedication of the streets and

749
00:22:57,869 --> 00:22:58,503
the roads May be given over to

750
00:22:58,503 --> 00:22:59,871
the city.

751
00:22:59,871 --> 00:23:01,639
We lose control over it.

752
00:23:01,639 --> 00:23:03,441
And it does not seem to play

753
00:23:03,441 --> 00:23:04,876
very well when we think about it

754
00:23:04,876 --> 00:23:06,876
in those terms.

755
00:23:07,445 --> 00:23:10,470
I'm not anxious about turning

756
00:23:10,470 --> 00:23:12,850
over responsibility to a mini

757
00:23:12,850 --> 00:23:14,718
town within our city of taxing

758
00:23:14,718 --> 00:23:15,485
and bonding under these

759
00:23:15,485 --> 00:23:17,221
circumstances, particularly when

760
00:23:17,221 --> 00:23:19,456
I don't see that there's any

761
00:23:19,456 --> 00:23:21,625
particular thing that is served

762
00:23:21,625 --> 00:23:24,625
that couldn't be easier served

763
00:23:26,996 --> 00:23:28,798
either by a cfd or even an

764
00:23:28,798 --> 00:23:30,660
I.D.A., where in the case of an

765
00:23:30,660 --> 00:23:31,434
I.D.A., we have maintained a lot

766
00:23:31,434 --> 00:23:33,402
of control and we reduce the

767
00:23:33,402 --> 00:23:35,400
risk and it goes to the private

768
00:23:35,400 --> 00:23:36,171
property owner but it still

769
00:23:36,171 --> 00:23:36,972
remains taxable property in the

770
00:23:36,972 --> 00:23:38,972
city limits.

771
00:23:39,942 --> 00:23:41,810
The same thing with the cfd.

772
00:23:41,810 --> 00:23:43,440
And you want to throw in the

773
00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:45,130
I.D.A.'s advantage, I suppose is

774
00:23:45,130 --> 00:23:46,548
the fees that are accumulated

775
00:23:46,548 --> 00:23:47,782
through that process that we

776
00:23:47,782 --> 00:23:49,350
have found to be beneficial for

777
00:23:49,350 --> 00:23:52,353
the city at different times for

778
00:23:52,353 --> 00:23:54,353
different reasons.

779
00:23:54,789 --> 00:23:58,258
so in answer to both of these, I

780
00:23:58,258 --> 00:23:59,260
wouldn't want to continue either

781
00:23:59,260 --> 00:24:01,260
of these.

782
00:24:02,496 --> 00:24:03,764
Now, it says the property value

783
00:24:03,764 --> 00:24:05,866
ratio, okay, the second -- or

784
00:24:05,866 --> 00:24:07,100
the first question says should

785
00:24:07,100 --> 00:24:09,769
this be a consideration when

786
00:24:09,769 --> 00:24:12,769
setting policy related to the

787
00:24:12,772 --> 00:24:15,172
debt to encumbered property

788
00:24:15,608 --> 00:24:16,976
value ratio?

789
00:24:16,976 --> 00:24:17,676
Well, that is in the

790
00:24:17,676 --> 00:24:19,111
establishment of the district

791
00:24:19,111 --> 00:24:21,130
and help me -- maybe I'm not

792
00:24:21,130 --> 00:24:22,948
clear on that first question.

793
00:24:22,948 --> 00:24:26,840
>> well, my thought in this, and

794
00:24:26,840 --> 00:24:27,652
I was the one that created this,

795
00:24:27,652 --> 00:24:28,887
should this be a consideration

796
00:24:28,887 --> 00:24:31,222
whether setting the policy

797
00:24:31,222 --> 00:24:32,857
related to the debt to

798
00:24:32,857 --> 00:24:34,525
encumbered property value ratio

799
00:24:34,525 --> 00:24:35,693
was you have people within the

800
00:24:35,693 --> 00:24:36,827
district that May be in the

801
00:24:36,827 --> 00:24:37,695
district that didn't vote to be

802
00:24:37,695 --> 00:24:39,130
in the district.

803
00:24:39,130 --> 00:24:41,565
As a matter of fact, they were

804
00:24:41,565 --> 00:24:44,340
on the losing side of that, and

805
00:24:44,340 --> 00:24:46,103
does this governing body still

806
00:24:46,103 --> 00:24:47,904
have a duty to those people that

807
00:24:47,904 --> 00:24:49,106
are in the district that didn't

808
00:24:49,106 --> 00:24:51,207
want to be in the district and

809
00:24:51,207 --> 00:24:52,475
therefore, if you set the ratio

810
00:24:52,475 --> 00:24:53,910
higher, which when it was

811
00:24:53,910 --> 00:24:56,780
brought forward before, as i

812
00:24:56,780 --> 00:24:57,980
mentioned earlier, it was 3 to 1

813
00:24:57,980 --> 00:24:58,281
before improvements and 5 to 1

814
00:24:58,281 --> 00:25:00,281
after.

815
00:25:01,517 --> 00:25:02,384
So would it be for I.D.S and

816
00:25:02,384 --> 00:25:04,384
revitalization districts since

817
00:25:05,487 --> 00:25:07,356
some people May not care for the

818
00:25:07,356 --> 00:25:07,956
improvements even though they

819
00:25:07,956 --> 00:25:09,956
benefit from them.

820
00:25:11,226 --> 00:25:13,280
Should the ratio before and

821
00:25:13,280 --> 00:25:13,361
after, should there be a larger

822
00:25:13,361 --> 00:25:15,361
spread?

823
00:25:15,396 --> 00:25:16,631
should it be a 3 to 1 before or

824
00:25:16,631 --> 00:25:18,320
a 7 to 1 after?

825
00:25:18,320 --> 00:25:18,633
I mean, I don't have that

826
00:25:18,633 --> 00:25:20,633
recommendation on that.

827
00:25:20,868 --> 00:25:22,937
I just wanted it to be a

828
00:25:22,937 --> 00:25:23,738
discussed item.

829
00:25:23,738 --> 00:25:25,272
>> Mayor Lane: Mr. Nichols, is

830
00:25:25,272 --> 00:25:26,674
there anything in particular

831
00:25:26,674 --> 00:25:30,777
that you can cite or that we

832
00:25:30,777 --> 00:25:33,480
could consider as to why -- why

833
00:25:33,480 --> 00:25:35,248
either the improvement or the

834
00:25:35,248 --> 00:25:37,248
revitalization district couldn't

835
00:25:37,383 --> 00:25:39,519
or the purpose that somebody

836
00:25:39,519 --> 00:25:40,853
might use for those couldn't be

837
00:25:40,853 --> 00:25:44,457
better served as far as the city

838
00:25:44,457 --> 00:25:45,524
is concerned with the cfd?

839
00:25:45,524 --> 00:25:47,559
>> Mr. Mayor, members of the

840
00:25:47,559 --> 00:25:48,994
council, in my opinion, and this

841
00:25:48,994 --> 00:25:50,562
is strictly my opinion or my

842
00:25:50,562 --> 00:25:52,598
advice that I would give to you,

843
00:25:52,598 --> 00:25:53,732
is like I do in my personal

844
00:25:53,732 --> 00:25:55,700
life, I would do whatever I had

845
00:25:55,700 --> 00:25:57,569
to do and make it as easy as

846
00:25:57,569 --> 00:25:59,370
possible up front.

847
00:25:59,370 --> 00:26:02,370
So if CFDs could accomplish

848
00:26:03,408 --> 00:26:05,309
the goal and the council was

849
00:26:05,309 --> 00:26:06,877
still -- and oversaw that

850
00:26:06,877 --> 00:26:08,579
district as the governing body

851
00:26:08,579 --> 00:26:08,879
of that district, then you use

852
00:26:08,879 --> 00:26:10,470
that.

853
00:26:10,470 --> 00:26:11,782
To me revitalization would be

854
00:26:11,782 --> 00:26:13,684
the last option I would look at,

855
00:26:13,684 --> 00:26:15,719
because I believe that there are

856
00:26:15,719 --> 00:26:16,853
other mechanisms, other tools,

857
00:26:16,853 --> 00:26:17,554
if you will to accomplish the

858
00:26:17,554 --> 00:26:18,989
same things.

859
00:26:18,989 --> 00:26:21,457
And I think you should go from

860
00:26:21,457 --> 00:26:22,759
simple to complicated and not

861
00:26:22,759 --> 00:26:24,827
just skip everything in between

862
00:26:24,827 --> 00:26:25,628
and just go to complicated.

863
00:26:25,628 --> 00:26:26,896
>> Mayor Lane: well, I think one

864
00:26:26,896 --> 00:26:29,165
of the -- if I were just to

865
00:26:29,165 --> 00:26:30,132
focus for a moment on just the

866
00:26:30,132 --> 00:26:32,132
revitalization district, that

867
00:26:32,301 --> 00:26:33,702
seems to be the greatest

868
00:26:33,702 --> 00:26:36,271
departure from sort of a

869
00:26:36,271 --> 00:26:38,340
structure of governance and

870
00:26:38,340 --> 00:26:39,808
control, than either the other

871
00:26:39,808 --> 00:26:42,208
two, either the improvement

872
00:26:44,112 --> 00:26:44,779
district and/or the cfd.

873
00:26:44,779 --> 00:26:45,546
>> Mr. Mayor, members of

874
00:26:45,546 --> 00:26:47,315
council, I would agree with you,

875
00:26:47,315 --> 00:26:48,349
but I think that was with

876
00:26:48,349 --> 00:26:50,184
purpose.

877
00:26:50,184 --> 00:26:51,952
And, again, because when you are

878
00:26:51,952 --> 00:26:53,952
looking at multijurisdictions

879
00:26:53,988 --> 00:26:56,256
within a district, and as an

880
00:26:56,256 --> 00:26:58,325
example, I would say, where the

881
00:26:58,325 --> 00:26:59,926
city of tempe and phoenix and

882
00:26:59,926 --> 00:27:01,361
scottsdale meet, over by the

883
00:27:01,361 --> 00:27:02,662
papago area, if, in fact, we

884
00:27:02,662 --> 00:27:04,497
were wanting to get to go and

885
00:27:04,497 --> 00:27:05,732
make some improvements for, that

886
00:27:05,732 --> 00:27:07,267
well, I'm sure phoenix would be

887
00:27:07,267 --> 00:27:08,801
willing to say, we'll take

888
00:27:08,801 --> 00:27:09,969
charge of that and tempe and

889
00:27:09,969 --> 00:27:10,236
scottsdale would say, no thank

890
00:27:10,236 --> 00:27:12,236
you.

891
00:27:14,507 --> 00:27:15,400
And the same if tempe said it or

892
00:27:15,400 --> 00:27:17,900
scottsdale said it.

893
00:27:17,900 --> 00:27:17,977
So I think it makes sense in

894
00:27:17,977 --> 00:27:19,912
certain circumstances when you

895
00:27:19,912 --> 00:27:21,146
are crossing governing bodies or

896
00:27:21,146 --> 00:27:23,548
getting more than one governing

897
00:27:23,548 --> 00:27:25,283
body together for a district,

898
00:27:25,283 --> 00:27:26,618
and I -- again, when we get

899
00:27:26,618 --> 00:27:29,554
further in this, my question to

900
00:27:29,554 --> 00:27:30,421
you is: do you want to limit

901
00:27:30,421 --> 00:27:32,421
revitalization districts to

902
00:27:33,191 --> 00:27:33,791
those instances?

903
00:27:33,791 --> 00:27:34,959
>> Mayor Lane: yeah.

904
00:27:34,959 --> 00:27:36,494
>> because, again, I would offer

905
00:27:36,494 --> 00:27:37,995
my opinion, if you have three

906
00:27:37,995 --> 00:27:40,130
governing bodies, the state of

907
00:27:40,130 --> 00:27:41,932
arizona allows to enter into

908
00:27:41,932 --> 00:27:43,932
intergovernmental agreements.

909
00:27:44,670 --> 00:27:45,469
And perhaps you could accomplish

910
00:27:45,469 --> 00:27:47,771
the same thing and it's a tool,

911
00:27:47,771 --> 00:27:50,173
I think, that you work out all

912
00:27:50,173 --> 00:27:53,173
the what ifs beforehand within

913
00:27:53,743 --> 00:27:54,477
the I.G. And go I.G.

914
00:27:54,477 --> 00:27:55,745
Negotiations.

915
00:27:55,745 --> 00:27:58,247
My concern is -- and, again,

916
00:27:58,247 --> 00:28:00,150
it's more of a legal issue, is

917
00:28:00,150 --> 00:28:01,717
with these revitalization

918
00:28:01,717 --> 00:28:02,885
districts, if we get too

919
00:28:02,885 --> 00:28:05,254
involved in forming the

920
00:28:05,254 --> 00:28:08,254
district, or setting up the

921
00:28:08,957 --> 00:28:10,492
parameters of the district, we

922
00:28:10,492 --> 00:28:11,960
May find ourselves in a position

923
00:28:11,960 --> 00:28:12,760
where we do hold some

924
00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:15,160
responsibility for that district

925
00:28:15,296 --> 00:28:16,640
in the future.

926
00:28:16,640 --> 00:28:17,365
>> Mayor Lane: you mean that

927
00:28:17,365 --> 00:28:19,367
riis wok shift over to the city?

928
00:28:19,367 --> 00:28:20,670
>> -- risk would shift over to

929
00:28:20,670 --> 00:28:21,202
the city?

930
00:28:21,202 --> 00:28:22,536
>> we could assume some of the

931
00:28:22,536 --> 00:28:23,637
liability if we get too hands on

932
00:28:23,637 --> 00:28:24,605
with it.

933
00:28:24,605 --> 00:28:25,605
>> Mayor Lane: because it

934
00:28:25,605 --> 00:28:27,700
redefines itself?

935
00:28:27,700 --> 00:28:27,741
>> that's correct.

936
00:28:27,741 --> 00:28:28,909
>> Mayor Lane: well, I will

937
00:28:28,909 --> 00:28:29,776
leave it at that as far as my

938
00:28:29,776 --> 00:28:31,411
opinion is on it.

939
00:28:31,411 --> 00:28:32,450
I think there May some other

940
00:28:32,450 --> 00:28:33,680
comments on it.

941
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:34,747
I think really truly, I don't

942
00:28:34,747 --> 00:28:36,316
know that we have a continuing

943
00:28:36,316 --> 00:28:37,884
need for the improvement

944
00:28:37,884 --> 00:28:38,384
district and the revitalization

945
00:28:38,384 --> 00:28:40,384
district.

946
00:28:40,519 --> 00:28:41,787
i would say as you just

947
00:28:41,787 --> 00:28:43,787
mentioned, simple first.

948
00:28:44,990 --> 00:28:46,358
If we are we can accomplish with

949
00:28:46,358 --> 00:28:48,527
existing mechanisms right now

950
00:28:48,527 --> 00:28:50,262
and there's no detriment to

951
00:28:50,262 --> 00:28:51,496
anyone, and no further

952
00:28:51,496 --> 00:28:53,896
denigration of the city's

953
00:28:53,932 --> 00:28:56,201
control over bonding and taxing

954
00:28:56,201 --> 00:28:57,268
and control of a segment of our

955
00:28:57,268 --> 00:28:58,169
communicate, I certainly would

956
00:28:58,169 --> 00:28:59,971
rather opt to that.

957
00:28:59,971 --> 00:29:02,440
in fact, I have even heard as

958
00:29:02,440 --> 00:29:04,342
much, that one of the reasons

959
00:29:04,342 --> 00:29:06,844
that some have approached us on

960
00:29:06,844 --> 00:29:09,380
this is frankly to bypass this

961
00:29:09,380 --> 00:29:12,380
body politically and the general

962
00:29:12,749 --> 00:29:14,170
public in their efforts to tax

963
00:29:14,170 --> 00:29:15,152
or bond a segment of our

964
00:29:15,152 --> 00:29:17,152
communicate on

965
00:29:17,754 --> 00:29:20,123
community on the overall.

966
00:29:20,123 --> 00:29:21,858
so I'm concerned about any

967
00:29:21,858 --> 00:29:23,259
policy that sort of locks us in

968
00:29:23,259 --> 00:29:25,259
for that consideration.

969
00:29:26,195 --> 00:29:27,430
So I guess on both of these, I

970
00:29:27,430 --> 00:29:29,999
wouldn't be worried about how

971
00:29:29,999 --> 00:29:31,660
many years on the R.D. Because I

972
00:29:31,660 --> 00:29:33,335
wouldn't think it would be an

973
00:29:33,335 --> 00:29:33,702
option I would like to be

974
00:29:33,702 --> 00:29:35,702
following.

975
00:29:37,772 --> 00:29:38,873
On the improvement district, I

976
00:29:38,873 --> 00:29:39,774
suppose it might stay with the

977
00:29:39,774 --> 00:29:41,442
policy you have now.

978
00:29:41,442 --> 00:29:43,911
it seems to have been harmless

979
00:29:43,911 --> 00:29:44,912
and it doesn't certainly

980
00:29:44,912 --> 00:29:47,312
relinquish all the control

981
00:29:48,149 --> 00:29:49,717
mechanisms that the R.D. Does.

982
00:29:49,717 --> 00:29:51,685
So that's my position on it, as

983
00:29:51,685 --> 00:29:52,720
it is right now.

984
00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:53,487
Councilman Littlefield.

985
00:29:53,487 --> 00:29:55,550
>> r. Littlefield: I guess I'm

986
00:29:55,550 --> 00:29:58,550
curious as to what motivates

987
00:29:58,225 --> 00:29:59,292
this discussion.

988
00:29:59,292 --> 00:30:00,126
Obviously, the question whether

989
00:30:00,126 --> 00:30:01,828
or not you would want these

990
00:30:01,828 --> 00:30:02,228
would be what you are trying to

991
00:30:02,228 --> 00:30:03,997
accomplish.

992
00:30:03,997 --> 00:30:05,465
So I guess I'm curious as to

993
00:30:05,465 --> 00:30:07,660
what it is that we thought we

994
00:30:07,660 --> 00:30:10,660
might want to accomplish that

995
00:30:10,336 --> 00:30:11,871
prompted this discussion.

996
00:30:11,871 --> 00:30:14,473
Is there anything on the table

997
00:30:14,473 --> 00:30:16,308
where somebody said we think we

998
00:30:16,308 --> 00:30:17,809
would like to have an

999
00:30:17,809 --> 00:30:19,144
improvement district or

1000
00:30:19,144 --> 00:30:21,144
revitalization district?

1001
00:30:21,780 --> 00:30:23,415
i mean we have plenty of CFDs

1002
00:30:23,415 --> 00:30:24,215
laying around.

1003
00:30:24,215 --> 00:30:27,215
>> Mayor Lane: Councilman, if I

1004
00:30:27,218 --> 00:30:27,986
could, I might just say that --

1005
00:30:27,986 --> 00:30:28,787
>> r. Littlefield: well, yeah.

1006
00:30:28,787 --> 00:30:30,454
>> Mayor Lane: I'm not sure what

1007
00:30:30,454 --> 00:30:32,189
the ties might be with some of

1008
00:30:32,189 --> 00:30:33,724
the folks and the charter

1009
00:30:33,724 --> 00:30:34,925
officers, and they May be but

1010
00:30:34,925 --> 00:30:36,760
certainly the city has been

1011
00:30:36,760 --> 00:30:39,363
approached a couple of different

1012
00:30:39,363 --> 00:30:41,998
times with regard to the use of

1013
00:30:41,998 --> 00:30:45,468
this, and they were both found

1014
00:30:45,468 --> 00:30:47,504
to be just outside the box

1015
00:30:47,504 --> 00:30:48,571
for -- and a lot of it was

1016
00:30:48,571 --> 00:30:49,772
centered on the idea of this

1017
00:30:49,772 --> 00:30:51,287
control that we are talking

1018
00:30:51,287 --> 00:30:52,642
about on taxing and bonds but

1019
00:30:52,642 --> 00:30:54,510
also just the overall control

1020
00:30:54,510 --> 00:30:56,312
for a district that might

1021
00:30:56,312 --> 00:30:57,346
encompass a great deal of area.

1022
00:30:57,346 --> 00:30:59,481
But there are also some thoughts

1023
00:30:59,481 --> 00:31:01,650
as to what motivated those

1024
00:31:01,650 --> 00:31:05,250
people who brought it to us.

1025
00:31:07,550 --> 00:31:08,657
And there May have been some

1026
00:31:08,657 --> 00:31:11,657
less than straight forward kinds

1027
00:31:11,960 --> 00:31:14,829
of considerations as to -- in

1028
00:31:14,829 --> 00:31:17,598
the depth of the recession, even

1029
00:31:17,598 --> 00:31:18,999
to the point of trying to get

1030
00:31:18,999 --> 00:31:20,340
something refinanced, they are

1031
00:31:20,340 --> 00:31:21,802
otherwise wouldn't be able to

1032
00:31:21,802 --> 00:31:24,802
get refinanced and bail the

1033
00:31:25,239 --> 00:31:26,600
original owners out on debt.

1034
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:27,174
>> r. Littlefield: well, that

1035
00:31:27,174 --> 00:31:30,110
was exactly my question, not

1036
00:31:30,110 --> 00:31:30,577
that I'm a suspicious person or

1037
00:31:30,577 --> 00:31:31,311
anything.

1038
00:31:31,311 --> 00:31:31,578
>> Mayor Lane: no.

1039
00:31:31,578 --> 00:31:32,946
No.

1040
00:31:32,946 --> 00:31:34,213
>> r. Littlefield: okay.

1041
00:31:34,213 --> 00:31:36,616
But there's nothing on the table

1042
00:31:36,616 --> 00:31:37,283
at the moment?

1043
00:31:37,283 --> 00:31:38,818
>> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

1044
00:31:38,818 --> 00:31:39,585
Littlefield, the reason I

1045
00:31:39,585 --> 00:31:41,985
personally brought this forward,

1046
00:31:42,388 --> 00:31:43,589
i mean, for discussion, is

1047
00:31:43,589 --> 00:31:45,230
because it's November 18th

1048
00:31:45,230 --> 00:31:45,390
November 18th council

1049
00:31:45,390 --> 00:31:46,758
meeting --

1050
00:31:46,758 --> 00:31:48,527
>> r. Littlefield: yes, we asked

1051
00:31:48,527 --> 00:31:49,728
you to.

1052
00:31:49,728 --> 00:31:50,529
>> I was directed to.

1053
00:31:50,529 --> 00:31:53,529
>> r. Littlefield: is there some

1054
00:31:54,320 --> 00:31:54,699
proposal on the table somewhere?

1055
00:31:54,699 --> 00:31:55,400
>> Mr. Mayor, Councilman

1056
00:31:55,400 --> 00:31:57,568
Littlefield, the city manager

1057
00:31:57,568 --> 00:32:01,172
and I had met with a person that

1058
00:32:01,172 --> 00:32:02,439
was interested in using this

1059
00:32:02,439 --> 00:32:04,439
financial mechanism.

1060
00:32:07,511 --> 00:32:08,612
it is in the area that was my

1061
00:32:08,612 --> 00:32:08,912
understanding because it wasn't

1062
00:32:08,912 --> 00:32:09,946
here.

1063
00:32:09,946 --> 00:32:12,946
It was brought forward before.

1064
00:32:13,883 --> 00:32:14,951
It is a different -- a different

1065
00:32:14,951 --> 00:32:16,519
project, however, the person

1066
00:32:16,519 --> 00:32:17,687
that brought it forward I had

1067
00:32:17,687 --> 00:32:18,254
reached out to them and I had

1068
00:32:18,254 --> 00:32:19,557
asked them.

1069
00:32:19,557 --> 00:32:21,591
I said from everything that I

1070
00:32:21,591 --> 00:32:23,159
see, it's a small number of

1071
00:32:23,159 --> 00:32:25,600
people formed an llc.

1072
00:32:25,600 --> 00:32:27,229
They own 100% of the land.

1073
00:32:27,229 --> 00:32:29,598
Is there any reason, you know,

1074
00:32:29,598 --> 00:32:29,932
that you just don't come

1075
00:32:29,932 --> 00:32:31,633
forward.

1076
00:32:31,633 --> 00:32:34,350
We have a policy related to

1077
00:32:34,350 --> 00:32:35,437
CFDs that you do this under.

1078
00:32:35,437 --> 00:32:36,404
There's not a need for

1079
00:32:36,404 --> 00:32:37,639
revitalization districts.

1080
00:32:37,639 --> 00:32:38,907
So I pointed that out.

1081
00:32:38,907 --> 00:32:40,141
Yes, there was a person that

1082
00:32:40,141 --> 00:32:42,877
brought forward a project that

1083
00:32:42,877 --> 00:32:46,130
is interested and we have no

1084
00:32:46,130 --> 00:32:48,413
formal process currently for

1085
00:32:49,683 --> 00:32:50,384
applying to the city to form a

1086
00:32:50,384 --> 00:32:51,552
revitalization district.

1087
00:32:51,552 --> 00:32:54,521
That's what we were going to try

1088
00:32:54,521 --> 00:32:54,921
to accomplish with this

1089
00:32:54,921 --> 00:32:56,490
discussion.

1090
00:32:56,490 --> 00:32:58,325
>> r. Littlefield: was this a

1091
00:32:58,325 --> 00:33:00,325
Mcdowell road project?

1092
00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:02,462
>> no, it was a project up in

1093
00:33:02,462 --> 00:33:03,229
the northeast part of the city.

1094
00:33:03,229 --> 00:33:03,629
>> r. Littlefield: all right.

1095
00:33:03,629 --> 00:33:05,629
Thank you.

1096
00:33:05,798 --> 00:33:06,199
>> Mayor Lane: thank you,

1097
00:33:06,199 --> 00:33:06,832
Councilman.

1098
00:33:06,832 --> 00:33:07,667
Councilwoman Milhaven.

1099
00:33:07,667 --> 00:33:08,670
>> l. Milhaven: thank you,

1100
00:33:08,670 --> 00:33:09,869
mayor.

1101
00:33:09,869 --> 00:33:13,469
This is a conversation that I

1102
00:33:13,572 --> 00:33:14,973
started four years ago, and for

1103
00:33:14,973 --> 00:33:16,475
me, this conversation is about

1104
00:33:16,475 --> 00:33:17,876
the redevelopment district but

1105
00:33:17,876 --> 00:33:19,244
it's also about all of the

1106
00:33:19,244 --> 00:33:22,180
taxing districts, some of what

1107
00:33:22,180 --> 00:33:23,581
we have heard here is this

1108
00:33:23,581 --> 00:33:25,981
policy is unique to

1109
00:33:26,784 --> 00:33:28,219
unique to scottsdale

1110
00:33:28,219 --> 00:33:28,619
and is not in the authorizing

1111
00:33:28,619 --> 00:33:29,520
legislation.

1112
00:33:29,520 --> 00:33:31,355
I remember four years ago when

1113
00:33:31,355 --> 00:33:32,423
we started this conversation, I

1114
00:33:32,423 --> 00:33:33,591
read all the authorizing

1115
00:33:33,591 --> 00:33:33,957
legislation for all three

1116
00:33:33,957 --> 00:33:35,225
districts.

1117
00:33:35,225 --> 00:33:37,361
I would have to brush up again

1118
00:33:37,361 --> 00:33:37,694
to remind myself of what it

1119
00:33:37,694 --> 00:33:39,960
said.

1120
00:33:39,960 --> 00:33:40,464
But at the time the former

1121
00:33:40,464 --> 00:33:41,431
treasurer and I had

1122
00:33:41,431 --> 00:33:42,999
conversations around the

1123
00:33:42,999 --> 00:33:45,201
policies related to these

1124
00:33:45,201 --> 00:33:46,502
districts and I realized our

1125
00:33:46,502 --> 00:33:48,204
differences in looking at the

1126
00:33:48,204 --> 00:33:48,871
policies come from our different

1127
00:33:48,871 --> 00:33:50,871
points of view.

1128
00:33:51,700 --> 00:33:52,375
He was looking at the treasurer

1129
00:33:52,375 --> 00:33:54,376
issuing bonds for the city and I

1130
00:33:54,376 --> 00:33:55,678
was looking at it as a 30-year

1131
00:33:55,678 --> 00:33:57,613
lender helping finance projects

1132
00:33:57,613 --> 00:33:58,480
and the way you look at

1133
00:33:58,480 --> 00:34:00,880
collateral is different from

1134
00:34:01,983 --> 00:34:04,119
those two points of view.

1135
00:34:04,119 --> 00:34:05,954
So -- and this is clearly pretty

1136
00:34:05,954 --> 00:34:07,655
complex and we have heard things

1137
00:34:07,655 --> 00:34:09,590
about contingent liabilities for

1138
00:34:09,590 --> 00:34:11,359
the cfd and the potential of

1139
00:34:11,359 --> 00:34:13,359
creating additional reliability

1140
00:34:14,762 --> 00:34:18,299
or risk depending on what we do.

1141
00:34:18,299 --> 00:34:19,366
So rather than us make any

1142
00:34:19,366 --> 00:34:22,169
decisions tonight, what I would

1143
00:34:22,169 --> 00:34:23,103
like to see happen is some more

1144
00:34:23,103 --> 00:34:25,103
work around this.

1145
00:34:25,405 --> 00:34:26,373
These can be important economic

1146
00:34:26,373 --> 00:34:28,373
development tools.

1147
00:34:28,842 --> 00:34:29,976
And I would like to know that

1148
00:34:29,976 --> 00:34:31,477
your policies are appropriate

1149
00:34:31,477 --> 00:34:35,677
that would allow us to use this

1150
00:34:36,820 --> 00:34:37,883
and with all due respect to

1151
00:34:37,883 --> 00:34:40,283
Councilman Phillips who doesn't

1152
00:34:40,352 --> 00:34:43,352
like these, if these districts

1153
00:34:43,789 --> 00:34:45,570
made it possible for D.C. Ranch,

1154
00:34:45,570 --> 00:34:47,457
Mcdowell mountain ranch and,

1155
00:34:48,260 --> 00:34:50,295
some of those beautiful

1156
00:34:50,295 --> 00:34:51,563
communities in our city, and the

1157
00:34:51,563 --> 00:34:52,964
citizens certainly don't have

1158
00:34:52,964 --> 00:34:54,332
any issue buying and telling

1159
00:34:54,332 --> 00:34:55,700
their homes, I think it could be

1160
00:34:55,700 --> 00:34:56,601
a positive thing for economic

1161
00:34:56,601 --> 00:34:58,200
development in our city.

1162
00:34:58,200 --> 00:34:59,300
So what I would like to see

1163
00:34:59,300 --> 00:35:00,571
happen is the industrial

1164
00:35:00,571 --> 00:35:02,840
development authority has a lot

1165
00:35:02,840 --> 00:35:04,708
of experience with bonding.

1166
00:35:04,708 --> 00:35:05,676
Have them take a look at the

1167
00:35:05,676 --> 00:35:08,412
statutes and maybe work through

1168
00:35:08,412 --> 00:35:08,745
and say, what does the statute

1169
00:35:08,745 --> 00:35:10,280
require?

1170
00:35:10,280 --> 00:35:11,948
What is the city's policy with

1171
00:35:11,948 --> 00:35:13,783
regard to this?

1172
00:35:13,783 --> 00:35:15,285
What do the policies in other

1173
00:35:15,285 --> 00:35:16,686
cities to make sure our policies

1174
00:35:16,686 --> 00:35:17,987
aren't so restricted that it

1175
00:35:17,987 --> 00:35:18,888
becomes a tool that folks

1176
00:35:18,888 --> 00:35:20,888
condition use?

1177
00:35:21,891 --> 00:35:23,580
But with an eye on what the --

1178
00:35:23,580 --> 00:35:24,693
what the risk is to the city for

1179
00:35:24,693 --> 00:35:25,961
each of these and watt uses

1180
00:35:25,961 --> 00:35:26,995
might be and have them come back

1181
00:35:26,995 --> 00:35:27,830
with an overview.

1182
00:35:27,830 --> 00:35:28,830
Here's the pro.

1183
00:35:28,830 --> 00:35:29,598
Here's the con.

1184
00:35:29,598 --> 00:35:30,599
Here's the use.

1185
00:35:30,599 --> 00:35:32,599
Here's the policy.

1186
00:35:32,601 --> 00:35:33,835
Here's the risk and help us be

1187
00:35:33,835 --> 00:35:34,869
better informed before we make

1188
00:35:34,869 --> 00:35:37,269
some of these decisions.

1189
00:35:39,207 --> 00:35:41,576
That would be my hope.

1190
00:35:41,576 --> 00:35:42,900
>> Mayor Lane: thank you,

1191
00:35:42,900 --> 00:35:42,543
Councilwoman.

1192
00:35:42,543 --> 00:35:43,778
Councilwoman Korte.

1193
00:35:43,778 --> 00:35:46,778
>> v. Korte: thank you, mayor.

1194
00:35:46,981 --> 00:35:48,449
This revitalization district is

1195
00:35:48,449 --> 00:35:50,150
about 4 years old in the state.

1196
00:35:50,150 --> 00:35:53,150
Is there any other community

1197
00:35:55,222 --> 00:35:55,588
that has utilized this funding

1198
00:35:55,588 --> 00:35:57,588
mechanism?

1199
00:35:58,725 --> 00:36:00,725
In the state?

1200
00:36:00,860 --> 00:36:02,860
>> Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman

1201
00:36:04,163 --> 00:36:05,998
Korte, I'm going to defer.

1202
00:36:05,998 --> 00:36:06,298
I have heard -- let me defer to

1203
00:36:06,298 --> 00:36:07,867
bruce.

1204
00:36:07,867 --> 00:36:10,702
i heard of one through bruce.

1205
00:36:10,702 --> 00:36:11,503
I'm not -- I'm not certain.

1206
00:36:11,503 --> 00:36:13,405
>> City Atty. Washburn: the only

1207
00:36:13,405 --> 00:36:14,773
one I know of is there is one in

1208
00:36:14,773 --> 00:36:17,773
flagstaff and maybe Mr. Ruby

1209
00:36:22,347 --> 00:36:24,215
knows of another.

1210
00:36:24,215 --> 00:36:25,116
>> you are right, Mr. Washburn.

1211
00:36:25,116 --> 00:36:26,884
There's one in flagstaff.

1212
00:36:26,884 --> 00:36:30,387
My understanding is it has not

1213
00:36:30,387 --> 00:36:31,488
issued debt.

1214
00:36:31,488 --> 00:36:33,624
>> v. Korte: this revitalization

1215
00:36:33,624 --> 00:36:35,580
district certainly wasn't

1216
00:36:35,580 --> 00:36:36,360
created -- we didn't create the

1217
00:36:36,360 --> 00:36:37,961
wheel on this.

1218
00:36:37,961 --> 00:36:41,561
Are there other states that have

1219
00:36:42,265 --> 00:36:43,666
used this type of mechanism and

1220
00:36:43,666 --> 00:36:45,680
how have those states used that?

1221
00:36:45,680 --> 00:36:46,669
I think that would be important

1222
00:36:46,669 --> 00:36:50,869
for us to look at before we

1223
00:36:50,906 --> 00:36:52,141
throw the baby out with the bath

1224
00:36:52,141 --> 00:36:53,375
water.

1225
00:36:53,375 --> 00:36:54,843
I -- I understand perhaps the

1226
00:36:54,843 --> 00:36:57,379
state of florida has used this

1227
00:36:57,379 --> 00:36:59,779
type of mechanism often.

1228
00:37:00,282 --> 00:37:05,530
I would like to see how that is

1229
00:37:05,530 --> 00:37:08,653
used and how it has benefited

1230
00:37:09,524 --> 00:37:10,570
the community and economic

1231
00:37:10,570 --> 00:37:12,570
development.

1232
00:37:13,427 --> 00:37:16,427
And in parallel thinking with

1233
00:37:16,997 --> 00:37:17,297
Councilwoman Milhaven, these are

1234
00:37:17,297 --> 00:37:18,899
tools.

1235
00:37:18,899 --> 00:37:21,680
These are tools that are

1236
00:37:21,680 --> 00:37:22,669
important for us to just have in

1237
00:37:22,669 --> 00:37:26,869
our tool box, which we use them

1238
00:37:27,607 --> 00:37:28,841
or not.

1239
00:37:28,841 --> 00:37:29,275
>> Mayor Lane: thank you,

1240
00:37:29,275 --> 00:37:30,743
Councilwoman.

1241
00:37:30,743 --> 00:37:31,444
I would simply say that I think

1242
00:37:31,444 --> 00:37:33,444
simplicity rules here.

1243
00:37:33,479 --> 00:37:36,482
If we have mechanisms that have

1244
00:37:36,482 --> 00:37:37,883
been used and used successfully,

1245
00:37:37,883 --> 00:37:39,351
even if there are some folks who

1246
00:37:39,351 --> 00:37:42,351
don't particularly care for the

1247
00:37:43,288 --> 00:37:44,923
CFDs and the I.D.S, that I

1248
00:37:44,923 --> 00:37:46,791
would -- I'm okay with

1249
00:37:46,791 --> 00:37:47,125
continuing those policies

1250
00:37:47,125 --> 00:37:48,560
myself.

1251
00:37:48,560 --> 00:37:51,562
And frankly, I would just -- we

1252
00:37:51,562 --> 00:37:52,964
can study this until the cows

1253
00:37:52,964 --> 00:37:54,198
come home, I suppose.

1254
00:37:54,198 --> 00:37:55,766
And maybe it is that complex

1255
00:37:55,766 --> 00:37:57,801
because this thing has been used

1256
00:37:57,801 --> 00:37:58,969
and utilized, I think,

1257
00:37:58,969 --> 00:38:01,969
sometimes -- well, it's been

1258
00:38:02,206 --> 00:38:03,473
used in flagstaff, I don't know

1259
00:38:03,473 --> 00:38:04,374
how successfully if there's no

1260
00:38:04,374 --> 00:38:06,176
debt issued.

1261
00:38:06,176 --> 00:38:08,211
I'm concerned about the control

1262
00:38:08,211 --> 00:38:09,312
issues that the city

1263
00:38:09,312 --> 00:38:09,646
relinquishes and for what

1264
00:38:09,646 --> 00:38:11,181
reason?

1265
00:38:11,181 --> 00:38:12,415
I'm talking about -- now we have

1266
00:38:12,415 --> 00:38:13,683
talked an awful lot to the

1267
00:38:13,683 --> 00:38:15,685
benefit of the city, but why

1268
00:38:15,685 --> 00:38:17,987
would we be turning off --

1269
00:38:17,987 --> 00:38:19,622
turning over a section of our

1270
00:38:19,622 --> 00:38:21,924
community to someone else's

1271
00:38:21,924 --> 00:38:24,159
governance and control outside

1272
00:38:24,159 --> 00:38:25,260
of this body where we would not

1273
00:38:25,260 --> 00:38:27,662
have any control over it?

1274
00:38:27,662 --> 00:38:28,764
When we have mechanisms, you can

1275
00:38:28,764 --> 00:38:30,799
call it whatever you want, we

1276
00:38:30,799 --> 00:38:32,200
can use it for revitalization,

1277
00:38:32,200 --> 00:38:33,668
we can use I.D.A.S, that's

1278
00:38:33,668 --> 00:38:35,570
what they are intended for and

1279
00:38:35,570 --> 00:38:37,710
in that case we have a, you

1280
00:38:37,710 --> 00:38:38,720
know, similar mechanism and we

1281
00:38:38,720 --> 00:38:40,307
earn fees from it.

1282
00:38:40,307 --> 00:38:41,809
But we maintain control of

1283
00:38:41,809 --> 00:38:42,142
private property within our city

1284
00:38:42,142 --> 00:38:44,142
limits.

1285
00:38:44,378 --> 00:38:46,113
In this case, we relinquish

1286
00:38:46,113 --> 00:38:47,800
control of private property to a

1287
00:38:47,800 --> 00:38:48,615
district's control, at least in

1288
00:38:48,615 --> 00:38:48,982
those areas that I had

1289
00:38:48,982 --> 00:38:50,982
mentioned.

1290
00:38:51,785 --> 00:38:52,953
so I'm concerned about just

1291
00:38:52,953 --> 00:38:54,254
simply that.

1292
00:38:54,254 --> 00:38:56,356
And know the circumstances and

1293
00:38:56,356 --> 00:38:57,857
how this was developed and why,

1294
00:38:57,857 --> 00:39:02,570
and I'm not sure it May have

1295
00:39:03,195 --> 00:39:04,330
been mirrored or May have

1296
00:39:04,330 --> 00:39:06,665
mimicked some other state or

1297
00:39:06,665 --> 00:39:08,467
city across the country, in its

1298
00:39:08,467 --> 00:39:09,969
use, but it really hasn't come

1299
00:39:09,969 --> 00:39:12,369
into play where this

1300
00:39:14,720 --> 00:39:16,740
particular -- the R.D. Now, is

1301
00:39:16,740 --> 00:39:17,976
particularly useful outside of

1302
00:39:17,976 --> 00:39:18,276
the realm of tools we already

1303
00:39:18,276 --> 00:39:20,276
have.

1304
00:39:20,445 --> 00:39:21,279
It's just because it's labeled

1305
00:39:21,279 --> 00:39:23,514
revitalization, it doesn't mean

1306
00:39:23,514 --> 00:39:26,830
it's the only thing that could

1307
00:39:26,830 --> 00:39:27,985
facilitate revitalization.

1308
00:39:27,985 --> 00:39:29,286
Councilwoman Klapp.

1309
00:39:29,286 --> 00:39:30,354
>> s. Klapp: I also would echo

1310
00:39:30,354 --> 00:39:32,155
that I believe that we need to

1311
00:39:32,155 --> 00:39:34,240
have a policy.

1312
00:39:34,240 --> 00:39:34,391
We have got revitalization

1313
00:39:34,391 --> 00:39:35,759
districts.

1314
00:39:35,759 --> 00:39:38,159
We have no policy.

1315
00:39:40,296 --> 00:39:41,531
And I think this body is pretty

1316
00:39:41,531 --> 00:39:43,166
biased one way or the other and

1317
00:39:43,166 --> 00:39:45,340
I really think a third party,

1318
00:39:45,340 --> 00:39:45,735
such as the I.D.A., to take a

1319
00:39:45,735 --> 00:39:47,403
look at this.

1320
00:39:47,403 --> 00:39:47,770
They are not making a decision,

1321
00:39:47,770 --> 00:39:49,271
though.

1322
00:39:49,271 --> 00:39:50,806
I think the suggestion to have

1323
00:39:50,806 --> 00:39:53,509
them look at this, and to

1324
00:39:53,509 --> 00:39:54,810
determine what policies might be

1325
00:39:54,810 --> 00:39:56,344
appropriate to recommend to the

1326
00:39:56,344 --> 00:39:57,979
council as well as review all

1327
00:39:57,979 --> 00:39:59,781
the uses of this district and

1328
00:39:59,781 --> 00:40:01,149
other districts and look at

1329
00:40:01,149 --> 00:40:04,749
other states and look at how

1330
00:40:04,752 --> 00:40:06,454
they could be utilized in our

1331
00:40:06,454 --> 00:40:08,289
city is a good thing.

1332
00:40:08,289 --> 00:40:10,958
It's still up to the council to

1333
00:40:10,958 --> 00:40:14,558
decide what we want to do.

1334
00:40:14,628 --> 00:40:15,596
but I think we look rather

1335
00:40:15,596 --> 00:40:17,197
foolish, when we have people

1336
00:40:17,197 --> 00:40:18,665
come to the city and want to

1337
00:40:18,665 --> 00:40:20,400
consider using a district and we

1338
00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:21,670
say, well, we don't have any

1339
00:40:21,670 --> 00:40:22,769
policies about it.

1340
00:40:22,769 --> 00:40:25,338
And so then we try to force them

1341
00:40:25,338 --> 00:40:28,241
to go a different direction when

1342
00:40:28,241 --> 00:40:30,641
in reality, we encourage

1343
00:40:30,776 --> 00:40:32,776
revitalization districts when

1344
00:40:33,450 --> 00:40:36,140
the legislation was approved and

1345
00:40:36,140 --> 00:40:38,684
so now it seems to me that the

1346
00:40:38,684 --> 00:40:40,352
smart move would be to send this

1347
00:40:40,352 --> 00:40:41,753
question to the I.D.A. And ask

1348
00:40:41,753 --> 00:40:43,455
them to take a look at it.

1349
00:40:43,455 --> 00:40:45,560
Come back and give us a report

1350
00:40:45,560 --> 00:40:46,570
and discuss with the pros and

1351
00:40:46,570 --> 00:40:47,559
cons of whether or not we should

1352
00:40:47,559 --> 00:40:48,960
or should not have districts and

1353
00:40:48,960 --> 00:40:50,495
what the policy should be.

1354
00:40:50,495 --> 00:40:53,495
I think that's just smart

1355
00:40:53,898 --> 00:40:55,833
business.

1356
00:40:55,833 --> 00:40:56,166
I don't know if we need a

1357
00:40:56,166 --> 00:40:57,401
motion.

1358
00:40:57,401 --> 00:40:58,669
This is a work study.

1359
00:40:58,669 --> 00:40:59,200
>> Mayor Lane: there's no

1360
00:40:59,200 --> 00:40:59,970
motion.

1361
00:40:59,970 --> 00:41:00,837
>> s. Klapp: I think we are just

1362
00:41:00,837 --> 00:41:02,372
giving direction.

1363
00:41:02,372 --> 00:41:03,974
So I would -- I would like to

1364
00:41:03,974 --> 00:41:07,744
direct staff to do that, to work

1365
00:41:07,744 --> 00:41:09,646
with the I.D.A., in coming up

1366
00:41:09,646 --> 00:41:12,181
with some -- ask the I. D.A. To

1367
00:41:12,181 --> 00:41:15,518
take a look at the districts,

1368
00:41:15,518 --> 00:41:18,387
the pros and cons, the

1369
00:41:18,387 --> 00:41:20,387
relationship of revitalization

1370
00:41:20,556 --> 00:41:24,156
districts to the other two types

1371
00:41:25,260 --> 00:41:25,393
of districts that we do have

1372
00:41:25,393 --> 00:41:27,393
policies.

1373
00:41:28,463 --> 00:41:30,298
Lay out for us why we should or

1374
00:41:30,298 --> 00:41:31,332
should not have a revitalization

1375
00:41:31,332 --> 00:41:32,166
district policy and if we

1376
00:41:32,166 --> 00:41:33,968
should, what is it?

1377
00:41:33,968 --> 00:41:34,235
and what should the limitations

1378
00:41:34,235 --> 00:41:35,303
be?

1379
00:41:35,303 --> 00:41:38,500
I think it was mentioned that

1380
00:41:38,500 --> 00:41:39,507
the more we get involved in the

1381
00:41:39,507 --> 00:41:40,400
districts, the more our

1382
00:41:40,400 --> 00:41:41,775
liability might be.

1383
00:41:41,775 --> 00:41:44,778
So it might be good to ask a

1384
00:41:44,778 --> 00:41:47,130
third party to discuss this,

1385
00:41:47,130 --> 00:41:49,683
rather than us putting our

1386
00:41:49,683 --> 00:41:51,251
opinions upon it without in some

1387
00:41:51,251 --> 00:41:51,985
cases knowing all the

1388
00:41:51,985 --> 00:41:53,920
ramifications of whether or not

1389
00:41:53,920 --> 00:41:55,421
it's a good idea to have the

1390
00:41:55,421 --> 00:41:56,522
revitalization districts in

1391
00:41:56,522 --> 00:41:57,857
scottsdale and if we did, what

1392
00:41:57,857 --> 00:41:59,959
should the policies be.

1393
00:41:59,959 --> 00:42:00,593
So I would like to ask staff to

1394
00:42:00,593 --> 00:42:02,127
do that.

1395
00:42:02,127 --> 00:42:03,695
So the city manager and

1396
00:42:03,695 --> 00:42:04,463
treasurer work with the I.D.A.

1397
00:42:04,463 --> 00:42:07,650
>> Mayor Lane: we can put that

1398
00:42:07,650 --> 00:42:11,265
in the form of a directive vote

1399
00:42:11,469 --> 00:42:12,504
or to get a consensus on that.

1400
00:42:12,504 --> 00:42:14,272
Mr. Behring, did you have a

1401
00:42:14,272 --> 00:42:15,707
button pushed here?

1402
00:42:15,707 --> 00:42:16,400
>> Mr. Mayor, it was me that

1403
00:42:16,400 --> 00:42:16,507
pushed.

1404
00:42:16,507 --> 00:42:18,242
I'm sorry.

1405
00:42:18,242 --> 00:42:20,378
i pushed your button.

1406
00:42:20,378 --> 00:42:21,178
I do that quite often.

1407
00:42:21,178 --> 00:42:21,946
>> Mayor Lane: you know how to

1408
00:42:21,946 --> 00:42:23,514
push his buttons.

1409
00:42:23,514 --> 00:42:23,881
>> I know how to push his

1410
00:42:23,881 --> 00:42:25,549
buttons.

1411
00:42:25,549 --> 00:42:27,351
That's absolutely correct.

1412
00:42:27,351 --> 00:42:28,652
I will take that direction.

1413
00:42:28,652 --> 00:42:30,954
The own thing I

1414
00:42:30,954 --> 00:42:33,323
only thing I would caution,

1415
00:42:33,323 --> 00:42:34,991
it's not something I would feel

1416
00:42:34,991 --> 00:42:35,292
comfortable turning off to the

1417
00:42:35,292 --> 00:42:36,693
I.D.A.

1418
00:42:36,693 --> 00:42:36,993
I think we should work with

1419
00:42:36,993 --> 00:42:38,993
them.

1420
00:42:39,529 --> 00:42:40,663
i would like to, as a parallel

1421
00:42:40,663 --> 00:42:43,366
process use staff to look at the

1422
00:42:43,366 --> 00:42:43,766
issue from an internal

1423
00:42:43,766 --> 00:42:45,766
perspective.

1424
00:42:47,636 --> 00:42:48,370
We will get an external pearle

1425
00:42:48,370 --> 00:42:49,505
perspective.

1426
00:42:49,505 --> 00:42:50,839
We will get an internal

1427
00:42:50,839 --> 00:42:53,839
perspective and marry those two

1428
00:42:55,760 --> 00:42:55,510
and bring it back for council's

1429
00:42:55,510 --> 00:42:56,311
consideration.

1430
00:42:56,311 --> 00:42:57,679
>> s. Klapp: I didn't mean to

1431
00:42:57,679 --> 00:42:58,646
imply that you would be separate

1432
00:42:58,646 --> 00:42:59,781
from that process.

1433
00:42:59,781 --> 00:43:00,582
That would be fine.

1434
00:43:00,582 --> 00:43:02,383
>> Mayor Lane: I'm going to say

1435
00:43:02,383 --> 00:43:05,753
the idea of having some policies

1436
00:43:05,753 --> 00:43:07,488
that revolve around any of these

1437
00:43:07,488 --> 00:43:08,789
but for particular district

1438
00:43:08,789 --> 00:43:10,891
funding mechanisms is fine and

1439
00:43:10,891 --> 00:43:11,859
review of them, I think that's

1440
00:43:11,859 --> 00:43:14,859
purposeful and a good thing.

1441
00:43:15,562 --> 00:43:17,264
And it May be that the I.D.A. Is

1442
00:43:17,264 --> 00:43:19,299
a committee that we can rely

1443
00:43:19,299 --> 00:43:20,633
upon to do, that but my greatest

1444
00:43:20,633 --> 00:43:22,680
concern in this and this goes

1445
00:43:22,680 --> 00:43:25,471
back to staff and to management

1446
00:43:25,471 --> 00:43:27,840
and to legal, and that is what

1447
00:43:27,840 --> 00:43:28,774
we are doing in the sense of

1448
00:43:28,774 --> 00:43:30,176
turning over governance over

1449
00:43:30,176 --> 00:43:31,911
city -- over land that's within

1450
00:43:31,911 --> 00:43:33,746
the city boundaries and

1451
00:43:33,746 --> 00:43:35,213
that's -- that's something that

1452
00:43:35,213 --> 00:43:36,381
I think weighs heavily on the

1453
00:43:36,381 --> 00:43:39,150
other side and when we talk

1454
00:43:39,150 --> 00:43:42,150
about what mechanisms we use,

1455
00:43:42,788 --> 00:43:44,355
that this one maybe falls down

1456
00:43:44,355 --> 00:43:46,925
the less when we think what we

1457
00:43:46,925 --> 00:43:47,325
are trading off in the way of

1458
00:43:47,325 --> 00:43:48,250
governance.

1459
00:43:48,250 --> 00:43:48,993
I don't think that's something

1460
00:43:48,993 --> 00:43:49,627
that the I.D.A. Should be

1461
00:43:49,627 --> 00:43:51,620
looking at.

1462
00:43:51,620 --> 00:43:53,197
That's not their realm.

1463
00:43:53,197 --> 00:43:55,366
We as a policy making body

1464
00:43:55,366 --> 00:43:57,340
should be looking at that, on

1465
00:43:57,340 --> 00:43:58,680
the best advice from our

1466
00:43:58,680 --> 00:43:58,802
professionals sitting there at

1467
00:43:58,802 --> 00:44:00,771
the table.

1468
00:44:00,771 --> 00:44:02,672
so, you know, I would go with

1469
00:44:02,672 --> 00:44:05,141
the motion and I will say that

1470
00:44:05,141 --> 00:44:08,311
it's a motion and we will vote

1471
00:44:08,311 --> 00:44:09,312
on it from the standpoint of

1472
00:44:09,312 --> 00:44:12,140
directive, or direction on that.

1473
00:44:12,140 --> 00:44:12,548
I will second that but we do

1474
00:44:12,548 --> 00:44:13,849
have -- I'm sorry.

1475
00:44:13,849 --> 00:44:16,849
-- maybe just depending what

1476
00:44:18,320 --> 00:44:21,890
the city attorney has to say.

1477
00:44:21,890 --> 00:44:23,892
>> City Atty. Washburn: I wanted

1478
00:44:23,892 --> 00:44:26,294
to point out that the I.D.A. Is

1479
00:44:26,294 --> 00:44:27,362
created by statute and has

1480
00:44:27,362 --> 00:44:29,362
specified duties.

1481
00:44:29,964 --> 00:44:31,466
I haven't looked at the I.D.A.

1482
00:44:31,466 --> 00:44:32,967
Statute recently, they are not

1483
00:44:32,967 --> 00:44:34,268
an advisory body like most of

1484
00:44:34,268 --> 00:44:35,436
our boards and commissions.

1485
00:44:35,436 --> 00:44:36,937
That hasn't been said.

1486
00:44:36,937 --> 00:44:39,373
I think that it's certainly

1487
00:44:39,373 --> 00:44:40,741
possible for staff to work with

1488
00:44:40,741 --> 00:44:42,420
them, to, you know, request that

1489
00:44:42,420 --> 00:44:44,442
they provide whatever expertise

1490
00:44:44,978 --> 00:44:45,278
or input they might have on

1491
00:44:45,278 --> 00:44:47,278
this.

1492
00:44:47,814 --> 00:44:48,948
So I'm assuming the motion would

1493
00:44:48,948 --> 00:44:51,348
essentially encompass the idea

1494
00:44:52,180 --> 00:44:53,853
that staff should do whatever

1495
00:44:53,853 --> 00:44:56,222
was -- of course, the I.D.A.S

1496
00:44:56,222 --> 00:44:57,790
do whatever is in their lawful

1497
00:44:57,790 --> 00:44:58,157
authority to assist on this

1498
00:44:58,157 --> 00:45:00,157
issue.

1499
00:45:00,159 --> 00:45:02,559
>> Mayor Lane: thank you.

1500
00:45:02,895 --> 00:45:04,463
just one final comment from my

1501
00:45:04,463 --> 00:45:05,897
perspective and I think it's

1502
00:45:05,897 --> 00:45:07,599
shared by a couple of other

1503
00:45:07,599 --> 00:45:08,600
members here and that is the

1504
00:45:08,600 --> 00:45:09,567
great concern over the

1505
00:45:09,567 --> 00:45:10,969
governance issue, the control

1506
00:45:10,969 --> 00:45:12,470
and how this mechanism could be

1507
00:45:12,470 --> 00:45:14,873
used to the detriment of the

1508
00:45:14,873 --> 00:45:16,707
city, even if it only besmudges

1509
00:45:16,707 --> 00:45:18,376
our reputation and our bond

1510
00:45:18,376 --> 00:45:19,610
rating by virtue of a failure of

1511
00:45:19,610 --> 00:45:22,212
such a property and that is

1512
00:45:22,212 --> 00:45:23,447
something I want to at least be

1513
00:45:23,447 --> 00:45:25,149
considered in the entire picture

1514
00:45:25,149 --> 00:45:27,149
too.

1515
00:45:28,118 --> 00:45:29,553
So with that, a motion and a

1516
00:45:29,553 --> 00:45:30,420
second, with those qualifiers on

1517
00:45:30,420 --> 00:45:32,188
the guidance.

1518
00:45:32,188 --> 00:45:34,570
I think we are then ready to at

1519
00:45:34,570 --> 00:45:34,457
least vote on that to see where

1520
00:45:34,457 --> 00:45:36,392
on that.

1521
00:45:36,392 --> 00:45:39,295
All of those in favor of that

1522
00:45:39,295 --> 00:45:40,496
motion as has been expressed

1523
00:45:40,496 --> 00:45:41,764
please indicate by aye if you

1524
00:45:41,764 --> 00:45:45,364
agree and nay if you oppose.

1525
00:45:46,235 --> 00:45:47,202
The motion does pass, 5-2, with

1526
00:45:47,202 --> 00:45:49,602
Councilman Littlefield and vice

1527
00:45:54,642 --> 00:45:55,944
mayor phillips dissenting.

1528
00:45:55,944 --> 00:45:57,278
So that is the guidance and then

1529
00:45:57,278 --> 00:46:01,415
that is where we need to be.

1530
00:46:01,415 --> 00:46:01,749
We have a few minutes before our

1531
00:46:01,749 --> 00:46:03,749
meeting.

1532
00:46:03,951 --> 00:46:05,920
So we'll certainly -- I'll take

1533
00:46:05,920 --> 00:46:07,121
a motion to adjourn this

1534
00:46:07,121 --> 00:46:08,322
particular meeting.

1535
00:46:08,322 --> 00:46:08,755
>> r. Littlefield: so moved.

1536
00:46:08,755 --> 00:46:09,490
>> second.

1537
00:46:09,490 --> 00:46:10,891
>> Mayor Lane: all those in

1538
00:46:10,891 --> 00:46:12,526
favor of adjourning the session,

1539
00:46:12,526 --> 00:46:13,260
please indicate by aye.

1540
00:46:13,260 --> 00:46:14,494
[Chorus of ayes]

1541
00:46:14,494 --> 00:46:15,280
We are adjourned.

1542
00:46:15,280 --> 00:46:16,329
Thank you.

1543
00:46:16,329 --> 00:46:17,000
Thank you, staff.