[0:06] >> Mayor Lane: good afternoon,
[0:07] everyone.
[0:09] I would like to call to order
[0:13] our 4 P.M. Work study session.
[0:14] And we'll start with a roll
[0:18] call, please.
[0:18] City clerk carolyn jagger:
[0:19] mayor jim lane.
[0:19] Mayor lane: present.
[0:20] Carolyn jagger: vice mayor guy
[0:20] phillips.
[0:21] Vice mayor phillips: here.
[0:22] Carolyn jagger: councilmembers
[0:23] suzanne klapp.
[0:23] Councilwoman Klapp: here.
[0:24] Carolyn jagger: virginia korte.
[0:25] Councilmember korte: here.
[0:25] carolyn jagger: bob littlefield.
[0:26] Councilman Littlefield: here.
[0:27] Carolyn jagger: linda milhaven.
[0:28] Councilwoman Milhaven: here.
[0:28] Carolyn jagger: dennis robbins.
[0:29] Councilman Robbins: here.
[0:30] Carolyn jagger: city manager
[0:30] fritz behring.
[0:33] Fritz behring: here.
[0:34] Carolyn jagger: city attorney
[0:34] bruce washburn.
[0:36] Bruce washburn: here.
[0:36] Carolyn jagger: city treasurer
[0:37] jeff nichols.
[0:38] Jeff nichols: here.
[0:39] Carolyn jagger: city auditor
[0:39] sharron walker.
[0:40] Sharron walker: here.
[0:41] Carolyn jagger: and the clerk is
[0:41] present.
[0:42] >> Mayor Lane: thank you.
[0:43] I will go ahead and mention for
[0:45] the record this is the work
[0:47] study session of December 2nd,
[0:47] 2014.
[0:52] It's approximately 4:00.
[0:55] And we have no public comment on
[0:57] this item and we only have one
[0:57] item on this.
[0:59] I might just go ahead and
[1:00] mention that this is a work
[1:00] study session.
[1:02] So there are no decisions or
[1:03] votes to be taken here.
[1:06] this is primarily to interact
[1:08] with council and staff.
[1:09] Our interaction between the
[1:11] council and the staff with
[1:14] regard to the subject matter on
[1:16] this, which is special taxing
[1:18] district financial policies and
[1:20] this is a request really for
[1:21] presentation, discussion and
[1:23] possible direction to staff
[1:24] regarding the city's special
[1:26] taxing district financial
[1:27] policies, including
[1:29] revitalization districts,
[1:31] community facility districts and
[1:33] improvement districts and the
[1:34] presenters for this today will
[1:37] be -- we'll go ahead and get
[1:38] started and we can work from the
[1:42] table or the podium, whichever
[1:45] you prefer is our city treasurer
[1:48] jeff nichols.
[1:50] I gave you the option.
[1:54] >> you gave me the option.
[1:54] >> Mayor Lane: yes, sit right
[1:56] down.
[1:58] >> that being said, I just
[2:00] realized someone has to move the
[2:01] slides.
[2:03] Although I trust brian
[2:09] immensely, can I go back there?
[2:11] >> Mayor Lane: I'm sorry, I gave
[2:12] you options.
[2:16] It's way too complicated.
[2:18] >> well, Mr. Mayor, members of
[2:20] the council, as the mayor
[2:22] mentioned, at the end of the
[2:24] November 18 meeting, staff was
[2:26] given direction to bring this
[2:27] topic back for work study, and
[2:29] that's why we are here tonight.
[2:31] What I thought I would do is
[2:32] start off with the policies that
[2:34] we currently have in place
[2:36] within our financial policies.
[2:39] Under debt management, number
[2:41] 32, we do have a policy that
[2:42] deals with improvement districts
[2:46] and community facility
[2:46] districts.
[2:47] Some of this language probably
[2:49] needs to be cleaned up.
[2:51] For instance, like in this first
[2:52] slide, it says that it's
[2:53] expected that they will be
[2:55] issued for their full term.
[2:56] I'm not sure why that wording is
[2:57] in there.
[2:59] I'm not sure who put it in
[3:03] there, to even find out, but
[3:05] regardless, I.D.S and
[3:07] C.F.D.S we do have a policy
[3:07] for.
[3:09] here's improvement districts and
[3:10] you notice the debt ratio, prior
[3:12] to the improvements being
[3:14] installed is a minimum of 3 to
[3:15] 1, and after issuance of the
[3:18] debt, and the improvements,
[3:21] ratio of 5 to 1 after
[3:21] construction.
[3:23] Some of the other things that I
[3:25] would like to talk about that
[3:27] are embedded in these policies
[3:31] is the fact that we use the net
[3:35] assessed valuation, but we also
[3:37] have in there that if someone
[3:39] doesn't like the assessed
[3:41] valuation, I.E., they feel that
[3:44] the county is lagging or their
[3:48] valuation of the -- of their
[3:49] valuations of the properties,
[3:50] that they can have an appraisal
[3:51] of the properties done.
[3:52] It would be paid for by the
[3:56] politic and administered by the
[3:56] city.
[3:57] And in addition, one of the
[3:58] other things that I would like
[4:00] to cover later on, that we will
[4:02] discuss, it says the city's
[4:03] cumulative improvement district,
[4:06] that will not exceed 5% of the
[4:08] city's secondary assessed
[4:09] valuation.
[4:10] while I'm in agreement with
[4:13] that, it also has that same
[4:15] language and the community
[4:17] facility district debt and let's
[4:23] say now we are bringing them to
[4:25] the -- the revitalization
[4:27] district, if that was 5%, well,
[4:28] now you are talking a total of
[4:32] up to 15% of the net assessed
[4:33] valuation within the city and
[4:34] I'm not sure I would be in
[4:36] agreement with that.
[4:38] However, similar to that, you
[4:42] see under CFDs, minimum of 3
[4:44] to 1 prior to the issuance of
[4:44] debt.
[4:46] 5 to 1 or higher after the
[4:48] construction of the improvement.
[4:50] The difference that I see
[4:51] between the two, at least in my
[4:53] experience, normally improvement
[4:57] districts are done to existing
[4:58] infrastructure.
[5:00] The city of scottsdale, four out
[5:02] of the five districts, it's just
[5:05] been vacant land and the person
[5:07] that owned the land within the
[5:09] cfd, they owned 100% of the land
[5:10] within the cfd.
[5:12] so those are the two districts
[5:15] that we have.
[5:17] And so like I said, community
[5:19] facility districts most often
[5:20] formed to construct
[5:21] infrastructure improvements on
[5:22] vacant land.
[5:24] That's been our experience.
[5:25] >> Mayor Lane: pardon me just a
[5:25] moment.
[5:27] We do have a question of you
[5:29] from Councilman Robbins.
[5:30] >> d. Robbins: can you just go
[5:31] back one slide.
[5:33] i want to put a couple of things
[5:34] in context so we are all on the
[5:36] same page.
[5:38] The 3 to 1 and the 5 to 1, that
[5:40] means the debt can be 33% of the
[5:44] total valuation beforehand is
[5:46] that saying it in a different
[5:47] term?
[5:47] >> yes, sir.
[5:49] If the total value of the land
[5:50] was $1 million, they could
[5:53] construct up to $333,000 of
[5:53] improvements.
[5:55] >> d. Robbins: okay and then
[5:57] afterwards, the 5 to 1, that's a
[5:58] 20%?
[5:59] >> that's correct.
[6:00] >> d. Robbins: and then can you
[6:02] put in context, the 5% of the
[6:03] city's assessed valuation, what
[6:04] would that number be?
[6:06] >> to put that into context, the
[6:11] number I figured was
[6:12] approximately $250 million in
[6:13] debt would be 5% of the city's
[6:18] net assessed valuation.
[6:19] >> d. Robbins: and do you happen
[6:21] to know what our CFDs are at
[6:21] presently?
[6:23] >> I dot that have that answer,
[6:27] but to my left, I see lee
[6:34] lee
[6:34] guillory.
[6:36] >> we have no improvement debt
[6:38] outstanding.
[6:38] >> d. Robbins: okay.
[6:39] All right.
[6:41] That kind of puts it in context,
[6:41] though.
[6:43] Thank you.
[6:44] >> l. Milhaven: I have a
[6:45] question.
[6:46] >> Mayor Lane: yes, Councilwoman
[6:49] Milhaven.
[6:50] >> l. Milhaven: if this is for
[6:53] total assessed value in the
[6:54] city, or is it the assessed
[6:58] value in the district?
[6:59] >> the way the policy -- I
[7:02] believe, the way I interpret the
[7:03] policy, as it's currently
[7:06] written, it will not exceed 5%
[7:09] of the city's secondary assessed
[7:10] valuation.
[7:12] So it would be the whole city.
[7:13] >> is that by our policy or is
[7:15] that by the authorizing
[7:16] legislation?
[7:18] >> I don't remember if it's in
[7:19] the authorizing legislation.
[7:23] I do know it's in our policy.
[7:28] >> l. Milhaven: thank you.
[7:30] >> mayor lane and Councilwoman
[7:33] Milhaven, that's a city policy.
[7:34] it's not part of the state
[7:36] statute, the 5% of the city's
[7:38] assessed valuation.
[7:40] >> l. Milhaven: thank you.
[7:43] >> Mayor Lane: lee, can I just
[7:44] for further clarification, is
[7:45] this any stipulated amount as
[7:52] far as the statute is concerned?
[7:54] >> I'm looking towards my
[7:57] outside bond counsel and he said
[7:59] that as far as -- if there are
[8:01] general obligation bonds
[8:02] outstanding, there are
[8:03] limitations, but if they are
[8:06] assessment bonds, there is not.
[8:07] I believe the general obligation
[8:09] bonds would be subject to the 6
[8:11] and 20% assessed valuation.
[8:12] No, I'm being told no.
[8:13] So I will return the floor to
[8:25] scott ruby.
[8:26] >> Mayor Lane: for the record,
[8:27] if you would identify yourself,
[8:28] scott.
[8:29] >> certainly, mayor.
[8:31] Scott ruby with the law firm of
[8:31] gust rosen feld.
[8:34] We serve as your bond counsel on
[8:37] your city issues and city
[8:37] district issues.
[8:39] I was hoping to be the potted
[8:41] plant tonight, but apparently
[8:42] not.
[8:44] The cfd statutes have really
[8:45] only one restriction with
[8:47] respect to the bonds.
[8:50] They can issue -- CFDs can
[8:52] issue three types of bonds,'s
[8:53] isment
[8:57] ,assessment bonds, general
[8:58] obligation bonds.
[9:00] The cfd has their own debt limit
[9:02] for general obligation bonds and
[9:06] that debt limit is 65% of market
[9:10] value plus the value of the
[9:12] improvements, which is a very
[9:13] high debt limit.
[9:15] I don't think anybody ever comes
[9:16] close to that.
[9:17] >> are we
[9:21] >> Mayor Lane: are we more
[9:22] restrictive then by our policy?
[9:24] >> our policies, as I have
[9:26] quickly reviewed them, do not
[9:28] speak to the general obligation
[9:30] bond aspect of it.
[9:31] Typically when we have done
[9:33] general obligation bonds and
[9:35] community facilities districts,
[9:36] and I mean throughout the state,
[9:39] we're more concerned about a tax
[9:41] rate and what we do is try to
[9:44] size a debt issuance that will
[9:45] produce a certain tax rate.
[9:48] Now, obviously, that has some
[9:49] disadvantages when your assessed
[9:51] valuation starts fluctuating.
[9:53] That means the tax rate goes up
[9:56] and down depending on which way
[9:56] the A.V. Goes.
[9:59] But normally those types of debt
[10:02] issues target you a tax rate.
[10:03] >> Mayor Lane: but those
[10:04] percentages you just mentioned
[10:05] go to the district property and
[10:06] improvements rather than the
[10:10] city's total bond issuance or
[10:12] value -- valuation?
[10:13] >> that is correct, mayor.
[10:15] I know this conversation was
[10:17] focused a bit on the 5% limit
[10:19] that you have by policy, and
[10:22] that is unique to scottsdale.
[10:23] That I'm aware of.
[10:27] Now there May some other
[10:29] jurisdiction in arizona that I'm
[10:31] not aware that speaks to this
[10:32] issue in that context, but I
[10:34] suspect I would know.
[10:34] >> Mayor Lane: you can go back
[10:36] to the plant status for a little
[10:36] bit.
[10:40] >> thank you very much.
[10:40] >> Mayor Lane: oh, I'm sorry.
[10:41] Wait a minute.
[10:42] Forget that.
[10:46] >> v. Korte: one more follow-up
[10:46] question.
[10:47] >> Mayor Lane: Councilwoman
[10:47] Korte.
[10:48] >> v. Korte: in your experience
[10:49] working with other
[10:51] municipalities, what is the
[10:58] standard as far as 5%, 10%, 7%?
[10:59] >> mayor, councilmember korte,
[11:02] the relationship to assessed
[11:03] valuation for this type of debt,
[11:06] either cfd or I.D. Is unique to
[11:07] scottsdale.
[11:10] I have never seen it in any
[11:11] other jurisdiction.
[11:12] That's not to say it's a bad
[11:13] thing, because improvement
[11:15] district debt, in particular,
[11:17] there is contingent liability to
[11:18] the city, and so I think the
[11:20] city would have some concern and
[11:23] I know years and years ago, when
[11:26] the city of chandler was quite
[11:28] aggressive on their
[11:29] infrastructure financing through
[11:30] improvement districts, the
[11:32] rating agencies took that
[11:33] contingent liability into
[11:36] account and actually shut their
[11:37] rating down for a while, while
[11:40] they had significant exposure
[11:41] there.
[11:43] So it's a number or a limitation
[11:46] that is -- that merits
[11:47] discussion but, again,
[11:48] scottsdale is the only place I
[11:52] know that has that.
[11:53] >> Mayor Lane: thank you again,
[11:53] scott.
[11:55] I think we'll give you a little
[11:59] bit of time.
[12:00] Mr. Nichols, if you would like
[12:01] to continue then.
[12:02] >> yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
[12:04] And so what I wanted to do was
[12:06] to have discussion regarding our
[12:09] current policies and then also
[12:11] foster discussion on
[12:13] revitalization districts.
[12:16] As you see here, community
[12:17] facility districts, at least
[12:19] within the city of scottsdale
[12:21] are used to form infrastructure
[12:24] improvements on vacant land.
[12:26] It's most often brought forward
[12:29] by persons or entities that own
[12:30] 100% of the net assessed
[12:32] valuation of the land within the
[12:32] district and I
[12:35] I give you the
[12:35] examples there.
[12:37] And the practice has been to
[12:39] issue cfd debt for a period of
[12:41] 25 years, and so my question,
[12:43] does the council want to
[12:44] continue past practices and
[12:46] include those past practices in
[12:48] a policy that would be brought
[12:51] forward for your consideration?
[12:52] The second item there,
[12:54] improvement districts are most
[12:56] often formed to construct
[12:57] infrastructure improvements to
[12:58] existing infrastructure and I
[12:59] give the example of the most
[13:03] recent one, bell road two and
[13:05] does council wish to improve
[13:06] district debt to infrastructure
[13:07] improvements to existing
[13:09] infrastructure?
[13:11] Existing
[13:11] infrastructure?
[13:12] >> Mayor Lane: thank you, and we
[13:14] do have -- Councilman
[13:15] Littlefield has a question or a
[13:19] comment.
[13:20] >> r. Littlefield: actually, i
[13:22] think I will wait.
[13:23] >> Mayor Lane: okay.
[13:24] Number one, I just wanted to
[13:25] sort of further quantify what we
[13:26] are doing.
[13:28] You mentioned earlier on that we
[13:29] do not have any improvement
[13:31] district debt outstanding.
[13:33] >> we currently have no
[13:34] improvement district debt
[13:34] outstanding.
[13:37] We have a history of improvement
[13:38] districts in scottsdale that go
[13:40] back to about 1959.
[13:42] and we have done a lot of
[13:43] improvements within the city
[13:44] through improvement districts.
[13:45] >> Mayor Lane: so it's a
[13:46] mechanism that has been utilized
[13:48] and successfully?
[13:50] >> that's correct.
[13:51] >> Mayor Lane: and it just so
[13:52] happens that it's paid off and
[13:54] not been utilized since.
[13:55] Is there some distinction, if I
[13:58] May ask this for my own
[13:58] edification, maybe everyone's
[14:00] else, what is the distinction?
[14:02] the improvement district is for
[14:03] existing infrastructure and a
[14:08] cfd is for new?
[14:08] >> Mr. Payer,
[14:11] mayer, when I looked at
[14:15] the improvement districts in the
[14:17] scottsdale, it was for new
[14:18] neighborhoods coming into the
[14:19] city, they wanted to put in
[14:20] infrastructure, which it was
[14:23] paving, sewer, water, those
[14:25] sorts of improvements.
[14:26] They would form an improvement
[14:27] district.
[14:28] They would make the improvements
[14:31] so their district and then those
[14:32] improvements then would be
[14:33] deeded over to the city.
[14:36] My assumption is to operate and
[14:37] maintain those improvements that
[14:39] people within the district are
[14:41] voting to tax themselves.
[14:42] Normally we sold improvement
[14:43] district debt and it was retired
[14:46] over a period of about 10 years.
[14:47] >> Mayor Lane: so barring the
[14:48] use some of kind of development
[14:49] agreement, where you would end
[14:51] up having impact fees for a
[14:53] community or a neighborhood for
[14:55] new now -- a new infrastructure
[14:58] that would be built, the
[14:59] improvement district was
[15:00] something that the property
[15:01] owners got together and formed
[15:03] it district under the city's
[15:05] guidance, of course, and
[15:08] control, but, nevertheless,
[15:10] assessed their own properties
[15:12] with the cost of carrying the
[15:13] debt for those improvements.
[15:15] So did the impact fees and those
[15:16] kinds of things, did that sort
[15:20] of move away from that or was it
[15:21] the development -- master
[15:23] developments and development of
[15:25] whole neighborhoods and new
[15:26] neighborhoods where those fees
[15:27] were sort of mixed in together
[15:31] with the total -- the total
[15:34] project?
[15:35] >> Mr. Mayor, I would have to
[15:36] look into that particular
[15:37] question of whether the
[15:39] assessments related to those
[15:40] improvements outside the
[15:42] improvement district assessment
[15:43] itself, how those were handled.
[15:45] i have not reviewed that.
[15:46] >> Mayor Lane: but the
[15:47] improvement district is property
[15:49] owners getting together to build
[15:51] a district and a mechanism to
[15:53] fund those kinds of improvements
[15:55] that they need to expand or grow
[15:57] or frankly, to build the
[15:59] infrastructure for their
[15:59] neighborhoods?
[16:00] >> that's correct.
[16:03] >> Mayor Lane: okay.
[16:04] yes, Councilman Littlefield.
[16:05] >> r. Littlefield: okay.
[16:07] So we currently have CFDs and
[16:08] improvement districts in
[16:10] scottsdale but not any
[16:13] revitalization district?
[16:14] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman
[16:15] Littlefield, that's correct.
[16:16] >> r. Littlefield: so how big
[16:18] can an improvement or a
[16:19] revitalization district be?
[16:21] Are there legal limits on the
[16:22] geography?
[16:26] can it be only be so big, so
[16:27] small?
[16:29] Could a revitalization district
[16:31] or improvement district
[16:37] encompass the entire city?
[16:39] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman
[16:40] Littlefield, I will defer to
[16:42] bruce washburn on that.
[16:44] I am not certain, however, just
[16:47] by their very nature, with
[16:49] revitalization districts, it has
[16:51] to be property owners that own
[16:53] 51% of the net assessed
[16:55] valuation within the district
[16:57] and also 51% of the property
[16:58] owners within the district.
[17:02] I would assume that the larger
[17:04] you make the district, the more
[17:05] difficult those numbers are
[17:07] going to be to reach.
[17:08] >> r. Littlefield: I get that.
[17:09] I'm just curious as to what the
[17:16] limit is.
[17:18] >> potted plant, can we get you
[17:20] back up here?
[17:21] >> r. Littlefield: this must be
[17:26] mr. Washington, right?
[17:33] >> mayor, councilmember
[17:34] littlefield, with respect to the
[17:35] community facilities districts,
[17:37] improvement districts and
[17:38] revisallization districts,
[17:40] there's really no limits on how
[17:41] big they can be.
[17:43] I say that, though, with a
[17:45] caveat and it goes, I think to
[17:47] somebody who raised a point,
[17:49] could we have one who is quote,
[17:50] terminus with the boundaries of
[17:51] the city?
[17:52] There is some law to the effect
[17:55] that if you tried to form an
[17:56] improvement district or a
[17:57] community facilities district
[18:00] that had boundaries go terminus
[18:02] with the city's boundaries then
[18:04] in essence, you have city
[18:05] obligations, city bonds and you
[18:08] need to follow then your debt
[18:10] limits with respect to city
[18:12] obligations, 6%, 20%, and that
[18:13] sort of thing.
[18:18] And so the cases put that kind
[18:19] of governor on it.
[18:20] These are not special districts
[18:21] and consequently should not
[18:26] include all the area located
[18:28] within the city.
[18:28] >> r. Littlefield: okay.
[18:29] But you could have one for half
[18:34] the city, a third.
[18:35] Legally.
[18:37] I understand there are practical
[18:37] implications.
[18:40] I'm asking what the legal
[18:41] implications are.
[18:42] >> slightly.
[18:43] There are, again, backing up a
[18:45] little bit -- improvement
[18:47] districts are based upon the
[18:48] theory that all the property
[18:49] within the district benefits
[18:51] from the proposed improvement.
[18:54] So if you are doing half the
[18:57] city in an improvement district,
[18:58] obviously benefits half the
[18:59] city.
[19:02] Example maybe you build a water
[19:03] treatment plant and that May
[19:05] have a wide benefit.
[19:09] so you certainly could do that
[19:12] and we have CFDs that are
[19:13] 8,800 acres.
[19:15] I mean, it's not unusual to have
[19:17] large areas.
[19:19] >> r. Littlefield: thank you.
[19:20] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,
[19:21] Councilman.
[19:23] Vice mayor phillips.
[19:24] >> Vice Mayor Phillips: thank
[19:24] you, mayor.
[19:26] Well, Mr. Nichols, just so you
[19:28] know where I'm coming from and
[19:30] staff understands, I'm against
[19:32] revitalization districts and the
[19:34] improvement districts and I was
[19:40] against michele reagan's bill
[19:41] and I fought against it because
[19:41] I don't believe it's good for
[19:42] the residents.
[19:44] I think it's a tax burden and
[19:46] then they end up -- it's hard to
[19:47] tell your property when you have
[19:50] an extra tax placed on your
[19:50] property.
[19:53] So I would not be in favor of
[19:55] any kind of things if they come
[19:56] up in the future and I would
[19:58] prefer to see them as restricted
[20:01] as much as possible.
[20:01] >> Mayor Lane: thank you, vice
[20:02] mayor.
[20:03] I would weigh in on the same
[20:05] note as far as that is
[20:05] concerned.
[20:07] One of the things with this
[20:09] revitalization district plan was
[20:11] put forward several years ago
[20:14] now, the intent was really
[20:16] almost intergovernmental kind
[20:18] of -- or multijurisdictional
[20:20] kind of funding mechanism and
[20:22] frankly district policy.
[20:24] And at the time, one of the
[20:25] things that was being considered
[20:27] and it never gained any traction
[20:29] was with the -- with the tribe
[20:31] and as well as with the city of
[20:33] tempe on the eastern-most
[20:36] portion of Mcdowell road, in
[20:36] that section.
[20:38] It frankly, was sort of designed
[20:40] around that and I think it's --
[20:42] it ended up with an animal that
[20:46] is somewhat more unique and its
[20:47] implementation or attempted
[20:48] implementation of it or use of
[20:50] it lass caused
[20:53] has caused some concern, even
[20:56] when it was presented in the
[20:57] past for our consideration.
[20:58] One of the things we tried to
[21:00] deal with several months ago, in
[21:02] fact, maybe as much as a year or
[21:04] two ago was to get some
[21:05] clarification as to how that
[21:06] statute would ever be employed
[21:08] by the city.
[21:09] Personally, I am not an advocate
[21:11] of the revitalization district
[21:12] for a couple of reasons and one
[21:14] of them is stated in the first
[21:18] paragraph, and that is the --
[21:20] and it's shared with the
[21:20] improvement district, something
[21:23] I was not really aware of, but
[21:24] that 49% of the property owners
[21:27] either by valuation or total
[21:29] ownership could be subjected to
[21:31] this type of structure against
[21:31] their will.
[21:34] And I find that to be a
[21:36] difficult thing to swallow.
[21:39] And it May be one of the reasons
[21:41] the improvement district is no
[21:43] longer being used.
[21:47] The other is the revitalization
[21:49] district does the same thing.
[21:50] So I'm not an advocate in both
[21:52] of these cases.
[21:53] When we talk about the
[21:55] improvement in revitalization
[21:58] districts, I'm not sure whether
[22:03] or not the districts possibility
[22:08] at the 51/49% kind of setup, the
[22:09] 51% setup, whether I do want to
[22:10] continue that policy.
[22:12] i think it would probably be
[22:14] something we would rather go to,
[22:15] either a higher number or
[22:15] eliminate.
[22:17] But I certainly don't want to
[22:20] apply it to the revitalization
[22:20] district.
[22:22] There is another element here
[22:25] too, in that I have been trying
[22:26] to figure for quite sometime
[22:30] now, as to what -- what
[22:32] advantage and, you know, we have
[22:35] had an awful lot of conversation
[22:39] as to what it is to the city's
[22:40] advantage to the property
[22:42] owner's, what advantage this
[22:43] kind of structure with an
[22:45] independent board -- I'm talking
[22:46] about revitalization district,
[22:50] where the city and -- well, the
[22:51] city relinquishes both control
[22:53] over bonds and taxing in that
[22:55] district area, even though the
[22:56] dedication of the streets and
[22:57] the roads May be given over to
[22:58] the city.
[22:59] We lose control over it.
[23:01] And it does not seem to play
[23:03] very well when we think about it
[23:04] in those terms.
[23:07] I'm not anxious about turning
[23:10] over responsibility to a mini
[23:12] town within our city of taxing
[23:14] and bonding under these
[23:15] circumstances, particularly when
[23:17] I don't see that there's any
[23:19] particular thing that is served
[23:21] that couldn't be easier served
[23:26] either by a cfd or even an
[23:28] I.D.A., where in the case of an
[23:30] I.D.A., we have maintained a lot
[23:31] of control and we reduce the
[23:33] risk and it goes to the private
[23:35] property owner but it still
[23:36] remains taxable property in the
[23:36] city limits.
[23:39] The same thing with the cfd.
[23:41] And you want to throw in the
[23:43] I.D.A.'s advantage, I suppose is
[23:45] the fees that are accumulated
[23:46] through that process that we
[23:47] have found to be beneficial for
[23:49] the city at different times for
[23:52] different reasons.
[23:54] so in answer to both of these, I
[23:58] wouldn't want to continue either
[23:59] of these.
[24:02] Now, it says the property value
[24:03] ratio, okay, the second -- or
[24:05] the first question says should
[24:07] this be a consideration when
[24:09] setting policy related to the
[24:12] debt to encumbered property
[24:15] value ratio?
[24:16] Well, that is in the
[24:17] establishment of the district
[24:19] and help me -- maybe I'm not
[24:21] clear on that first question.
[24:22] >> well, my thought in this, and
[24:26] I was the one that created this,
[24:27] should this be a consideration
[24:28] whether setting the policy
[24:31] related to the debt to
[24:32] encumbered property value ratio
[24:34] was you have people within the
[24:35] district that May be in the
[24:36] district that didn't vote to be
[24:37] in the district.
[24:39] As a matter of fact, they were
[24:41] on the losing side of that, and
[24:44] does this governing body still
[24:46] have a duty to those people that
[24:47] are in the district that didn't
[24:49] want to be in the district and
[24:51] therefore, if you set the ratio
[24:52] higher, which when it was
[24:53] brought forward before, as i
[24:56] mentioned earlier, it was 3 to 1
[24:57] before improvements and 5 to 1
[24:58] after.
[25:01] So would it be for I.D.S and
[25:02] revitalization districts since
[25:05] some people May not care for the
[25:07] improvements even though they
[25:07] benefit from them.
[25:11] Should the ratio before and
[25:13] after, should there be a larger
[25:13] spread?
[25:15] should it be a 3 to 1 before or
[25:16] a 7 to 1 after?
[25:18] I mean, I don't have that
[25:18] recommendation on that.
[25:20] I just wanted it to be a
[25:22] discussed item.
[25:23] >> Mayor Lane: Mr. Nichols, is
[25:25] there anything in particular
[25:26] that you can cite or that we
[25:30] could consider as to why -- why
[25:33] either the improvement or the
[25:35] revitalization district couldn't
[25:37] or the purpose that somebody
[25:39] might use for those couldn't be
[25:40] better served as far as the city
[25:44] is concerned with the cfd?
[25:45] >> Mr. Mayor, members of the
[25:47] council, in my opinion, and this
[25:48] is strictly my opinion or my
[25:50] advice that I would give to you,
[25:52] is like I do in my personal
[25:53] life, I would do whatever I had
[25:55] to do and make it as easy as
[25:57] possible up front.
[25:59] So if CFDs could accomplish
[26:03] the goal and the council was
[26:05] still -- and oversaw that
[26:06] district as the governing body
[26:08] of that district, then you use
[26:08] that.
[26:10] To me revitalization would be
[26:11] the last option I would look at,
[26:13] because I believe that there are
[26:15] other mechanisms, other tools,
[26:16] if you will to accomplish the
[26:17] same things.
[26:18] And I think you should go from
[26:21] simple to complicated and not
[26:22] just skip everything in between
[26:24] and just go to complicated.
[26:25] >> Mayor Lane: well, I think one
[26:26] of the -- if I were just to
[26:29] focus for a moment on just the
[26:30] revitalization district, that
[26:32] seems to be the greatest
[26:33] departure from sort of a
[26:36] structure of governance and
[26:38] control, than either the other
[26:39] two, either the improvement
[26:44] district and/or the cfd.
[26:44] >> Mr. Mayor, members of
[26:45] council, I would agree with you,
[26:47] but I think that was with
[26:48] purpose.
[26:50] And, again, because when you are
[26:51] looking at multijurisdictions
[26:53] within a district, and as an
[26:56] example, I would say, where the
[26:58] city of tempe and phoenix and
[26:59] scottsdale meet, over by the
[27:01] papago area, if, in fact, we
[27:02] were wanting to get to go and
[27:04] make some improvements for, that
[27:05] well, I'm sure phoenix would be
[27:07] willing to say, we'll take
[27:08] charge of that and tempe and
[27:09] scottsdale would say, no thank
[27:10] you.
[27:14] And the same if tempe said it or
[27:15] scottsdale said it.
[27:17] So I think it makes sense in
[27:17] certain circumstances when you
[27:19] are crossing governing bodies or
[27:21] getting more than one governing
[27:23] body together for a district,
[27:25] and I -- again, when we get
[27:26] further in this, my question to
[27:29] you is: do you want to limit
[27:30] revitalization districts to
[27:33] those instances?
[27:33] >> Mayor Lane: yeah.
[27:34] >> because, again, I would offer
[27:36] my opinion, if you have three
[27:37] governing bodies, the state of
[27:40] arizona allows to enter into
[27:41] intergovernmental agreements.
[27:44] And perhaps you could accomplish
[27:45] the same thing and it's a tool,
[27:47] I think, that you work out all
[27:50] the what ifs beforehand within
[27:53] the I.G. And go I.G.
[27:54] Negotiations.
[27:55] My concern is -- and, again,
[27:58] it's more of a legal issue, is
[28:00] with these revitalization
[28:01] districts, if we get too
[28:02] involved in forming the
[28:05] district, or setting up the
[28:08] parameters of the district, we
[28:10] May find ourselves in a position
[28:11] where we do hold some
[28:12] responsibility for that district
[28:15] in the future.
[28:16] >> Mayor Lane: you mean that
[28:17] riis wok shift over to the city?
[28:19] >> -- risk would shift over to
[28:20] the city?
[28:21] >> we could assume some of the
[28:22] liability if we get too hands on
[28:23] with it.
[28:24] >> Mayor Lane: because it
[28:25] redefines itself?
[28:27] >> that's correct.
[28:27] >> Mayor Lane: well, I will
[28:28] leave it at that as far as my
[28:29] opinion is on it.
[28:31] I think there May some other
[28:32] comments on it.
[28:33] I think really truly, I don't
[28:34] know that we have a continuing
[28:36] need for the improvement
[28:37] district and the revitalization
[28:38] district.
[28:40] i would say as you just
[28:41] mentioned, simple first.
[28:44] If we are we can accomplish with
[28:46] existing mechanisms right now
[28:48] and there's no detriment to
[28:50] anyone, and no further
[28:51] denigration of the city's
[28:53] control over bonding and taxing
[28:56] and control of a segment of our
[28:57] communicate, I certainly would
[28:58] rather opt to that.
[28:59] in fact, I have even heard as
[29:02] much, that one of the reasons
[29:04] that some have approached us on
[29:06] this is frankly to bypass this
[29:09] body politically and the general
[29:12] public in their efforts to tax
[29:14] or bond a segment of our
[29:15] communicate on
[29:17] community on the overall.
[29:20] so I'm concerned about any
[29:21] policy that sort of locks us in
[29:23] for that consideration.
[29:26] So I guess on both of these, I
[29:27] wouldn't be worried about how
[29:29] many years on the R.D. Because I
[29:31] wouldn't think it would be an
[29:33] option I would like to be
[29:33] following.
[29:37] On the improvement district, I
[29:38] suppose it might stay with the
[29:39] policy you have now.
[29:41] it seems to have been harmless
[29:43] and it doesn't certainly
[29:44] relinquish all the control
[29:48] mechanisms that the R.D. Does.
[29:49] So that's my position on it, as
[29:51] it is right now.
[29:52] Councilman Littlefield.
[29:53] >> r. Littlefield: I guess I'm
[29:55] curious as to what motivates
[29:58] this discussion.
[29:59] Obviously, the question whether
[30:00] or not you would want these
[30:01] would be what you are trying to
[30:02] accomplish.
[30:03] So I guess I'm curious as to
[30:05] what it is that we thought we
[30:07] might want to accomplish that
[30:10] prompted this discussion.
[30:11] Is there anything on the table
[30:14] where somebody said we think we
[30:16] would like to have an
[30:17] improvement district or
[30:19] revitalization district?
[30:21] i mean we have plenty of CFDs
[30:23] laying around.
[30:24] >> Mayor Lane: Councilman, if I
[30:27] could, I might just say that --
[30:27] >> r. Littlefield: well, yeah.
[30:28] >> Mayor Lane: I'm not sure what
[30:30] the ties might be with some of
[30:32] the folks and the charter
[30:33] officers, and they May be but
[30:34] certainly the city has been
[30:36] approached a couple of different
[30:39] times with regard to the use of
[30:41] this, and they were both found
[30:45] to be just outside the box
[30:47] for -- and a lot of it was
[30:48] centered on the idea of this
[30:49] control that we are talking
[30:51] about on taxing and bonds but
[30:52] also just the overall control
[30:54] for a district that might
[30:56] encompass a great deal of area.
[30:57] But there are also some thoughts
[30:59] as to what motivated those
[31:01] people who brought it to us.
[31:07] And there May have been some
[31:08] less than straight forward kinds
[31:11] of considerations as to -- in
[31:14] the depth of the recession, even
[31:17] to the point of trying to get
[31:18] something refinanced, they are
[31:20] otherwise wouldn't be able to
[31:21] get refinanced and bail the
[31:25] original owners out on debt.
[31:26] >> r. Littlefield: well, that
[31:27] was exactly my question, not
[31:30] that I'm a suspicious person or
[31:30] anything.
[31:31] >> Mayor Lane: no.
[31:31] No.
[31:32] >> r. Littlefield: okay.
[31:34] But there's nothing on the table
[31:36] at the moment?
[31:37] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman
[31:38] Littlefield, the reason I
[31:39] personally brought this forward,
[31:42] i mean, for discussion, is
[31:43] because it's November 18th
[31:45] November 18th council
[31:45] meeting --
[31:46] >> r. Littlefield: yes, we asked
[31:48] you to.
[31:49] >> I was directed to.
[31:50] >> r. Littlefield: is there some
[31:54] proposal on the table somewhere?
[31:54] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilman
[31:55] Littlefield, the city manager
[31:57] and I had met with a person that
[32:01] was interested in using this
[32:02] financial mechanism.
[32:07] it is in the area that was my
[32:08] understanding because it wasn't
[32:08] here.
[32:09] It was brought forward before.
[32:13] It is a different -- a different
[32:14] project, however, the person
[32:16] that brought it forward I had
[32:17] reached out to them and I had
[32:18] asked them.
[32:19] I said from everything that I
[32:21] see, it's a small number of
[32:23] people formed an llc.
[32:25] They own 100% of the land.
[32:27] Is there any reason, you know,
[32:29] that you just don't come
[32:29] forward.
[32:31] We have a policy related to
[32:34] CFDs that you do this under.
[32:35] There's not a need for
[32:36] revitalization districts.
[32:37] So I pointed that out.
[32:38] Yes, there was a person that
[32:40] brought forward a project that
[32:42] is interested and we have no
[32:46] formal process currently for
[32:49] applying to the city to form a
[32:50] revitalization district.
[32:51] That's what we were going to try
[32:54] to accomplish with this
[32:54] discussion.
[32:56] >> r. Littlefield: was this a
[32:58] Mcdowell road project?
[33:00] >> no, it was a project up in
[33:02] the northeast part of the city.
[33:03] >> r. Littlefield: all right.
[33:03] Thank you.
[33:05] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,
[33:06] Councilman.
[33:06] Councilwoman Milhaven.
[33:07] >> l. Milhaven: thank you,
[33:08] mayor.
[33:09] This is a conversation that I
[33:13] started four years ago, and for
[33:14] me, this conversation is about
[33:16] the redevelopment district but
[33:17] it's also about all of the
[33:19] taxing districts, some of what
[33:22] we have heard here is this
[33:23] policy is unique to
[33:26] unique to scottsdale
[33:28] and is not in the authorizing
[33:28] legislation.
[33:29] I remember four years ago when
[33:31] we started this conversation, I
[33:32] read all the authorizing
[33:33] legislation for all three
[33:33] districts.
[33:35] I would have to brush up again
[33:37] to remind myself of what it
[33:37] said.
[33:39] But at the time the former
[33:40] treasurer and I had
[33:41] conversations around the
[33:42] policies related to these
[33:45] districts and I realized our
[33:46] differences in looking at the
[33:48] policies come from our different
[33:48] points of view.
[33:51] He was looking at the treasurer
[33:52] issuing bonds for the city and I
[33:54] was looking at it as a 30-year
[33:55] lender helping finance projects
[33:57] and the way you look at
[33:58] collateral is different from
[34:01] those two points of view.
[34:04] So -- and this is clearly pretty
[34:05] complex and we have heard things
[34:07] about contingent liabilities for
[34:09] the cfd and the potential of
[34:11] creating additional reliability
[34:14] or risk depending on what we do.
[34:18] So rather than us make any
[34:19] decisions tonight, what I would
[34:22] like to see happen is some more
[34:23] work around this.
[34:25] These can be important economic
[34:26] development tools.
[34:28] And I would like to know that
[34:29] your policies are appropriate
[34:31] that would allow us to use this
[34:36] and with all due respect to
[34:37] Councilman Phillips who doesn't
[34:40] like these, if these districts
[34:43] made it possible for D.C. Ranch,
[34:45] Mcdowell mountain ranch and,
[34:48] some of those beautiful
[34:50] communities in our city, and the
[34:51] citizens certainly don't have
[34:52] any issue buying and telling
[34:54] their homes, I think it could be
[34:55] a positive thing for economic
[34:56] development in our city.
[34:58] So what I would like to see
[34:59] happen is the industrial
[35:00] development authority has a lot
[35:02] of experience with bonding.
[35:04] Have them take a look at the
[35:05] statutes and maybe work through
[35:08] and say, what does the statute
[35:08] require?
[35:10] What is the city's policy with
[35:11] regard to this?
[35:13] What do the policies in other
[35:15] cities to make sure our policies
[35:16] aren't so restricted that it
[35:17] becomes a tool that folks
[35:18] condition use?
[35:21] But with an eye on what the --
[35:23] what the risk is to the city for
[35:24] each of these and watt uses
[35:25] might be and have them come back
[35:26] with an overview.
[35:27] Here's the pro.
[35:28] Here's the con.
[35:29] Here's the use.
[35:30] Here's the policy.
[35:32] Here's the risk and help us be
[35:33] better informed before we make
[35:34] some of these decisions.
[35:39] That would be my hope.
[35:41] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,
[35:42] Councilwoman.
[35:42] Councilwoman Korte.
[35:43] >> v. Korte: thank you, mayor.
[35:46] This revitalization district is
[35:48] about 4 years old in the state.
[35:50] Is there any other community
[35:55] that has utilized this funding
[35:55] mechanism?
[35:58] In the state?
[36:00] >> Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman
[36:04] Korte, I'm going to defer.
[36:05] I have heard -- let me defer to
[36:06] bruce.
[36:07] i heard of one through bruce.
[36:10] I'm not -- I'm not certain.
[36:11] >> City Atty. Washburn: the only
[36:13] one I know of is there is one in
[36:14] flagstaff and maybe Mr. Ruby
[36:22] knows of another.
[36:24] >> you are right, Mr. Washburn.
[36:25] There's one in flagstaff.
[36:26] My understanding is it has not
[36:30] issued debt.
[36:31] >> v. Korte: this revitalization
[36:33] district certainly wasn't
[36:35] created -- we didn't create the
[36:36] wheel on this.
[36:37] Are there other states that have
[36:42] used this type of mechanism and
[36:43] how have those states used that?
[36:45] I think that would be important
[36:46] for us to look at before we
[36:50] throw the baby out with the bath
[36:52] water.
[36:53] I -- I understand perhaps the
[36:54] state of florida has used this
[36:57] type of mechanism often.
[37:00] I would like to see how that is
[37:05] used and how it has benefited
[37:09] the community and economic
[37:10] development.
[37:13] And in parallel thinking with
[37:16] Councilwoman Milhaven, these are
[37:17] tools.
[37:18] These are tools that are
[37:21] important for us to just have in
[37:22] our tool box, which we use them
[37:27] or not.
[37:28] >> Mayor Lane: thank you,
[37:29] Councilwoman.
[37:30] I would simply say that I think
[37:31] simplicity rules here.
[37:33] If we have mechanisms that have
[37:36] been used and used successfully,
[37:37] even if there are some folks who
[37:39] don't particularly care for the
[37:43] CFDs and the I.D.S, that I
[37:44] would -- I'm okay with
[37:46] continuing those policies
[37:47] myself.
[37:48] And frankly, I would just -- we
[37:51] can study this until the cows
[37:52] come home, I suppose.
[37:54] And maybe it is that complex
[37:55] because this thing has been used
[37:57] and utilized, I think,
[37:58] sometimes -- well, it's been
[38:02] used in flagstaff, I don't know
[38:03] how successfully if there's no
[38:04] debt issued.
[38:06] I'm concerned about the control
[38:08] issues that the city
[38:09] relinquishes and for what
[38:09] reason?
[38:11] I'm talking about -- now we have
[38:12] talked an awful lot to the
[38:13] benefit of the city, but why
[38:15] would we be turning off --
[38:17] turning over a section of our
[38:19] community to someone else's
[38:21] governance and control outside
[38:24] of this body where we would not
[38:25] have any control over it?
[38:27] When we have mechanisms, you can
[38:28] call it whatever you want, we
[38:30] can use it for revitalization,
[38:32] we can use I.D.A.S, that's
[38:33] what they are intended for and
[38:35] in that case we have a, you
[38:37] know, similar mechanism and we
[38:38] earn fees from it.
[38:40] But we maintain control of
[38:41] private property within our city
[38:42] limits.
[38:44] In this case, we relinquish
[38:46] control of private property to a
[38:47] district's control, at least in
[38:48] those areas that I had
[38:48] mentioned.
[38:51] so I'm concerned about just
[38:52] simply that.
[38:54] And know the circumstances and
[38:56] how this was developed and why,
[38:57] and I'm not sure it May have
[39:03] been mirrored or May have
[39:04] mimicked some other state or
[39:06] city across the country, in its
[39:08] use, but it really hasn't come
[39:09] into play where this
[39:14] particular -- the R.D. Now, is
[39:16] particularly useful outside of
[39:17] the realm of tools we already
[39:18] have.
[39:20] It's just because it's labeled
[39:21] revitalization, it doesn't mean
[39:23] it's the only thing that could
[39:26] facilitate revitalization.
[39:27] Councilwoman Klapp.
[39:29] >> s. Klapp: I also would echo
[39:30] that I believe that we need to
[39:32] have a policy.
[39:34] We have got revitalization
[39:34] districts.
[39:35] We have no policy.
[39:40] And I think this body is pretty
[39:41] biased one way or the other and
[39:43] I really think a third party,
[39:45] such as the I.D.A., to take a
[39:45] look at this.
[39:47] They are not making a decision,
[39:47] though.
[39:49] I think the suggestion to have
[39:50] them look at this, and to
[39:53] determine what policies might be
[39:54] appropriate to recommend to the
[39:56] council as well as review all
[39:57] the uses of this district and
[39:59] other districts and look at
[40:01] other states and look at how
[40:04] they could be utilized in our
[40:06] city is a good thing.
[40:08] It's still up to the council to
[40:10] decide what we want to do.
[40:14] but I think we look rather
[40:15] foolish, when we have people
[40:17] come to the city and want to
[40:18] consider using a district and we
[40:20] say, well, we don't have any
[40:21] policies about it.
[40:22] And so then we try to force them
[40:25] to go a different direction when
[40:28] in reality, we encourage
[40:30] revitalization districts when
[40:33] the legislation was approved and
[40:36] so now it seems to me that the
[40:38] smart move would be to send this
[40:40] question to the I.D.A. And ask
[40:41] them to take a look at it.
[40:43] Come back and give us a report
[40:45] and discuss with the pros and
[40:46] cons of whether or not we should
[40:47] or should not have districts and
[40:48] what the policy should be.
[40:50] I think that's just smart
[40:53] business.
[40:55] I don't know if we need a
[40:56] motion.
[40:57] This is a work study.
[40:58] >> Mayor Lane: there's no
[40:59] motion.
[40:59] >> s. Klapp: I think we are just
[41:00] giving direction.
[41:02] So I would -- I would like to
[41:03] direct staff to do that, to work
[41:07] with the I.D.A., in coming up
[41:09] with some -- ask the I. D.A. To
[41:12] take a look at the districts,
[41:15] the pros and cons, the
[41:18] relationship of revitalization
[41:20] districts to the other two types
[41:25] of districts that we do have
[41:25] policies.
[41:28] Lay out for us why we should or
[41:30] should not have a revitalization
[41:31] district policy and if we
[41:32] should, what is it?
[41:33] and what should the limitations
[41:34] be?
[41:35] I think it was mentioned that
[41:38] the more we get involved in the
[41:39] districts, the more our
[41:40] liability might be.
[41:41] So it might be good to ask a
[41:44] third party to discuss this,
[41:47] rather than us putting our
[41:49] opinions upon it without in some
[41:51] cases knowing all the
[41:51] ramifications of whether or not
[41:53] it's a good idea to have the
[41:55] revitalization districts in
[41:56] scottsdale and if we did, what
[41:57] should the policies be.
[41:59] So I would like to ask staff to
[42:00] do that.
[42:02] So the city manager and
[42:03] treasurer work with the I.D.A.
[42:04] >> Mayor Lane: we can put that
[42:07] in the form of a directive vote
[42:11] or to get a consensus on that.
[42:12] Mr. Behring, did you have a
[42:14] button pushed here?
[42:15] >> Mr. Mayor, it was me that
[42:16] pushed.
[42:16] I'm sorry.
[42:18] i pushed your button.
[42:20] I do that quite often.
[42:21] >> Mayor Lane: you know how to
[42:21] push his buttons.
[42:23] >> I know how to push his
[42:23] buttons.
[42:25] That's absolutely correct.
[42:27] I will take that direction.
[42:28] The own thing I
[42:30] only thing I would caution,
[42:33] it's not something I would feel
[42:34] comfortable turning off to the
[42:35] I.D.A.
[42:36] I think we should work with
[42:36] them.
[42:39] i would like to, as a parallel
[42:40] process use staff to look at the
[42:43] issue from an internal
[42:43] perspective.
[42:47] We will get an external pearle
[42:48] perspective.
[42:49] We will get an internal
[42:50] perspective and marry those two
[42:55] and bring it back for council's
[42:55] consideration.
[42:56] >> s. Klapp: I didn't mean to
[42:57] imply that you would be separate
[42:58] from that process.
[42:59] That would be fine.
[43:00] >> Mayor Lane: I'm going to say
[43:02] the idea of having some policies
[43:05] that revolve around any of these
[43:07] but for particular district
[43:08] funding mechanisms is fine and
[43:10] review of them, I think that's
[43:11] purposeful and a good thing.
[43:15] And it May be that the I.D.A. Is
[43:17] a committee that we can rely
[43:19] upon to do, that but my greatest
[43:20] concern in this and this goes
[43:22] back to staff and to management
[43:25] and to legal, and that is what
[43:27] we are doing in the sense of
[43:28] turning over governance over
[43:30] city -- over land that's within
[43:31] the city boundaries and
[43:33] that's -- that's something that
[43:35] I think weighs heavily on the
[43:36] other side and when we talk
[43:39] about what mechanisms we use,
[43:42] that this one maybe falls down
[43:44] the less when we think what we
[43:46] are trading off in the way of
[43:47] governance.
[43:48] I don't think that's something
[43:48] that the I.D.A. Should be
[43:49] looking at.
[43:51] That's not their realm.
[43:53] We as a policy making body
[43:55] should be looking at that, on
[43:57] the best advice from our
[43:58] professionals sitting there at
[43:58] the table.
[44:00] so, you know, I would go with
[44:02] the motion and I will say that
[44:05] it's a motion and we will vote
[44:08] on it from the standpoint of
[44:09] directive, or direction on that.
[44:12] I will second that but we do
[44:12] have -- I'm sorry.
[44:13] -- maybe just depending what
[44:18] the city attorney has to say.
[44:21] >> City Atty. Washburn: I wanted
[44:23] to point out that the I.D.A. Is
[44:26] created by statute and has
[44:27] specified duties.
[44:29] I haven't looked at the I.D.A.
[44:31] Statute recently, they are not
[44:32] an advisory body like most of
[44:34] our boards and commissions.
[44:35] That hasn't been said.
[44:36] I think that it's certainly
[44:39] possible for staff to work with
[44:40] them, to, you know, request that
[44:42] they provide whatever expertise
[44:44] or input they might have on
[44:45] this.
[44:47] So I'm assuming the motion would
[44:48] essentially encompass the idea
[44:52] that staff should do whatever
[44:53] was -- of course, the I.D.A.S
[44:56] do whatever is in their lawful
[44:57] authority to assist on this
[44:58] issue.
[45:00] >> Mayor Lane: thank you.
[45:02] just one final comment from my
[45:04] perspective and I think it's
[45:05] shared by a couple of other
[45:07] members here and that is the
[45:08] great concern over the
[45:09] governance issue, the control
[45:10] and how this mechanism could be
[45:12] used to the detriment of the
[45:14] city, even if it only besmudges
[45:16] our reputation and our bond
[45:18] rating by virtue of a failure of
[45:19] such a property and that is
[45:22] something I want to at least be
[45:23] considered in the entire picture
[45:25] too.
[45:28] So with that, a motion and a
[45:29] second, with those qualifiers on
[45:30] the guidance.
[45:32] I think we are then ready to at
[45:34] least vote on that to see where
[45:34] on that.
[45:36] All of those in favor of that
[45:39] motion as has been expressed
[45:40] please indicate by aye if you
[45:41] agree and nay if you oppose.
[45:46] The motion does pass, 5-2, with
[45:47] Councilman Littlefield and vice
[45:54] mayor phillips dissenting.
[45:55] So that is the guidance and then
[45:57] that is where we need to be.
[46:01] We have a few minutes before our
[46:01] meeting.
[46:03] So we'll certainly -- I'll take
[46:05] a motion to adjourn this
[46:07] particular meeting.
[46:08] >> r. Littlefield: so moved.
[46:08] >> second.
[46:09] >> Mayor Lane: all those in
[46:10] favor of adjourning the session,
[46:12] please indicate by aye.
[46:13] [Chorus of ayes]
[46:14] We are adjourned.
[46:15] Thank you.
[46:16] Thank you, staff.