Loading...
1966/08/089610 C.ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUIES - Auqust 8, 1966, 7:30 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Chandler. COUNCILMEN: Krein. CITY MANAGER: Keith Ao Murdoch. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert Davis. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Fred Sorsabal.o ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST: 3ohn Roche° DEPU/Y CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts. CITY CLERK: Dene Mo Williams° FINANCE DIRECTOR: Douglas K. Ogden° PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinskio Mayor Pro /em Pebley called the meeting to order, advising that the adjourned regular meeting was for the DUrDOSe of conducting public discussion on the need for a new City Hall. INTRODUCTION TO CITY COUNCIL HEARING REGARDING CITY HAT.L: Mr. Murdoch in summarizing the issue~ reported as follows: "/he City Hall question has been before the community for several years~ but hasn't yet been resolved° Because of this, Councilman Dutton several months ago requested an updating of material and a completion of the analysis of space requirements so that necessary Council action could be taken. The Council concurred in the request. The analysis was presented to City Council July 19, and tonight's Public Hearing was set to discuss matters pertaining to a City Hall building. The analysis points out a 1990 need for 100,872 net square feet, or a gross building area of 138,432 square feet, projective for a population of 240~000o /his does not include space for Civil Defense purposes nor for any new operations~ or city functions~ which most likely will be forthcoming in the next 24 years. Space saving measures available because of technological developments may offset the space demand for new functions. The Space Analysis Report uses the site location adopted by the City Council in July of 1963 as a basis for cost projection. This site is on Harbor Boulevard between the police facility and the main library, thus utilizing the Civic Center concept recommended by the Citizens~ Capital Improvement Committee of 1959o The cost projections were based upon an assumption of no land acquisition~ a construction cost of $25.00 per square foot including fixtures, floor covering, and elevators~and furnishings either to be moved from present locations or acquired separately at the time of need. A General Obligation Bond has been recommended as the preferred method of financing. However~ two specific proposals for leasing or lease financing have been made. If they can be competitive with Bond financing, they should be seriously considered. Both proposals anticipate submitting the measure to a public vote° The report itself has considerable detail. We are ready to answer any question of interest that the Council or Citizenry might have." In answer to a question relative to a possibility of a successful Bond Election, Mr. Murdoch reported that success would depend on many factors and further reported that a Bond Issue at this time~ or consolidated with the November General Election~ would be at a time when the Bond market is at an all-time high, and would be an adverse factor. However, if approved, sale of Bonds would not be necessary or required during this period of extremely high interest rates. Reference was made to the multiple financing methods available, and Mr. Murdoch was of the opinion that the City Council would necessarily be required to select one of the methods to be submitted to the voters. 9611 City Hall, Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINU/£$ - Auqust 8~ 1966, 7:30 Discussion was held regarding General Obligation Bonds and possible lease-back financing. Mro Murdoch briefly summarized a proposal received for the construction, by means of a non-profit corporation, of two tower buildings; one for immediate use as a City Hall, the other to be leased to tenants~ which buildings~ at the end of a thirty year period, would become the property of the City° Mr. Murdoch stated that at this time and without further study~ he was not in a position to recommend one method of financing over another. Correspondence received from Mr. and Mrs. Earle Jackson, Mrs. Sarah Fay Pearson and Mro Norvald T. Ulvestad were submitted (copies thereof furnished each Councilman). Mayor Pro Tem noted that the City Council scheduled this meeting for the purpose of obtaining expression from the community, and thereupon asked if anyone would like to address the Council. Mr. William Go Walker, 1835 South Manchester Avenue, appearing on behalf of the Urban Renewal Committee of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, advised that the Committee just recently received the final Victor Gruen report, and at the present time the Committee has not had sufficient time to study the Victor Gruen report nor the City Hall Space Analysis report; both of which would be a major development in the progress of the City of Anaheim° ~r. Walker requested that Council action be delayed for a period no less than sixty or ninety days, so that a complete study can be made by the Committee on Urban Renewal as well as the City Hall report. Mr. Walker was requested to express his feelings relative to the desirability of preliminary plans for a City Hall prior to placing the issue to the vote of the people° Mrs ~alker replied that at this point, the Committee is neither for nor against a City Hall measures It was his personal feeling, that if the measure is placed on the November ballot, it would be premature and could have adverse reaction that might carry over for a period of years, preventing the development. Mr. Stanley~wlowski, 408 North Pine Street, representing the Downtown Businessmen's Association~ submitted and read statement representing twenty-one downtown establishments, expressing interest in the new City Hall~ however~ requesting the issue not be placed on the November Ballot in order to allow additional time to evaluate the report° Councilman Chandler was of the opinion that the issue before the City Council was whether or not there shall be a new City Hall in the near future; but once th~s question is determined, regardless when the question goes on the ballot, there would be a considerable amount of time to study the details of the plan and once the first question is answered, there would probably be a recommendation for a more expert study on the matter° Councilman Chandler was of the further opinion that the issue ~ ]dnot be placed on the November Ballot, but in light of the requested continuance wondered if there was opposition to a new City Hall, perhaps in five years from now. Mr. ~wlowski advised that in his opinion there was no opposition to a new City Hall from the group he represented as the need is recognized and is one that must be met soon° Mr. ~wlowski referred to the new Anaheim Stadium and Convention facility presently under construction and stated it was his personal feeling that more time is needed to evaluate the new City Hall plans before another project is commenced, causing additional Bond obligation to the City of Anaheim° Councilman Chandler asked for an expression relative to the expenditure of funds for plans and an expert survey on needs and recommended location pr[or to submitting the issue to the vote of the people. 9612 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUIES - Auqust 8~ 1966~ 7:30 Mro ~wlowski replied that it would be his recommendation that the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce make the study along with the qualified outside consultant group and that the feasibility of placing a new City Hall on the present site be considered° Mro ~wlowski further suggested that the surplus city property be sold and the money placed in a special fund for a City Hall project~ In answer to Mayor Pro /em Peble¥'s question relative to the need of delaying the issue~ and the possible success of a Bond Issue should the Harbor Boulevard site be selected as the location of the City Hall~ Mro ~wlowski replied that it was his feeling that the time was not right to place a Bond Issue before the public because of the major projects presently under way~ in particular the Convention Center~ and after the study is made by the Chamber of Commerce Committee if it is determined that the Harbor Boulevard Site is the best location~ in his opinion the group he represented would definitely support that decision. Discussion was held concerning the possible appointment of the Citizen's Committee representing the various segments of the community. Mro Joe Farber~ 184 West Lincoln Avenue~ reported that the downtown area was losing~siness to other shopping centers and other cities~ and it was his feeling that if the City Hall was located on the Harbor Boulevard site~ the downtown merchants would continue to suffer. Mro Farber recognized the need of a new City Hall but felt the money should be expended to remodel the existing facility at the present location° Mro Robert Bonsteel~ 1203 North Groton Street, speaking for himself as a resident~ advised that he voted against the City Hall measure at the former election~ feeling it was a "blank check"° However~ he was not against the new City Hall and recognized the need° His concern was not necessarily where the City Hall would be located~ but whether the expenditure should be made at this timer and whether or not a portion of the Convention Center or Stadium could not be used for office space as an interim measure. Mr. Murdoch advised that no serious consideration has been given to locating other city functions in either of the two facilities; the facilities being single purpose facilities and further explained the available space in the Stadium and Convention Center and the projected use, Mro Bonsteel was of the opinion that the. need for a new City Hall was recognized by everyone and asked if funds could be accumulated for its development. Mro Murdoch advised that no funds are currently being accumulated and whether an amount could be set aside would be a matter to be considered each year with the annual budget° Mrs. Sarah Fay Pearson addressed the City Council~ advising that in her opinion it would be impossible to plan a City Hall without first determining the location~ and in her further opinion, it would be a grave error not to submit the question of location to the vote of the people to determine their wishes~ and then plan accordingly. Councilman Chandler referred to the determination of the location by a previous action of the City Council, and the fact that such action is not binding and is subject to change by a subsequent Council and perhaps there should be prepared alternate plot plans for two possible sites and follow the suggestion of ~rso Pearson by placing the question of both sites to the vote of the people~ Mro Tom Coughlin, a05 West Katella Avenue~ noted that no one has expressed opposition to a new City Hall nor doubted the need for one~ and the order of decision should be first~ are we going to build a new City Hall~ secondly~ at what location will the City Hall be constructed. 9613 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU/ES - Auqust 8~ 1966~ 7:30 P.M, Mr, Coughlin advised that regardless of the location, in his opinion, all would like to see definite steps taken to build a new City Hallo With reference to the problem of financing~ Mr. Coughlin introduced Mro Milton Gordon and stated that Mro Gordon is thoroughly familiar with lease-back financing and has assisted many other cities in this type program and has also submitted a lease-back proposal to the City of Anaheim° Mro Milton Gordon of Mortgage Banking and Real Estate Development, 9171Wilshire Boulevard, advised that he and Mro Coughlin had submitted a proposal to the City~ to build two, ll-story buildings of approximately llO~O00 square feet each; one to be used by the City and the other occupied by whoever wanted to rent~ The lease to be at the same rate that would be paid for a Bond Issue and the cost of the buildings would be amortized over a thirty year period, at which time both buildings would become the property of the City of Anaheim. Further, the City would have the option to lease up to 70,000 square feet of the second building at the end of ten years, all or part~ and that sgace which the City did not lease at the end of ten years~ could be leased at the end of twenty years. As far as location~ Mr. Gordon stated it was his opinion that it should be located in the downtown area, as it would be a big step forward in revitalizing the downtown area. Regarding the parking requirements, Mr. Gordon stated that they proposed to construct a parking structure to serve both buildings and although this portion of the proposal to the City is not finalized~ the use of the parking structure would be on the same basis as their proposal for the buildings~ which is based on the cost of the structure. In answer to a question pertaining to the length of time before a new City Hall could be completed, Mr. Gordon estimated the building would be ready for occupancy in approximately three years after final agreement on all phases of the project. Mr. Farber asked Mr, Gordon what his experience along these lines was and if he was presently operating lease property to other cities. Mr. Gordon advised that they would be happy to present written qualifications to the City Council and City Manager. Plot plans of the proposed two buildings was placed on the east wall of the Council Chamber for all to review. Mr. Pawlowski stated that before the City assumes another project~ regardless of the method of financing~ it should be thoroughly investigated in order to determine how payment will be made and requested permission to see this~ or any other proposal, before City acceptance. At the conclusion of the discussion, on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton, further action of the City Council on the City Hall Issue was deferred until after the November 1966 Election. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Chandler moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MO/ION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 9:15 P~Mo SIGNED: