The Scottsdale City Council has a bit of work waiting for it tomorrow night, Monday, August 19. There will be another council meeting Tuesday night, as well. More on that one later.
Tomorrow night’s agenda includes several notable items, listed by agenda number:
Consent Agenda (all items voted on at one time):
3. Spanish Fly. This perennial problem child with a swimming pool is apparently changing owners, and the liquor board requires the city council make a recommendation to approve or disapprove. Guess what will happen tomorrow night? Hint: The first twenty items are liquor licenses.
29. Skysong Ground Lease Amendment. This fourth amendment of the lease of city property to ASU Foundation (a private development company which is NOT ASU) seeks to transfer more of the risk to the taxpayers so the developer can borrow money.
34. Transit Services Intergovernmental Agreement. Somewhat coupled with Item 36, below, this renews almost $1.5 million in funding from Scottsdale taxpayers to the Regional Public Transit Authority for bus service.
35. Borgata. The owner of the property hopes to rezone 2/3 of this property from low-density retail/restaurant commercial space to high-density residential use in order to accommodate a 4-story, 200+ unit housing project. See also, Bye Bye Borgata.
36. East Valley Dial-a-Ride Fare Increase. This will raise the non-disabled base fare 400% in the course of a year.
37. The Vig at Paseo Village. Bob Littlefield and Guy Phillips are hoping to persuade their colleagues to review the Development Review Board decision to approve a “restaurant” (which will undoubtedly be operated as a bar) in McCormick Ranch. I’ll give you three guesses as to how this one will go, too.
John, has there ever been a Scottsdale City Council meeting where they voted on cutting the taxes? Or told developers that it’s not the responsibility of the Scottsdale taxpayers to carry the financial burden of their developments?
Great questions, Mr. Seeley.
I can’t remember any meeting in which either of these were done with any seriousness.
Mark Stuart just sent this email to the City Council about the Skysong lease amendment:
Comment for 08/19/13 Item 29:
This item should not be on the consent agenda. It appears that the council is being asking to allow a tenant or subtenant to perpetually default on non-monetary requirements of the lease or sublease. How is this in the best interests of the city? What compensation is being offered to the city in return for this dilution of the lease requirement?
Where is the analysis that indicates compliance with Prop. 412? The resolution claims that this amendment is in compliance, but you don’t provide any evidence of an effort to verify compliance?
Who are the parties requesting these favors? These types of changes are not standard, or even existent in most leases. This item should be removed from the consent agenda. A full explanation for the changes should be provided to the public before the council votes on these changes.