Loading...
1971/06/1771-366 Convention Center, Orange County Room, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1971, 7:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session with the Community Center Authority and the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Thom and Pebley COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Dutton COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Ben Shroeder, Acting President, William Currier, Laurence Henderson and Robert Hostetter ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Robert Bark, President, Dean H. Pritchett, M.D., John Barton, Edward M. Hartnell, James P. Bonnell, and Kenneth Wines, Superintendent of Schools CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Thomas Liegler ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Pease FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. Ringer EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, ANAHEIM VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU: William F. Snyder Acting Mayor Pro Tem Pebley, Acting President Shroeder and President Bark called their respective meetings to order. ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER BETTERMENT PROGRAM: City Manager Keith Murdoch refer- enced a previous joint meeting held February 15, 1971, and a recent memo to the City Manager from the Stadium and Convention Center Director (Exhibit 1) regarding the Anaheim Convention Center Betterment Program, and advised that the basic purposes for the proposed expansion of the Convention Center to almost double the size of the Exhibition Hall are as follows: 1. To provide for more effective use of the facility so that more than one activity can be carried on at any given time. 2. To accommodate the continuously expanding conventions and trade show activities and some of the other activities that currently use the Con- vention Center. 3. To make sure that when there are conventions in process, which is the major purpose of the Convention Center, there still will be space or times available for many of the civic activities and many of the activities for the people of the Anaheim area. Mr. Murdoch explained that the proposed method of financing is to issue revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000.00, and pay the entire amortization cost from the Room Occupancy Tax; projections indicate that with the resulting expanding business the 5% Room Occupancy Tax rate would provide sufficient funds for amortization, but now that that has been increased to 6% this assures the program of being adequately financed by this tax. He added it is felt the increased room occupancy tax rate also would provide sufficient funds to take care of the cost of promotion. He recounted the manner in which the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees had formed the Joint Powers Azenc¥, the Community Center Authority~ and authorized that Agency to market revenue bonds to pay the cost of purchasing land and constructing the exist- ing Convention Center, which facility then would be rented by the City at a sufficient rent to pay the cost of amortization and operation of the facility. A preliminary draft of Second Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Exhibit 2) was distributed to the three organizations and Alan Watts, Assistant City Attorney,advised the draft was prepared by the bond attorneys, who recently indicated they would like to make a few more lang- uage changes in it. Mr. Watts advised that most of the amendments to 71- 367 Convention Center, Orange County Room, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- June 17~ 1971, 7:30 P.M. the original agreement contained in this draft cover changes that have been enacted into the Joint Powers Act since the time of the original agreement. He reported the most important changes to be as follows: 1. Limitation on the liability of both the City and the School District for the debts of the Community Center Authority. The Joint Powers Act was amended in 1967 or 1968 to provide that unless a Joint Powers agreement specifically provides that the Joint Powers agencies are not liable for the debts of the entity they create, they are then liable; the original document provided that exemption for the School District but not for the City and thus this draft also exempts the City and insures particularly that there is no liability to the two parent agencies for construction contracts let by the Cotmf~anity Center Authority. 2. There would be some additional sum required from each agency for the expenses and obligations which the Authority may incur, which amounts, al~- though not yet specifically set, the bond attorneys have indicated should be commensurate with the sums paid under the original agreement, which is one part the responsibility of the School District, and 930 parts the responsibil- ity of the City. 3. A provision allowing the Community Center Authority to enforce any agreements which it has against either the School District or the City in the event either should default on those agreements. Mr. Barton inquired what additional sum would be required of the School District. Mr. Watts advised that, although the City Attorney's office felt the $1,000.00 presently paid per year by the School District was sufficient, the bond attorneys prefer to keep the ratio about the same as the original agreement although, of course, any increase would have to be with the consent of the School District. He added that the bond attorneys have requested information on what uses, directly or indirectly~ are made of the Convention Center facilities by the School District and what increased uses there might be because of the pro- posed expansion. Mr. Barton suggested the blanks in the draft of the agreement be filled in by the Joint Powers and not the bond attorneys. Mr. Geisler replied that although suggestions can be made, the final decision is that of the bond attorneys since the document must be approved by them in order to make the revenue bonds marketable as far as buyers are con- cerned. He thereupon explained the procedure of the bond markets and noted that there presently are only about five bond counsels in the United States. Mr. Geisler advised he understood the bond counsel would prefer the School District's increase be $500.00 in order to keep the proportionate shares at about the same ration; however, it is the City's feeling that the increase should not exceed $100.00. completed and ready for approval by the participants in about one or two weeks. Mr. Geisler also stated that another document still is missing which will be between the Community Center Authority and the City only, and is for an adjustment in the yearly lease payment by the City, which probably would amount to $450,000.00 or $500,000.00 in addition to the present $930,000.00. Mr. Bonnel! requested clarification of Sections 19.1 and 21 of the proposed draft. 71-368 Co~vention Center, Orange County Room, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1971, 7:30 P.M. Mr. Watts advised that Section 19.1 provides that if either the City or the School District should default in any agreement it might have with the Community Center Authority, the Authority could enforce those rights which it has in the agreement. Section 21 states that in the unlikely event either the City of Anaheim and its City Council, or the School District and its Board of Trus- tees should be replaced by some other political agency, the agreement would be binding upon any successor, which provision was in the original document, but now a sentence would be added that neither party, the City of Anaheim or the School District may assign any rights or obligations under the agreement without the consent of the other. Replying'to Mr. Bark, Mr. Watts opined that the Education Code would spell out a method of transferring the obligations of a high school district in the event of unification of the district to its successor body. Mr. Barton advised that in the event existing school boundaries are changed, any bond in position on the original district remains incumbent upon the original district, according to the Education Code, and the district is maintained for tax purposes until retirement of the bonds or other such obligations; however, such exclusivity does not apply to a joint power agree- ment and thus, if the Anaheim Union High School District should be partitioned to six different districts, a joint authority probably would have to be made with the six different districts by the City of Anaheim. He asked if the present agreement provides for such transfers, to which Mr. Watts replied negatively. Mr. Bonnell asked if the provision in the Education Code that states one board cannot pass an obligation to another board conflicts with Section 21. Mr. Watts replied that anyone can breach a contract, but the parti- cipants still are legally responsible and the obligations are entered into as an entity, irrespective of whether or not membership of the entity changes. Replying to Mr. Bark, Mr. Watts advised that there seemed to be a favorable market for revenue bonds at this time and Class B-AA Bonds have been selling at about 6% interest; that scheduled completion date for the proposed expansion would be mid-1973. Mr. Bark asked if the proposed expansion and issuance of revenue bonds could in any way result in additional taxes for the citizens of Anaheim. Mr. Watts advised that he did not feel there could possibly be any additional tax as a result of this project since the 6% Room Occupancy Tax rate will net more than enough money to pay the amortization of the bonds and the report on the project clearly states that the cost of the additional bonded indebtedness is to be paid by funds from the Room Occupancy Tax. Dr. Pritchett asked if the property taxpayer would be liable for this indebtedness in the event an economic recession would result in insuf- ficient returns from the Room Occupancy Tax. Mr. Watts advised that in such an unlikely event, the City of Ana- heim would pay for the additional bonded indebtedness through an increase in its lease payment to the Community Center Authority, and the City would have to obtain those funds from some other source which would be determined by thc City Ccunci!. Mr. Bark referred to Section 1, regarding officers of the Community Center Authority, and asked if the procedure is changed in this draft from the original agreement. Mr. Watts advised that all of the changes in this section are as a result of amendments in the Joint Powers Act that have been made since the original agreement was signed, which are: 369 Convention Center, Orange County Room, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1971~ 7:30 P.M. 1. The Treasurer of the City of Anaheim shall be the Treasurer of the Conmmnity Center Authority. 2. The Finance Director of the City of Anaheim shall be the Con- troller of the Commumity Center Authority. 3. The President, Treasurer and Controller shall post a bond. He added that although the original bond indenture states the City Treasurer is the Treasurer of the Cormnunity Center Authority, this is not so stated in the original agreement. Mr. Mnrdoch advised that these changes would not in any way alter the responsibilities of the officers. Mr. Hartnell asked when as much interest will be shown for redevel- oping downtown Anaheim. Councilman Thom advised that recently the City Council created an Urban Redevelopment Commission as a first step in revitalizing the downtown area and, in his opinion, the City now was in position to proceed. Councilman Pebley stated that, in his opinion, expanding the Con- vention Center to accommodate more and larger conventions and trade shows would result in additional revenue not only to the City and schools, but to the business establishments as well, and thus all the citizens of Ana- heim would benefit. Mr. Barton requested the Chairman to declare this portion of the discussion out of order and not pertinent to the issue. MOTION - ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: On motion by Mr. Bonnell, seconded by Mr. Barton, the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees authorized the Community Center Authority to expand their bonding capacity to carry out the program approximately as outlined in Ex- hibit 1 and take the necessary action therefor in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000.00. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. MOTION - ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Anaheim City Council authorized the Community Center Authority to expand their bonding capacity to carry out the program approxi- mately as outlined in Exhibit 1 and take the necessary action therefor in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000.00. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Mr. Murdoch advised that there will be supplementary action neces- sary to approve the final document when it is submitted by the bond counsel, particularly as to the increased amount that may be required from the Anaheim Union High School District if the revenue bonds are issued. Messrs. Bark and Bonnell advised that recent action by the Anaheim Union High School District Board agreed to an additional amount not to ex- ceed $500.00. Referring to the request by the bond counsel for a list of events for which the Anaheim Union High School District uses the Convention Center facilities, Mr. .~onnell asked if the list included the use of the facility for the basketball tournament during ~he Christmas vacation period. Mr. Liegler assured him the dates of December 26 to 29> 1971~ re~y h~e ~n r~e~v~ ~r rb~q ~uroose. Mr. Bark stated he believed the original agreement guaranteed the use of the Convention Center for Anaheim Union High School District Grad Night purposes. He advised the Board of Trustees would like to amend that to graduation purposes, rather than Grad Night. Mr. Murdoch advised that the City Council already had taken such amending action. Mr. Geisler stated ~.t ~s difficult to include such specifics in the agreement; however~ certain priorities and rights are reserved to the School Board in the general terminology of the lease to the City, since under that lease the Convention Center actually is operated by the City and not the Community Centc~r Authority. 71- 370 Convention Center, Orange County Room, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1971~ 7:30 P.M. Replying to Mr. Barton, Mr. Geisler advised that none of the pro- posed amendments would take away any of the rights of the School District. ADJOURNMENT: motion. Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the MOTION CARRIED. By Motions duly made and seconded the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees adjourned to an Executive Session and the Com- munity Center Authority adjourned. Adjourned: Signed ~!~ 8:45 P.M. City Clerk .City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22~ 1971, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson COUNCILMEN: Dutton CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Thomas F. Liegler ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend John Saville of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allesiance to the Flag. PRESENTATIONS - MEMBERSHIP: Members of the Senior Citizens Club of Anaheim presented honorary memberships to Mayor Dutton, Councilman Stephen- son and John Collier,Parks and Recreation Director. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Mr. Pember, representing the Construction Speci- fications Institute, presented a Resolution of Appreciation to City Officials and Staff for a successful convention in Anaheim. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson accepted the Resolution with thanks, on behalf of the City. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting held June 8, 1971, were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman ThoM° MOTION CARRIED.