1996/05/14ICITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 14, 1996
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Frank Feldhaus, Lou Lopez, Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING MANAGER: Jafar Taghavi
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Bill Sweeney
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Gary Johnson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL SVCS.: Dale Tarkington
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 1:34 p.m. on
May 10, 1996 at the Civic Center Kiosk, containing all items as shown heroin.
Mayor Daly called the meeting of May 14, 1996 to order at 3:11 P.M. starting with a Workshop on the
Utilities Underground Conversion Plan.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is a scheduled Workshop on the proposed five-year underground
conversion plan to be presented by the Utilities Department. Staff is proud of the progress that has been
made since the inception of the program. The purpose today is to present the next five-year
underground plan for Council's consideration.
175: PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PLAN: Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public
Utilities General Manager then gave a presentation (supplemented by slides) on the continuing
underground conversion program for the Fiscal Years 1996/97 through 2000/01. (Hard copies of the
slides were submitted). He briefed and elaborated upon the material contained in each of the slides
starting with the history of the underground program established by the Council in June, 1990. The five-
year underground conversion plan is prepared annually and recommended by the Underground
Conversion Subcommittee and the Public Utilities Board for subsequent Council approval. He then gave
the five-year plan update (completed projects, progress report, financial data, proposed plan) and while
doing se, showed slides of completed projects, before and after, as well as proposed projects before, and
computer generated slides showing what the project will look like when completed.
Completed projects for Fiscal Year 1995/96 -- Nohl Ranch Road at Royal Oak Road south of Stage
Coach Road, and Romneya Drive from Halt)or Boulevard to Cherry Way. Projects under construction
are Anaheim Boulevard (completion date, 6/96) and Fairmont Street (completion date, 6/96). He also
gave a progress summary (June, 1990 through March 31, 1996) - $25.3 Million spent to date, removal of
4.44 circuit
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
miles of overhead 69 kY lines and 13.95 circuit miles of overhead 12 kV lines. Eleven underground
projects have been completed and 20 underground districts declared. Mr. Aghjayan then briefed the
financial data, gave a five-year plan comparison, bdefed the cdteHa for selecting projects, briefed the
proposed projects (design, construction schedule/completion, what will be converted, amount of roadway
involved, and costs) and new proposed projects (Ball Road/West Street, Orange Avenue and additional
conversion in the Anaheim Resort Area).
Before concluding his presentation, Mr. Aghjayan briefed 11 alternative projects (in ascending order)
and costs. The projects will be placed in the next plan. They may also replace a project. Orange
Avenue was an alternative project that the subcommittee asked be included to give geographic diversity
to the plan since it is in West Anaheim. He noted that Item A15 of the Council consent calendar is the
recommendation for approval of the five-year plan as outlined.
After Mr. Aghjayan's presentation, Council Members posed questions which were answered by both Mr.
Aghjayan, Jafar Taghavi, Electrical Engineering Manager, and Gary Johnson, Public Works Direction
and City Engineer.
Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Aghjayan and his staff for the informative presentation as well as the work of the
subcommittee and cooperative efforts between Public Works and Utilities Department in synchronizing
certain projects. He has heard many positive comments from the community on the undergrounding
program and the difference it has made in those parts of the City where projects have been completed.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Anaheim Stadium
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and Disney Baseball Enterprises, Inc.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Municipal Employees Association
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:38 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members being present, and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:07 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
There was a Moment of Silence in lieu of an invocation.
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
FLAG SALUTE:
Gid Scout Troop 1526 of Anaheim presented the colors and led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the
City Council:
Recognizing May 19 - 25, 1996, as National Public Works Week in Anaheim.
Mr. Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer accompanied by his staff members, Ralph
Harp, Taher Jalai and Jacque Moreno accepted the National Public WonV, s Week Proclamation.
Recognizing May 20, 1996, as Meals on Wheels Day in Anaheim.
Mr. Richard Maus accepted the Meals on Wheels Proclamation. He reported that 145,581 hot meals and
the same number of cold meals were delivered to seniors in 1995 by volunteers. He also made a plea
for volunteers for the program.
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION - PAINT YOUR HEART OUT - ANAHEIM: A Declaration of
Recognition was unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing the sponsors of Paint your Heart
Out Anaheim. Carolyn Griebe, Program Coordinator explained the program and how it works noting that
vital to the program are the sponsors,~donors. Without their help, the program would not be possible.
Mrs. Griebe and Co-Chairman of the program. Tom Hollywood, Diversified Brands (a Shenvin-Williams
Company), then introduced the sponsors who have generously given monetary contributions, in-kind
donations and 'sweat equity' to the program:
Bill Taormina, Anaheim Disposal
Maria Cove, Anaheim Public Utilities
John Hanger, Broadway Construction
Bruno Serato, The White House
Marie Moreno, Califomia Angels
Barbara Kimler, Orange County Register
Cindy Beyl, Times, Orange County
Tom Hollywood, Diversified Brands, a Shenvin-Williams Company
Mr. Hollywood presented token gifts to the Mayor and Council Members (most notably, paint cans filled
with jelly beans).
119: RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED
AT ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing May, 1996, as Orange County Asian American Pacific
Islander Heritage Month in Anaheim.
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,768,692.91 for the period ending May
14, 1996 in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority meetings. (5:32 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting (5:37 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. There is an addition to the Council Agenda requested to be added by the
Community Development Department - Approving the FY1996/97 One-Year Action Plan for CDBG,
HOME and ESG - which will require waiving the Brown Act. This matter was continued for two weeks at
the meeting of May 7, 1996 to May 21; however, in order to meet the deadline for applying for the
monies under the program, Council will have to take action this evening.
City Attorney, Jack Wttite. The justification for adding the item is the fact that when the item was
originally continued for two weeks, it was not known at the time the agenda was prepared it would be
essential that the Council approved or act upon this recommended budget pdor to the next rngulady
scheduled meeting on 5/21/96. On that finding, this item could be added to the agenda.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown ACt in order to add to
the Agenda, Item A17.a, Approving the FY1996/97 One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME and ESG
which needs to be acted upon before the Council Meeting of 5/21/96. Council Member Feldhaus
secoodod the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mr. I_any Reinhart, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct
(AQMD), 21865 E. Copley DHve, Diamond Bar. As part of the District's outreach program, he is present
to update the Council on the business and accomplishments of the District. He then bdefed the Council
on Rule 2202 (no cost technical assistance for local govemments) pending legislation (possible
amendment to SB836) and its impact on the City, the rescinding of some mandatory employer based
dde share roles, regulatory reforms, etc. (Mr. Reinhart submitted a small packet of information relative
to his presentation - made a part of the record).
Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Reinhart and AQMD for their efforts to keep the Council/City informed on
important air quality issues.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was receivod on Item A15. (see discussion under that item).
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of May 14, 1996. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
4
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 14~ 1996
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by
Council Member Feldhaus, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports,
certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Council Member Daly offered Resolution Nos. 96R-74 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al.
118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management.
Claim submitted by Annette Hambourger for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about March 20, 1996.
Claim submitted by James H. Niles for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the city on or about March 23, 1996.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held April 25, 1996.
173: Receiving and filing correspondence filed before the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Califomia in the Matter of the Application of Pacific Bell (U 1001 C), a coq~oretion, for
Authonty to Increase and Restructure Certain Rates of its Integrated Services Digital Network
Services (Amendment No. 3 to Application No. 95-12-043, filed December 5, 1995).
A3.
175: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, ELC Electric, Inc., in the amount of
$175,984 for Construction of Hannum Substation, Upgrade 15 KY Line and Bank Positions and
in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to
the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregulanties in the bids of both the Iow and second
Iow bidders.
A4.
169: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Accurate Landscape and
Maintenance Corporation the amount of $53,343.60 for Anaheim Boulevard Supplemental
Landscaping Improvements Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road - Anaheim Boulevard to
Cleudina Place; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award,
awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of
both the Iow and second Iow bidders.
AS.
166: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Urbantec Engineers, Inc., in the
amount of $44,300 for Entry Monumentation Sign Walls in Medians at Lincoln Avenue and
Euclid Street; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award,
awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any in'egularities in the bids of
both the Iow and second Iow bidders.
123: Submitted was an Agreement with Orange County Transportation Agency, and a
determination that the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved by the California
Department of Transportation is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the
functional relocation and replacement of Fire Station No. 3 from 580 South Clementine Street to
the southeast comer of the Grand Hotel parking lot. (Continued from the meeting of May 7,
1996, Item A8.)
Staff requested continuance on this item to May 21, 1996
A7.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Air Services International, in the amount of $19, 531.02 for one
helicopter turbine assembly overhaul, in accordance with Bid #5540.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY t996
A8.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Focus Camera, in the amount of $52,003.59 for photographic
supplies as required for the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997, in accordance with Bid
#5519.
Ag.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exemise the renewal of the Purchase order to
Petrochem Marketing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for a period of one year
commencing July 1, 1996, with the option to renew for an additional two years, in accordance
with Bid ~E,382.
Al0.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal of the Purchase Order to Nobest,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $650,000 for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1996
with the option to renew for an additional two years, in accordance with Bid #E,386.
All,
113: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OLD. (CITY ATTORNEY RECORDS.)
A12.
123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with Orange County for Urban Parks funding
for the Toyon Park Development (ballfield lighting and specific parking lot improvements); and
authorizing the City Manager to sign said Amendment.
Council Member Feldbeus. He would like the County to issue a voucher for the $125,000 for their part of
the funding as soon as possible.
City Manager Ruth. Supervisor Steiner has been extremely cooperative on this matter. At one time,
they lost the funds and he was able to get them placed beck in the budget. He reiterated, Supervisor
Steiner has been extremely cooperative and has attempted in every way to expedite the funds.
A13. 000: Ratifying, and continuing through June 30, 1997, reduced facility rental fees for the World
Series of Tournament Play conducted by Major League Softball, Incorporated.
A14. 153: Receiving and filing the Report on Settlement of Claims resulting from Employee
Grievances in 1995.
A15. 175: Approving the Proposed fiscal years 1996-97 to 2000/01 Five-year Electric Underground
Conversion Plan with an estimated capital cost of $45.2 million.
Mr. Max Engel, 1181 N. Catalpa, Anaheim. He understands every Anaheim resident and user of the
electrical utilities is paying for undergrounding. He would like a rough estimate of the cost between
residential uodergrounding and industrial and other commercial and resort censtmction to date. He also
wanted to know in what residential areas, if any, undergrounding has taken place.
Mr. Dale Tarkington, Assistant General Manager, Electric Services explained that approximately $25
Million has been expended thus far in the undergrounding program. The expenditures have not been
broken down on how much is for residential, commercial or industrial undergrounding. Staff will be
happy to provide data on the streets and areas involved.
Mr. Engel explained for the Mayor that he had looked at the five-year undergrounding plan, the point
being, he could not identify residential neighborhoods being projected in the near future for
undergrounding. He feels the residents are never going to see the impact, improvement or beautification
of undergrounding in their neighborhood. He questioned why undergreunding in the resort area, the
industrial area, etc. could not be done on an assessment basis. The residents who are paying for
undergrounding will not see removal of utility poles in their neighborhoods.
6
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Jafar Taghavi, Electrical Engineering Manager, Utilities Department explained the subcommittee
comprised of three Public Utility Board Members and members of the Planning Commission have
formulated criteria and guidelines for selecting the projects in the program and those have been adhered
to. The subcommittee meetings are public meetings and there has been public participation relative to
the issue.
Dale Tarkington. From the first days of the program, the focus has been on major thoroughfares in
Anaheim. The program was not designed to go into residential districts themselves or even business
districts. It is a major streets program - Harbor, Euclid, La Palma, State College, etc. That is the focus
for the time being rather than individual neighborhoods and alleys. Those major thoroughfares are
utilized by the City's residents.
Max Engel. His main thrust is, he believes they should have gone through the special assessment
procedure rather than assessing every resident for benef'~ they will never see.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661. W. Palais, Anaheim. He is again expressing his concem, as he consistently has done,
relative to undergrounding. Since a 4% levy is extracted from residential customers to further this
project and since few will live long enough to see improvements in their neighborhood, he proposed that
the City could have an enormous competitive edge by stopping this program.
A16.
123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement Regarding the Stadium Concession
Agreement, and a First Amendment to Stadium Concessions Agreement with Ogden
Entertainment Services, Inc., for food, beverage, and memhandise concessions at Anaheim
Stadium; and authodzing the Mayor to sign both Agreements on behalf of the City.
A17.
123: Approving the Amended and Restated Representation Agreement with Spencer Sports
Media, Inc., for the sale of advertising signage at Anaheim Stadium; and authorizing the Mayor
to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim.
A17.a.
174: Approving the FY1996/97 One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME and ESG, and
authorizing the Executive Director of the Community Development Department to execute the
required cortificetion and submission documents. (Also see report of May 10, 1996 -
Supplemental Information on HUD Programs which was supplemental to the information
previously submitted.)
Council Member Zemel abstained on this item.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 96R-74 for adoration:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopaz, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-74 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
7
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAy 1996
*** 5:00 P. M. PUBLIC HEARING ***
A18.-A19
123: COOPERATION AGREEMENT BE'I'~NEEN THE CITY AND THE ANAHEIM
R~DEVEI~OPMENT AGENCY CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS TO ANAHEIM
STADIUM:
(Anaheim Stadium Renovation) See Staff Reporldated May 14, 1996 recommending
that subsequent to a Public Healing, the City Council, by Resolution approve a
Cooperation Agreement regarding Anaheim Stadium Renovation and making certain
findings related thereto.
Mayor Daly first briefly summarized how the items would be handled and that the language on the
agenda relating to these items and convening and reconvening the different Agency meetings was
necessary to comply with legal requirements. There am six items to be voted on under items A18. and
A19. and each has a staff recommendation with it. The first is a City Council action, item 2, a
Redevelopment Agency action, items 3, 4 and 5, City Council actions, and item 6, an action under the
Anaheim Public Financing Authority. There will also be an opportunity for public comments after the
following presentations by staff and the City's consultants:
James D. Ruth, City Manager- State of the City/Overview; Bill Sweeney, Finance Director- Highlights of
the Lease; Tony Tavares, Disney Sports Enterprises - Disney's Vision for Anaheim Stadium; Dan Young,
The Spectrum Group - Sportstown, and Stewart Rog, Deloitte and Touche - Baseball Stadium
Economics. (The presentations are summarized.)
City Manager, James Ruth - State of the City/Overview (also see minutes of 5/7/96). Mr. Ruth also
briefed some of the deal points of the Lease Agreement. He first explained the enteq~se funds of the
City (Utilities, Golf, Convention Center, Stadium) specifically noting that relative to the Stadium, it has
yielded a $2.9 million profit over 29 yearn. The City receives no direct revenue or profit from the
Stadium. It is oporated on an independent basis and any revenues generated go back into the operation
of the facility. The City receives full reimbursement for its expenses for services provided to the
Stadium. The exterior advertising revenue currently goes back to the Stadium fund as well. In addition
to direct revenues and expenditures, the Stadium generates sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes
(To'r), property taxes and other taxes and fees for general purpose uses. In the MOU which was acted
on by the City Council on Apdl 3, 1996 (see minutes of special meeting held that date), certain goals
ware defined which the City was attempting to accomplish. Staff has attempted to negotiate the
agreement for Council consideration tonight within those MOU goals. The first was to assure retention of
the Angels in Anaheim under a long-term agreement; secondly, to accomplish a reajor overhaul of the
Stadium at minimum cost to the City; third, provide for privetization of Stadium operations and shift of
operating risks and the fourth to maintain maximum flexibility in Sportstown site development and to
recover the City's investment in the Stadium without any increase in taxes.
Mr. Ruth's presentation was then supplemented by slides. He gave the Lease Agreement highlights.
(See sheet, Anaheim Stadium Lease Agreement Presentation - Anaheim City Council Meeting, Items
A18. and A19. - 5:00 P.M. - May 14, 1996). He briefed the term of the lease, City use of site,
Sportstown, Publicity ('Anaheim' in team name and name of Stadium), Operations, Revenue Sharing,
On-Going Costs and what occurs under Scenario #1 (40-acre Sportstown development without a football
stadium) and Scenario #2 (40-acre Sportstown development with a football stadium).
Lisa ~tipkovich. Executive Director of Community Development. The Agency is asking for approval of a
Cooperation Agreement between the City and the Agency. The Agency would be funding up to $10
million worth of renovation and improvements within the Stadium and reimbursing the City for the
reserve funds they would be placing into that account up front. It is an appropriate action by the Agency
and is within the intent of the Redevelopment plan. The payments made to the City will be coming from
tax increment received by the Agency with an obligation to pay back funds at a 5% interest rate over the
maximum time allowed under the Redevelopment law to incur debt which is actually up to 43 years.
8
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Staff recommends both Council and Agency approval of the resolutions that will allow them to enter into
the Cooperation Agreement. She then explained for Council Member Tait how the Agency will get
refunded. The revenue to come to the Agency would be from the property tax increment. In this case, it
would be possessory interest because it is a public facility. Any private interest in the facility would be
subject to possessory interest tax and, according to State law, the Redevelopment Agency is allowed to
collect about 60% of the incremental tax assessed in a project area. The entity paying the taxes would
be paying to the County and the County would be paying to the Agency the appropriate share. The entity
in this case is not the City. The entity taxed would make the tax payment.
Mr. Tony Tavares, Disney Sports Enterprises - Disney's Vision for Anaheim Stadium. He gave an
encore presentation of that given at the Council meeting of May 7, 1996 at the Convention
Center (7:30 P.M.) with accompanying slides and renderings showing what the Stadium will look like and
amenities which will complement the renovation.
Mr. Dan Young, The Spectrum Group - Sportstown. His extensive presentation laid out the parameters
of Sportstown (presentation given at the meeting of May 7, 1996) for which The Spectrum Group was
chosen to create a vision for the 158 acres in the Anaheim Stadium area with the middle piece being the
Stadium itself - a revitalized Big 'A' to create an opportunity for public-private partnemhips to bo created
on City property including restaurants, hotels and other entertainment uses subject to market feasibility
and to increase the value of the property beyond that associated with a parking lot next to Anaheim
Stadium.
In concluding, Mr. Young outlined five benefits to Sportstown of the proposed agreements - 1) the City
will now have development rights to the parking lot, 2) a magnificently designed Stadium as presented in
conceptual form, 3) a long-term lease with the Angels, 4) Disney is an excellent name to market with as
they go to the market place and, 5) the City still owns Spertstown which will give tremendous flexibility as
they approach discussions and contemplate what the City will do next in terms of a football facility. The
EIR that entitles Sportstown and the football stadium will bo coming before the City within the next 30-45
days. He then showed a final slide of the Sportstowo concept and the different areas that will bo part of
the vision. The goal is to attract investment and they look forward to carrying it through to its conclusion.
Stewart Rog, Principal of Deloitte and Touch and National Director of their Sports and Entertainment
Facilities - Baseball Stadium Economics. He showed how Anaheim's proposed Lease Agreement
compares with other baseball teams around the country which recounted some of the information given
in Mr. Rog's presentation at the Council meeting of May 7, 1996 (see minutes that date) supplemented
by slides. Also see the material submitted (Proposed Stadium Renovation - Baseball Stadium Financing
National Perspective) containing hard copies of the slides presented. He briefed the development of
new baseball stadiums, those specifically relevant being Oriole Park, Jacobs Field, Coom Field, The Ball
Park in Arlington ('rexes), and Comiskey Park. In all five cases, the preponderanco of revenues came
from the public sector whereas in Anaheim, 80% of the revenue will come from private sources and only
20% or $20 million will come from public sources.
In concluding his presentation, to re-emphasize a point made by Mr. Ruth earlier relative to issues of
risk, the proposed financing structure and lease deal, in I~is opinion, most successfully eliminates on-
going operating risk from the City. It is virtually non-existent. Over the 33-year life of the lease, the
vagaries of attendance at Angel's games and the vagaries of marketing the suites and club seats, all of
those ~sks are with tl~e private sector and not with the City.
James Ruth. It is the concerted opinion, based on the proposed agreement before the Council tonight,
working within the MOU goals, the objectives have been achieved. He reiterated those objectives/goals
1) to assure the retention of the Angels in Anaheim under a long-term agreement; 2) accomplish a major
overhaul of the Stadium at minimum cost to the City; 3) provide for privatization of Stadium operations
and shifting the operating risk; 4) maintain maximum flexibility in Sportstown site development and 5)
recover the City's investment in the Stadium - all without additional taxes.
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Before public comments, Mayor Daly and Council Membem Tait and Zemel posed questions which were
answered by Mr. Rog and Sweeney and by Jill Dreffin, Special Counsel, and Lisa Stipkovich relative to
the new deal struck by the Ban Francisco Giants, specifics of the naming rights in the pmposad
agreement, the distinction between the 70/30 figure and the new 80~20 figure, and who pays the
possessory interest tax.
Bill Sweeney explained that the deal has not changed for better or worse in terms of the transition from
the 70/30 to 80/20. The change when the lease agreement was drafted to 80120 recognizes that Disney
is responsible for an $80 Million investment. With the 70-10-10-10, the City will borrow on Disney's
behalf and Disney will pay the $10 million with the exterior advertising revenues and incur the expenses
associated with the issuance of the bonds. It wes always entirely Diseey's responsibility. It is a
recognition that there should bo one series of bonds and not two sspamte instruments.
Jill Draffin. The $10 Million isthe compensation for the income stream from the advertising over the
term of the lease. It is, in fact, a 70/30 deal.
City Manager Ruth. One of the statements is that money that is being generated and has been
generated in the past from advertising on the Stadium property through the five towem has been less
than $800,000. Disney has guaranteed they will bond for $10 million and guaranteed $10 million
contribution towards the project. Actually the City has not been generating $800,000 a year which is
necessary to bend at $10 million. Disney has taken somewhat of a risk on that but looking at the long
term they will probebly make more money because their exportisa is in marketing. In the short term, the
City has not been generating that kind of revenue and it is a guarantee which has helped to bond for the
$10 million which will assist in the construction. He clarified for Council Member Tait the City is putting
up $,?.0. million in cash plus billboards worth $10 Million.
Lisa Stipkovich. Relative to the possessory interest tax, it is her understanding the lease states that the
tenant, Disney, or the Angels would be paying any taxes assessed or any possessory interest assessed
to them. There is another portion of the lease that requires the City to cause a reimbursemeht to be
placed into a fund regarding a formula that deals with the possessory interest tax. Technically, the entity
who is taxed will be paying the possessory interest. There is an unknown, at least in her mind, as to
whether there will be other entities that get taxed.
Council Member Tait. His undendanding, practically what happens, the City will pay the first $500,000 in
possessory interest tax and Disney will pay any tax above that.
Jill Draffin. The City pays the first $158,000, Disney pays the next $158,000 and then the City pays the
next $342,000. It is payment of an amount equal to the tax to be paid once a year probably by a set off.
The total contribution by the City is $500,000 and assumes that the possessory interest tax is $858,000.
The following people then spoke either in favor, in opposition, made general comments, or posed
questions: (Also see minutes of March 12, 1996, April 3, 1996, and May 7, 1996 when the issue was
discussed and where a number of people spoke and presentations made. The comments, et al., are
summarized).
Jim Townsend, 808.N. Pine, Anaheim (Telephone Taxpayem Committee). Since taxes come from the
citizens, the question should be put on the ballot to let the people decide.
Ron Collins, 482 Paseo Real, Anaheim. The proposal is a good deal for baseball, besebell fans and a
great deal for the CitY.
10
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY t996
Bill Bangert, 150 N. W. Palm Lane, Anaheim. It is a wonderi=ul opportunity for Anaheim.
Chds Van Gorder, CEO Anaheim Memorial Medical Center, President of Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce, member of Anaheim Angels NOW. In a week's time, 3,615 pledge cards were received
from supportem of the proposed agreement. He encouraged Council's support of the agreement tonight.
Paul Bostwick, 1411 Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, Chair of Anaheim Angels NOW. He presented a poster
beard of all the community leadem who signed the pledge cards. He referred to the comments he made
at the last meeting and stated again, he is very much for the agreement and urges Council support.
Fred Young, 5250 E. Gerda, Anaheim. He is speaking for himself and also as District Representative for
Oporating Engineem with 30,000 members, 400-500 residing in Anaheim who are supporting the project
and urged the Council to vote in support and not to stop until Sportstown is completed.
Tom Steel, 524 E. Center Street, Anaheim. He does not blame the Angels orthe Disney organization for
trying to gain concessions from City taxpayers. If the vote tonight is the same as for the MOU (see
minutes of April 3, 1996), the three Council Members who vote in favor will not be abiding by their oath
of office.
Mel Miller, 5311 Yale Avenue, Anaheim. He has been a businessman in Anaheim for 20 years and very
active in community organizations. He fully supports the proposed plan and urges a favorable vote. It
will enhance economic growth for Anaheim.
Reed Royalty, 30205 Hillside Crest, San Juan Capistrano, Executive Vice President/Orange County
Taxpayers Association. He gave his observations relative to the proposed agreement and tried to clear
up allegations that have been made (in opposition) which he feels are incorrect or misleading relative to
the financial aspects of the agreement.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He is concemed there is not an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of
the bettom line finances of the agreement. Most of the people who have reservations or are opposed are
concemed with the risk left with the citizens after everything settles down. He then posed a number of
questions and asked a question he has asked several times relative to a guarantee that the team will
continue to buy its electricity from the City which amounts to approximately $1.5 million annually.
Another new element is Item #19 regarding waiving of the competitive bidding requirements. He feels
with the time frame involved, there has not been an opportunity for tree public analysis.
Bennie Hemandez, 2100 S. Lewis, Anaheim. He is a member of the Anaheim City School District Board
but is representing himself. As a grass roots leader, he sees many children involved in programs
provided by the Angels and Disney. This proposal is going to be good for the community at large and for
families and children. He urged a 5-0 vote in support.
Greg Durfee, 3830 E. Jackson, Anaheim. Historically speaking, it is a trust issue - do they trust Disney,
the Autrys and the Council. He does not feel there will be a problem as with the previous (Rams) owner.
He extends his trust to the Council to vote what they feel is proper.
Stan Pawlowski, 1433 W. Jeanine, Anaheim (45 years). This is his third time before the Council to urge
their support of the agreement. He again gave his extensive reasons why. The Council, the elected
representatives of the citizens of the City, serve the people and the voters and citizens want this
agreement. It is important that they act in favor tonight.
Jack C. Dutton, 1400 S. Sunkist, Anaheim (former Council Member and Mayor of Anaheim). He is the
last surviving member of the Council who brought the Stadium to the City. The Council Members are the
people to make the decision and are the ones who have all the information to do so. He urged that they
do what he feels is going to be good fol' the City and give their support.
11
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY t996
Charles Ahlers, President, Anaheim/Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau. The Executive
Committee asked him to be present in support of the proposition and to urge a yes vote. They need
positive imagery for Anaheim and Orange County and this win-win deal will be a part of that imagery.
Kevin Uhlich, Vice President of Operations of the Angels. He is speaking for Gene Autry. Last Thursday,
May 7, 1996, Mr. Autry announced his intention to gauge the sentiments of the community relative to the
proposal. He has followed through by disseminating the facts to every household on at least two
occasions requesting that they indicate support or opposition. He is pleased to report on behalf of Mr.
Autry, of the more than 20,000 who have responded, 17,497 are in favor and 3,410 opposed. The
magnitude of residents answering want the Council to approve the agreement and want the Angels to
stay in Anaheim for a long time to come. On- behalf of the Autrys and the Angels, he is pleased to
encourage the Council to vote for the stadium agreement.
Gentleman from the audience (name unknown). He presented a large baseball to the Council signed by
Angel fans to show their support for the agreement. The ball contained over 3,000 signatures.
Joan Burke, 649 Carlton, Anaheim. She has read the MOU and the agreement and after doing so, had a
number of questions relative to the document which she feels is favorable to Disney. She is also
concemed that the City is rushing into the deal and she feels there is no urgency to do so.
James Doti, President, Chapman University and Economist. (See minutes of 5/7/96 and Mr. Doti's
presententation - The Economic Impact of the Angels on the Community.) His presentation explained in
detail the positive economic impact the agreement will have on the City and the County.
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council meeting was recessed at this time (7:50 P.M.) due to
a power outage.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members present (8:25 P.M.). He
noted, because of the power outage (still in progress) the microphones are not working and for each
speaker to speak loud enough to be heard. (There was also minimal lighting and power from the
emergency generators. The power outage was not able to be corrected throughout the balance of the
meeting.)
Carol Stanley, 235 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim (Beach Blvd. Concerned Citizens) - former member of
Angels Booster Club. She urged the Council to vote on the proposed business contract. It may not be
the best deal right at the moment, but it is the only deal offered thus far. it is a win-win-win solution for
Anaheim. The citizens of West Anaheim would like the Council to share the wealth of the deal with West
Anaheim. They have been working long and hard to renew and make their area a better place for
businesses and residents.
Kemp{on Kilbarger, 7157 E. Mockingbird Way, Anaheim. He applauds the two Council Members who
are not in favor. He feels Anaheim deserves better and to have more say. It is necessary to look at the
issues and the misconceptions and then make their decision based on that information.
Doug Clark, 1209 Eastgate Street, Anaheim. He feels this is a great deal.
Dennis Williams, 1753 Oak Knoll, Anaheim. He is in support of the agreement. It is good for the
community, businesses and residents.
12
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Mike Edmiston, 744 Fairway, Anaheim. He mfermd to/briefed a number of pages in the agreement
relating to financing and revenue issues and had questions which he feels are not answered in the
document. He supports an alliance between Anaheim and Disney, it is good business and in the City's
interest to make a deal with Disney, but - he does not believe this is the deal.
Bill Kmbs, 996 Siet Place, Anaheim. He feels they am subsidizing sports with taxes and gave his
masons why. He also posed questions which he hoped the Finance Director could answer.
Bill Schweitzer, Chief Counsel, American League. He wanted to make throe points: (1) In today's
basobell environment, Anaheim has the best deal in baseball. (2) The City has worked in a way that has
been very cordial and with the appropriate ability to get a deal done between the Council, Disney and the
Autrys. It is a good deal for the City, the residents, and the parties involved. (3) Baseball is very much
behind this deal. To have a partnership between the City of Anaheim and baseball is something that
they welcome. He strongly urged support and commended the City for its efforts.
Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident (40 yearn) and former Council Member. This is a huge opportunity
for the City that is not seen anywhere. Disney has been in Anaheim 43 yearn in July. They have done
everything right, have prospered and the City with them. It is a company that is not going to disappear.
The City will now have the Anaheim Angels at Anaheim Stadium. It is an opportunity they will never
come again and she urged the Council to go forward with it tonight.
Tdva Brown, 1800 W. Gmmemy Place, Anaheim. She expressed her concem about certain aspects of
the agreement, competitive bidding being one of them. She also felt if the Council did not act tonight,
that the deal was not going to fall apart. Mom time is needed.
Sharon EHcson, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. As elected officials, the Council is obligated to act
in the best interests of the City. When they took their oath of office, they accepted fiduciary
msponsibitity and to act in good faith on behalf of the citizens. She feels if they vote to move forward
with the agreement, they am broaching that responsibility and they have an obligation to place the issue
on the ballot. She does not believe because citizens voted the Council into office~ they voted for them to
spend all their money.
Rob Knapp (?), 765 Strawberry Court, Anaheim. The project will put a lot of residents of the City to work
and that is his main interest as President of the (Caq~enter's) Local in Anaheim. He urged a vote of ·
support.
Gilbert Badillo, 113 N. Desomt, Anaheim. He is a ce~penter and if they support the agreement, he will be
employed, will be paying taxes and will be spending his sham of the $100 million to buy goods in
Anaheim. The investment will bring a very large retum to the City and the ama.
ltv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim (former Council Member). The same questions that have been
asked tonight he is certain were asked when the proposal to build the Stadium came forward and it
turned out to be a very positive decision made by the Council at the time. They cannot put everything
they do to a vote. The Council is the body elected to make the decisions. Disneyland is a winner-
Anaheim is a winner. Together they can do many things.
Manny Ontiveras, Chain~an, Parks and Recreation Commission. He is present in support and is
conf',:lent that the Council will say yes in support of major league baseball in Anaheim and to the
renovation of the Stadium. If they vote no, they will be saying good-bye to the Angels. He hopes the
vote in support will be 5-0.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
13
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Mayor Daly. This has been the third opportunity for public input (also see minutes of 3/12, 4/3 and
5/7/96). He noted that there was an extensive public meeting last Tuesday at the Convention Center
where there was approximately two hours of public input which followed a longer version of the
presentations made tonight. There are a total of six recommended actions for the Council,
Redevelopment Agency and Public Financing Authority to take but before doing so, he asked City staff
to respond to questions raised.
Bill Sweeney, Finance Director. Relative to the $80 million, Disney is 100% responsible for the
repayment of the bonds. The City's general fund will not and cannot be under any risk at all. Disney has
the opportunity to come to the City and have the City borrow the $20 million amount in their behalf. The
original MOU provided $70 million to be paid by Disney Sports Enteq~rises and $30 million from the City.
Ten million of the City's contribution is going to bo the responsibility of the exterior advertising revenue.
The City is going to go out to the capital market and borrow $10 million. The City always had a $20
million hard dollar contribution and a $10 million advertising piece. Now it is 80/20 which recognizes
Disney is responsible for $80 million including the $10 million piece. The numbers have not changed.
Jack VVhite, City Attorney. Relative to competitive bidding, the agreement provides that the
improvements being made are tantamount to tenant improvements to the property the City owns. There
is no requirement for competitive bidding, the reason being the fact that the City's total obligation to
participate in the cost of the renovation ($20 million) is an absolutely fixed number. It does not go up or
down dependent upon what the bids would be if competitively bid. There is no advantage to the public if
the project is competitively bid.
City Manager Ruth. He clarified that Disney will serve as the Contract Manager and will have to conform
with all City code~, issued permits, and the City will have to inspect the project. The City has an oversite
responsibility.
Mayor Daly offered the resolution on the Cooperation Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS.
THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE CITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000,000, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST, FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND
RENOVATIONS TO SE MADE TO ANAHEIM STADIUM.
Before fudher action, Mayor Daly stated when the time comes for a vote, it will be a voice vote since the
voting system is inoperable due to the power outage. This is the time for comments by Council
Members.
Council Member Tait. He read a prepared statement which is summarized as follows: He is a big Angel
fan and would like nothing more than to see the Angels stay in Anaheim after their lease expires in six
years and would like nothing better than to see the Angels owned by a partnership of two great icons in
Anaheim. However, his job is to represent the taxpayers and vote with fiscal responsibility. The City is
giving $20 million to apply to the renovation of the Stadium and the outdoor billboards worth
approximately $10 million. Although Disney takes over control for 42 years (33 yrs. plus 9-year option),
the City must continue to pay the mortgage on the Stadium of $9.2 million. Even though the City
controls the Stadium, the City is required to pay possessory interest tax up to $500,000 a year which
brings the direct costs to the City up to $40 million. In addition, the City is giving assets or revenue
streams by giving the keys to the Stadium. The Stadium naming rights are worth $20 million or more.
The City is giving up the right to sell the Stadium concession contract worth approximately $10-20 million
and the right to sell stadium advertising within the stadium worth approximately $5 million. These
revenue streams currently belong to the City but after the transaction will belong to Disney. To describe
the deal as a $70 million or $80 million Disney contribution does not accurately describe the transaction.
14
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 14, 1996
The City will get some revenues, but only after aggressive attendance and perking thresholds are met
and what it will get from a scaled-down Sportstown which is speculative. If they sell or develop
Sportstown, those proceeds should be used for vital City services and not used to repay the bonds sold
to finance this deal. He cannot support investing taxpayer money without a guaranteed source of
repayment.
There have been a'number of statements that have concerned him - that the $40 plus million direct
costs to the City will come from a variety of sources but do not involve any new taxes. If the $40 million
is not repaid from the stadium, it must come from somewhere. Mr. Sweeney last week stated there is no
guarantee the City will be paid its contribution. It must be replenished by selling a City asset, diminishing
a City reserve, or raise taxes. He does not see the money coming beck to the City from this deal. In his
opinion, this is a taxpayer subsidy of professional sports. It comes down to pdohties and he cannot
support this when such critical needs of the City have not been met.
Council Member Zemel. When he was elected, he promised not to waiver from his principles and to vote
his conscience. Most of the people who spoke tonight asked him to do that when he asked for their
support. Tonight he is being asked to give up his principles and almost everyone who spoke supported
his campaign. It has never been his belief that Disney would be any less than perfect and the best
pessible choice to be a pertner with the Angel~. There is no question it will not be a success but it does
not change the facts of the transaction. He believes they could have worked to a 5-0 vote if they had
worked harder and made some small adjustments. For example, on the naming rights, $20 million could
be as much as $66 million. If they took just that towards the $100 million investment and split it in the
same fashion as they split the investment, that would be a tree partnership. He feels anything less is a
gift of public funds. There is no real way to repay the taxpayer's investment. There is going to be an on-
going cost to the taxpayer without the benefit of current existing stadium revenues and to say calling the
team the Anaheim Angels will balance the books is to him somewhat of a fairy tale. Depletion of
reserves can only mean one of two things - future taxes or reduction in services. He agrees they could
sell a City asset but those are disappearing. The deal is about this (he held up the agreemeht). As
always, he loves the City and wants it to go forward. He cannot support the details of the contract and he
would like the voters, colleagues and supporters to understand exactly where he is coming from and the
reasons why. He welcomes any comments they would like to make to him.
Council Member Feidhaus asked to have some of the statements made clarified by either Mr. Sweeney,
Mr. White, or the City Manager. (1) That the City must pay the existing 9.2 million debt without any
revenue to support that cost. (2) The question relative to the estimated possessory interest tax. (3) That
the naming rights could be as much as $66 million. (4) That there is no way to pay the taxpayer's
investment noting that there are two scenarios presented.
Bill Sweeney, Finance Director. The entire deal was put together and costed out over a pedod of time.
Based on that analysis, what is going to pey these figures beck are sales tax and transient occupancy
tax. There is no guarantee on these sources of repayment. Relative to an estimate of the possessory
interest tax, at this time, the estimate is $600,000 based on the value of the property at $60 million. It is
not to say when the assessor is finished it could be higher or lower. Relative to the naming Hghts issue,
it is his understanding the amount is based on net present value.
Relative to the scenarios, there are a lot of scenarios that can be developed, but the two that are the
simplest on sportstown (1) the no football option involving 40 acres and developing with high-end retail
development and hotels where the City would derive benefits in the form of TOT, sales tax, etc. That is
the highest gain. That is where you get $20 Million net present value. (2) The football option would be
20 acres for football and 20 acres for high-end retail, hotels, etc. Under that scenario, the net present
value is only $1 million because it involves less real property. Those are the two most reasonable
scenarios. Under both scenarios, everything is put in the same "bucket" and all paid back over time. In
order to get all that money 'back, it is necessary to have all those components.
15
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 199;
Council Member Lopez. When he heard Disney was going to purchase the Angets, he was excited. He
has been an Anaheim Police Officer for 27 yearn and knows what Disney has meant to the community.
in talking with community leadem, their No. 1 priority, as his own, is the children and youth of the City.
Disney has always been them for the youth of Anaheim. He has spent the last 9 or 10 months devoting
hundreds of houm with the City Attorney and City Manager addressing this issue and discussing the
positives and negatives of the deal. He feels it is a plus for the City. It is necessary to spend money to
make money and he does not feel it is a gamble. It is a win-win for Anaheim. He is supporting the
purchase of the Angels by the Disney Company and the agreement before them tonight.
Mayor Daly. They have spent many months on this project. He thanked the City Manager, his staff and
various consultants who have been involved. He disagrees with those who say mom time is needed and
them has not been full public disclosure. This project has received mom discussion, scrutiny, analysis
and dialogue than most projects that have occurred in the City. It has received an intensive amount of
focus by many bright, capable people in the business community for the past several months. He
recounted Anaheim history when the decision was made to invest in public power, the decision 30 yearn
ago to build Anaheim Stadium, the Convention Center, etc. all of which undoubtedly had their sham of
controversy, decisions which have added to the City's quatity of life. The decision to build the Arena was
also not without its critics. Those decisions, with the benefit of time and in retrospect, look pretty good.
This particular partnership and proposal carries far less risk and far more certainty than some of the
previous investments. Disney managing the Stadium and owning the Angels is a pretty good reliability
factor. The team will be well mn and successful as well as the stadium after 30 years of straggling to
balance the stadium budget each year. It is not a pmf*itable enterprise on an annual basis but it is a
wonderful public asset. It is about time to transfer it to private enterprise. If the pmpusal exceeds certain
thresholds, the City will sham in that revenue.
Mayor Daly again thanked the City Manager for negotiating a fine, fair, good, well-balanced deal for the
community. He intends to vote in support and, he feels, a retrospective look back at this deal will also
regard it as just as good an investment if not better than major investments in the past that have
provided so many jobs, enhanced quality of life and property values. The fact that major league baseball
will be secured in Anaheim and Orange County for decades to come is very important. The City has also
waited 30 years for the team to boar the City's name. It is worth a lot in terms of Anaheim's image and
to the tourist and business community, especially to have a major league baseball team called Anaheim.
For all those masons and many mom, he is going to support the proposal.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 96R-75 offered by Mayor Daly.
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS.
THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE CITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000,000, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST, FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND
RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE TO ANAHEIM STADIUM.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 96R-75 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-75 duly passed and adopted.
16
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 1996
Chairman Daly reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Meeting (9:43 p.m.).
Chairman Daly offered Resolution No. ARA96-1 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA96-1A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS. THIS
AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO REIMBURSE THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000,000,
PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST, FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE TO
ANAHEIM STADIUM.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA96-1 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Lopaz, Daly
CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel
CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA96-1 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Agency consent, the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was
adjourned (9:45 P.M.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting (9:46 p.m.).
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved (1) to approve the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement by and
between the California Angels L.P. and the City of Anaheim dated as of May 15, 1996 relating to the
lease and renovation of Anaheim Stadium, (2) consenting to the assignment and assumption of leases
and other Stadium agreements by and between Golden West Baseball Company, a Delaware
Corporation, and the Califomia Angels L.P., a California limited partnership and, (3) approving an
Assignment Agreement by and between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Public Financing Authority
assigning the City's rights and interest to the Base Rent to be paid by the Tenant pursuant to the
Amended and Restated Lease Agreement by and between the California Angels L.P. and the City (as
such terms are defined therein) including such nonsubstantive changes and insertions therein as
approved by the City Attomey as may be necessary to cause the same to carry out the intent of the
parties thereto. Council Member Lopaz seconded the motion which encompassed three actions. AYES:
Mayor Daly and Council Members Lopez and Feldhaus. NOES: Council Members Tait and Zemel.
MOTION (S) CARRIED.
Chairman Daly reconvened the Anaheim Public Financing Authority Meeting (9:50 p.m.).
17
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY '14~ '1996
Chairman Daly offered Resolution No. APFA96-1 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION NO. APFA96-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $100,000,000
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS LEASE REVENUE BONDS SERIES 1996
(ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJEC'F) TO FINANCE THE RENOVATION OF ANAHEIM STADIUM
AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS
AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. APFA96-1 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CHAIRMAN/AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
CHAIRMAN/AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel
CHAIRMAN/AUTHORITY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution NO. APFA96-1 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the meeting of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority was
edjoumed (9:52 p.m.).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting (9:52 p.m.).
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed (9:52 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members present (9:59 p.m.)
C1. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
C2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of May 14, 1996 was edjoumed
(10:00 P.M.)
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
18