Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-22MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Crites convened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Walter H. Snyder Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Buford A. Crites Also Present: Bruce A. Altman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Doug Phillips, Deputy City Attorney (after 7:00 p.m.) Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Information Officer Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Director of Redevelopment Paul Shillcock, ACM//Director of Economic Development Dave Millheim, Director of Human Resources Catherine Sass, Community Arts Manager Lisa Constande, Environmental Conservation Manager III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 8, 1994. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DPMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 16A, 23, 23A, 24, and 25. Rec: Approve as presented. C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#274) by George K. Broatch in the Amount of $809.21. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. D. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMNTS as of November 30, 1994. Rec: Receive and file. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL to Delist Leatherwood Construction as Subcontractor to Granite Construction on the Toro Peak Storm Drain Phase I Improvement Contract (Contract No. C07540). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the delisting of Leatherwood Construction from Granite Construction Company's subcontractor list. F. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Toro Peak Storm Drain Phase I Project (Contract No. C07540). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. G. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Toro Peak Storm Drain Phases II and III (Contract No. C07920). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM. DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Design Change Order No. DCO#1 for Monterey Avenue at Whitewater Storm Drain Channel Bridge (Contract No. C07350). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Design Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. C07350 in the amount of $20,500.00 for additional design scope requirements; 2) transfer the amount of $20,500.00 from contingency to base in the project account, No. 213-4613-433-4001. I. REOUFST FOR APPROVAL of Charitable Contributions Committee Recommendation Relative to Coachella Valley Trails Council. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize support in the amount of $2,500.00 to allow the Coachella Valley Trails Council to further its efforts; 2) appropriate $2,500.00 from the General Fund unobligated reserve. J. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Charitable Contributions Committee Recommendation Relative to Children's Discovery Museum of the Desert. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize support in the amount of $200.00 to allow the Children's Discovery Museum of the Desert to further its efforts; 2) appropriate $200.00 from the General Fund unobligated reserve. K. REOUEST FOR CORRECTION of Sister Cities Line Item Budget Amount. Rec: By Minute Motion, appropriate $7,500.00 from the Unobligated General Fund Reserve Account to Sister City Expenses, Account No. 110-4416-414-3126. L. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of Sculpture Lineup for 1995 El Paseo Exhibit. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the sculpture lineup for the 1995 El Paseo Exhibition and authorize the Mayor to execute contracts with artists and/or their representatives for participation in the one-year exhibit on the island medians along El Paseo. M. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL of City's Participation in the League of California Cities "City Delegate Program". Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the Mayor's appointment of Councilmember Jean Benson as the State Assembly representative and Councilman Richard S. Kelly as the State Senate representative in the League of California Cities "City Delegate Program". 3 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Funding for the City's "Classic" Committee. Rec: By Minute Motion, appropriate $5,000.00 to Account #110-4416-414-3060, Special Events, for promotion of the "Classic" golf tournament. O. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Purchase Golf Carts for the Civic Center. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the City to purchase two E-Z Go golf carts from Electric Cart Distributors, Inc. in the amount of $2,750; 2) authorize staff to transfer $5,500 from Civic Center Park Repair and Maintenance Account #110- 4611-453-3320 to Civic Center Park Capital Outlay Machinery and Equipment Account. #110-4611-453-4045 to purchase two golf carts; 3) make a finding pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 3.32.090 that the purchase is unique and not subject to the normal bidding requirements. P. MINUTES of Sister Cities Committee Meetings of August 9 and November 4, 1994. Rec: Receive and file. Mayor Crites asked that Item C be held for separate discussion in Closed Session. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Snyder, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. V. RESOLUTIONS None VI. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None 4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER C. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY (#274) by George K. Broatch in the Amount of $809.21. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the claim and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION. Mayor Crites announced that the Council had, by unanimous vote, denied the claim and directed staff to so notify the Claimant and to recommend that the Claimant contact the sign company, Tops N Barricades. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. REOUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM AT DESERT SPRINGS MARKETPLACE FOR GILA BAR & GRILL ONLY (Cage No. PP 92-6, Signage Solutions, Applicant). Mr. Diaz noted the staff report in the packets and asked that the applicant present the sign for this place of business. MS. ANNE CANNON, owner of Gila Bar & Grill, addressed the Council and said they had attempted to build a beautiful building at Desert Springs Marketplace and would like to have a sign that would complement both the building and the center. She asked that the proposed sign program for the center be amended to allow her request. She introduced Brad Smith, architect, and the rest of her team. MR. BRAD SMITH reviewed the proposed changes to the approved sign program. He said they had received approval from MPR, the master planning architect for the shopping center, as well as the Wailoa Group, owner of the center. He offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Smith stated that the neon would be hidden in a recess behind the letters. The letters would stand off the building slightly, with the neon to be unseen from the street or sidewalk. He noted a slight error in the staff report wherein they were intending to use the teal back lighting on both the north side sign and the south side areas and said the description called for a light neon on the north side and teal on the south side. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the changes to the sign proposal at Desert Springs Marketplace for the purposes of permitting the sign program proposed by Gila Bar & Grill, said changes to apply to Gila Bar & Grill only. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CONSIDERATION OF REOUEST BY RIVERSIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN ITS MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM. Mr. Phil Drell reviewed the staff report, noting that this was for the City to participate in the Riverside County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, which is a feature of the tax code which allows them to issue these certificates to first-time home buyers who can then deduct 20% of their interest payment as a credit off their income taxes. He said the Economic Development Agency would administer the program and that each city and county was allocated a certain total dollar amount of credits. The County EDA was requesting that Palm Desert assign to them a portion of its mortgage credit certificate allocation. He added that Palm Desert's allocation of $20 million, based on population, translated into $5 million in credits. He noted there would be no financial obligation for the City as a result of its participation in this program. Councilman Wilson asked whether those eligible for this program were only those who qualified for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Drell responded that it was for low and moderate income and first-time home buyers. The persons would have to satisfy both criteria. Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-125 authorizing an application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) to permit issuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates and authorize the Mayor to sign a Cooperation Agreement with the County of Riverside to administer the program subject to approval by the Finance Committee. Motion was seconded by Snyder. and carried by unanimous vote. C. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Colony CableVision of California Update. Mr. Ortega noted the report in the packets relative to complaints received for the period November 28 through December 13, 1994. 6 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 94-120 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-3 SECTION 4 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 20-ACRE MULTI -USE PAY FOR PLAY RECREATION FACILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (Continued from the Meeting of December 8, 1994). Mr. Diaz stated that the Council had adopted a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Portola Site but had continued the effective date of the resolution to the meeting of December 8, 1994, to enable the hearing on the Cook Street site to occur. The Cook Street site was approved by the Planning Commission on December 6, 1994. The City Council had its public hearing on that site on December 8th but continued it to December 22nd and at the same time continued this matter to the December 22nd meeting. He said Council could make the Portola site CUP final or hold this until the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting at which time the Council and Redevelopment Agency would jointly consider the Development and Disposition Agreement and the Council would consider the Cook Street site. He noted that no appeals had been filed on the Cook Street site, and that action was therefore final from the Planning Commission. Upon question by Councilmember Benson, Mr. Diaz responded that there had not been any appeal filed on the Planning Commission's approval of the Cook Street site, and that time frame within which to file such an appeal ended on December 21st at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Erwin stated that Council did approve the CUP on the Portola/Section 4 site but stayed the effective date of the resolution while the processing on the Cook Street site was being considered through the CUP process. The Council hearing had been closed and action taken, but the effective date was stayed to see what would happen on the Cook Street site. That site was approved by the Planning Commission on December 6th. The matter was placed on the Council Agenda as a public hearing item in anticipation of being able to hear it as soon as possible. It was on the last City Council Agenda for public hearing; however, the time for appealing the Planning Commission decision had not expired, and this was continued once again to this meeting. He said the time for appeal had now expired and no member of the Council had called the item up for review; therefore, the Public Hearing on the Cook Street site, although noticed as a public hearing, did not require any action of the Council since the action of the Planning Commission was final. Councilman Wilson stated that it was possible that someone could file litigation on the Cook Street site, and Mr. Erwin agreed. Mr. Erwin stated that there was also a joint public hearing between the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on today's Agenda relative to the Disposition and Development Agreement on the Portola site. He said this was more the financial transactions between the 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * developer and the Redevelopment Agency, and that public hearing was put into motion almost two months ago because of the reports that had to be prepared and available at the time it was noticed. Mayor Crites asked whether someone filing a lawsuit could win if he had not appealed the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Erwin responded that the lawsuit could probably not be won; however, the suit would cause some delay because of the time it would take to get it through the courts. Councilman Wilson said he would prefer to see the Council approve the CUP as an insurance policy. He said he favored the Cook Street site and felt it was the best location but felt approval of this as a fallback would be in the City's best interests. Mr. Erwin stated that Council could approve it or could merely hold it and continue the effective date until the other one is approved. Councilman Kelly said he would prefer to hold it. Councilman Snyder said he would prefer to go ahead and approve this at this time and use it as a safeguard over on the college site and get this thing going. \ Councilmember Benson said she could see voting to save the site but could not see having a financial package on a site that would not be used. Councilman Kelly said he felt that approving this tonight would cause a lawsuit to be brought on this one. He felt this would "muddy the water for the whole thing". Councilman Wilson moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the proviso that the City not build on this site if the Cook Street site is approved within 60 days. Motion was seconded by Snyder. Mayor Crites said he did not see any mention of public art anywhere in this. Mr. Diaz responded that it would have to meet the requirements and noted that the first condition of approval stated that they would abide by all City regulations. Mayor Crites stated that on Item 21 it says "applicant shall make the facility available for an appropriate percentage of play time to the Palm Desert Youth Sports activities to be approved by the Palm Desert City Council prior to commencement of construction." He asked if this meant that the Council gets to approve the percentage of time. Mr. Diaz agreed and added that it was his understanding that the percentage of time for the kids would be at no fee, with the amount of time to be left up to the Council. Councilmember Benson said she felt it should be spelled out that there be no fee for the Palm Desert youth. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would put those conditions in but felt that this could actually be worked out in the Disposition and Development Agreement. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Crites asked that Councilmember Benson hold this issue until discussion of the Disposition and Development Agreement. Councilmember Benson questioned Item 11 relative to special events being limited to charitable sports events. She said a concert could be tied to such an event and she felt there should be something in there that there shall be no concerts allowed in conjunction with sporting events. Mr. Diaz responded that the record from the last meeting was quite clear that there could not be any sporting events with concerts. Ms. Sass noted that she did not see the standard condition referred to by Mr. Diaz as the first condition that says the developer must meet all requirements of the Municipal Code. Councilman Wilson asked that his motion be amended to add the standard condition to the conditions of approval. Councilman Snyder accepted that amendment. Mayor Crites expressed concern that the 60-day window was too brief. Mr. Ortega stated that he would like an additional 30 days if possible. He said that 60 days would be very difficult especially if the developer has to come up with a new budget. He added that once the notice of the public hearing is published and he reports were made available, they could not be changed. Councilman Wilson amended his motion to change 60 days to 90 days, and Councilman Snyder accepted the amendment. Mayor Crites called for the vote. Motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Benson and Kelly voting NO. X. OLD BUSINESS A. ACTION ITEM FOR COOK STREET/I-10 INTERCHANGE PROJECT. See verbatim transcript of this item attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". B. REOUEST FORJIPPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LIVING DESERT SCULPTURE "MOUNTAIN LIONS" TO THE LIVING DESERT. Mr. Altman noted the report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Mrs. Gilligan stated that Ms. Sass had concerns and felt conditions should be included that The Living Desert will not sell the sculpture and that they will always keep it available for the public and maintain it. 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ms. Sass noted that there were concerns that this would not be removed from the location, that it would remain publicly visible and accessible. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the request; 2) direct staff to acknowledge that the sculpture satisfies the obligation to the City's art program by Westinghouse Desert Communities; 3) authorize staff to release the $50,000 being held in the City's public art fund from Westinghouse Desert Communities, with additional conditions that Westinghouse seek agreement from The Living Desert that it will not sell the sculpture, that it will allow the sculpture to remain as part of the City's public art program, and that it will always remain in the public right-of-way. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. XI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Sign an Application for the COPS FAST Program Associated with the Federal Crime Bill. Lt. Gayle Janes, Palm Desert Police Department, reviewed the staff report, noting that the deadline for the application was December 31, 1994, to get in the pool to see if we are selected. He offered to answer any questions. He added that it would cost about $375,000 over a five-year period for five officers, and the Federal Government would reimburse about $75,000 per officer. He noted that even if we get selected, if later on down the road we choose not to go along with the program, as long as we do not deposit or cash one of the checks, we are under no agreement to pursue it. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Manager to sign the application for the COPS FAST Program associated with the Federal Crime Bill, subject to the condition that it be processed through the Finance Committee utilizing the new guidelines for public/private partnerships. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 2. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION from the Finance Committee Pertaining to Procedures for Handling Public Money Projects and Programs. Mayor Crites noted the report and recommendation from the Finance Committee pertaining to procedures for handling public money projects and program.s Mr. Altman stated that as a followup to the Finance Committee meeting he had asked John Wohlmuth's Synergy Team to put together some of the steps to begin implementing some of the things talked about and get approval of the Council to proceed. Mr. Wohlmuth noted the red folders he had distributed with examples of the background check developed by staff. He said the Finance Committee at its 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * December meeting directed staff to revise the guidelines for background checks for all City and Redevelopment Agency partnership contracts. This background check would include criminal, civil, financial/credit, reference checks on similar projects, and other background checks. He said the Synergy Group he led had been working on this for about two weeks. He noted items in the red folder including the Finance committee checklist, costs, provisions for staff review and Investment Committee review, as well as the questionnaire and release. He stated the Synergy Group had identified three phases: 1) Phase I would be the current or proposed projects where the City and Redevelopment Agency are partners; 2) Phase II is loans from the Redevelopment Agency and City, codevelopment agreements, and joint projects in the future; 3) Phase III is charitable contributions, CDBG funding, and grant partnerships in the future. All of these would ultimately go to the Finance Committee. He offered to answer any questions. Councilmember Benson asked if something could be included in this to show how much they would be asking for the City to contribute. Mr. Altman responded that this would come back after the background check is completed. Mr. Wohlmuth stated he understood Councilmember Benson's concern and added that this could perhaps be included in the checklist to show an estimated partnership or City/Redevelopment Agency contribution. Mr. Altman stated that the Finance committee unanimously approved the concept. Mayor Crites said he would like to see this done in time to look at the people who want to do the Cook Street ballfield project as well as Section 4, the fuel cell program, etc. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, agree with this in concept and direct that both current and future projects where appropriate be funneled through this process. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. B. CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Erwin asked that Council adjourn to Closed Session to discuss Item C of the Consent Calendar. C. CITY CLERK None 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Council Requests for Action: 1. CONSIDERATION of Letter from County of Santa Cruz Requesting Support of the Reappointment of Wesley Chesbro to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Mayor Buford A. Crites). Mayor Crites asked whether Council would like for him to send a letter of support. Councilman Kelly noted that at the last meeting he attended with this individual, Mr. Chesbro stated he had never seen a good idea come from south of the Tehachapis. No Council action was taken on this item. 2. CONSIDERATION of Process for Reviewing Applications for City Council Seat (Mayor Buford A. Crites). Mayor Crites stated that Council needed to decide what it wished to do in terms of procedures for selecting a replacement Councilmember. Mrs. Gilligan stated that in excess of 50 applications had been sent out, and. as of this time 14 responses had been received. Mayor Crites noted that Council had 30 days in which to make an appointment After additional discussion, Council decided that it would be appropriate for each member of the Council to review all applications submitted and come back on January 12, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. with names of at least five individuals to be interviewed for possible appointment to the vacant City Council seat. o City Council Committee Reports: Mayor Crites stated that with Mayor Pro Tem Snyder's concurrence, he had asked Councilman Kelly to represent the City at the January 6th conference in Riverside at which the Air Quality Management District and the Riverside County Transportation Commission appointments were to be made. XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None 12 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. to Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. XIII. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION None XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C None XV. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS On behalf of the entire City Council, Mayor Crites presented outgoing Councilman Wilson with a 100-year-old map of California showing cities that no longer exist and also showing a relatively empty Coachella Valley. Councilman Wilson thanked the Council and said he would treasure this map and would be very proud and happy to display it in his office in Riverside. XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 25 ± ACRE MULTI -USE, PAY FOR PLAY RECREATION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON 25 ACRES OF CITY OF PALM DESERT OWNED LAND ZONED PC-2 AND PR-5 AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GERALD FORD (EXTENDED) AND COOK STREET (EXTENDED), Continued from the Meetins s of November 16 and December 8, 1994. Mayor Crites asked for a report from the City Attorney because of the fact that this issue was now moot. Mr. Phillips agreed and stated that because this was a noticed public hearing, Council should take any testimony and then take no action. He said at this point it was his understanding that this particular action tonight was no longer necessary. Mayor Crites added that this had been placed on the Agenda so Council could hear it if there was an appeal filed from the Planning Commission approval of this site. Because that appeal period ended December 21st and there was no appeal of the Planning Commission decision submitted, the Planning Commission decision stands, and there is no action necessary by the Council. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this matter. 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * MR. MARTIN MEYERS, resident of Palm Desert, addressed the Council and asked if this meant that the location had been approved at Cook Street and Gerald Ford extended. Mayor Crites responded that the Planning Commission had approved that side, and there was also a concurrent approval in Section 4; however, the Council had made it clear that its preference was the Cook Street location. Mr. Meyers asked if it was in order to comment on the project itself at this time, and Council allowed him to do so. He noted that he was here as a resident of the Palm Desert community interested in helping any project that would help improve Palm Desert as long as it does not impact the economic well being of the community. He requested further analysis of the economics before .approving the restrictions placed on this location by the Planning Commission. He read a prepared statement and expressed concern with the developer's ability to obtain sufficient income to cover operating costs. He said if the Council decided to go ahead with the project, he would ask that it would reconsider the design to allow more indoor activities. He asked that the facility be modified to have four walls and multi -purpose flooring to allow for exhibits and other indoor activities. He asked that the Council 1) allow a representative of the dancing community an opportunity to meet further in the final planning of the project, 2) that the project be located at the Cook Street site, and 3) that the Council not restrict the activities of the facility to the point of no return. JUDGE ARNOLD H. EINBINDER, Retired, 549 Desert Falls Drive East, asked how he could obtain notices of hearings pertaining to the sports complex at whatever location it may be. Mrs. Gilligan responded that if the Judge would provide her office with stamped, self- addressed envelopes, City Council Agendas would be mailed to him. She also added that both Planning Commission and City Council Agendas were published in the Palm Desert Post before each meeting. Mayor Crites added that if the Judge were within 300 feet of the project, he would automatically be notified of any meetings. Councilman Wilson asked that the City Clerk make a note to notify Judge Einbinder of any item dealing with the sports park. Council concurred. Judge Einbinder stated that after the meeting of December 8th he was contacted by Mr. Odekirk by telephone to try to resolve any conflict that might still exist between himself, Mr. Stan Green, and the Odekirks. He said they entered into a verbal agreement that Mr. Odekirk would be approving the nine conditions that had been requested in the Judge's December 7th letter. He said he felt there should be some Council consideration of those conditions since staff did not want them added to the conditions of approval. With regard to concerts, he said he understood there would be no concerts; however, in talking to Mr. Odekirk, it was indicated that there would not be any rock concerts but that it might be a different matter if someone like Frank Sinatra wanted to come. 14 11JIINZITES REGULAR PALM. DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Crites verified with Mr. Diaz that the condition as it is written indicates no concerts and that in order to have that changed, it would have to come back before Council to change the condition of approval which would require another public hearing. He asked whether this responded to Judge Einbinder's concerns, and Judge Einbinder responded that it did. Judge Einbinder addressed the issue raised by Mr. Meyers relative to expanding the use of the facility and said he did not have any quarrel with what Mr. Meyers wanted to do; however, he asked that concerns submitted by him on December 7th be considered. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed. He stated that there was no Council action necessary at this time and said that some of the issues raised by both speakers would be appropriate at a public hearing yet to come at this meeting and would be addressed at that time. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Ms. Constande reviewed the staff report, noting that Assembly Bill 3001 required each city to prepare a Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE). She said NDFE's include a description of new facilities and the expansion of existing facilities which would be needed to implement the jurisdiction's SRRE (Source Reduction & Recycling Elements), facilities which will be utilized to achieve the 25 % and 50 % reduction in landfill use. Mayor Crites asked whether this would commit the City to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and Ms. Constande responded that it did not. She said the City just had to demonstrate what it would be doing with the waste stream for the next 25 years. Mayor Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this request. None was received, and he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 94-126, adopting the Nondisposal Facility Element for the City of Palm Desert. Motion was seconded by Wilson and carried by unanimous vote. C. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CONSIDER THE SPORTSPARK DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA), contract No. R09390. Mr. Ortega introduced Jeff Rabin, attorney with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, and Leonard Wolk of Reasco who had reviewed the developer's proforma and had prepared an independent feasibility study for the Agency so it can check on the assumptions being made by the developer with regard to the costs of construction and proposed revenues and deal points involving the loan and the lease. He reviewed the staff report, noting that it included an AB1290 report that was prepared by the independent consultant which analyses the deal points and specifically identified whether the Agency was making an appropriate loan 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and whether the Agency would be receiving fair rental value for the property being leased to the developer. He said there were also two resolutions for consideration. The City resolution identified that the project was being done for a redevelopment purpose, that it approved the lease by the Agency of land, and that consideration of the lease was not less than fair market value for the property. The resolution for the Agency Board made essentially the same findings and approved the lease. In addition to the material received at this hearing was a notice of a joint public hearing referring to AB1290 which because effective on January 1, 1994, and which required some specific information that had to be provided any time the Agency proposed a deal of this type and also required that an independent report by a consultant accompany that recommendation. He said in this case, the report was done by the firm of Rosenow Spevacek and was included in the report. Mr. Ortega said there was a very important provision in this agreement which the Council/Agency Board might want to discuss, and that was the option to terminate this lease and all its provisions if an alternate site is approved at a later time. He noted this provision was on page 35, paragraph 36. He noted that Mr. Rabin was available to answer any questions of a legal nature, while Mr. Wolk would answer questions of a feasibility or fiscal nature. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated he felt it would be a good idea for the benefit of the audience for staff to briefly review the agreement since it was quite lengthy. He felt it was important to review who is responsible for insurance, who is responsible for liability claims, who is responsible if someone does not pay their bills, what collateral we have it the developer does not come through with their end of it, etc. Mr. Jeff Rabin noted the following with respect to the agreement: 1) It provides for a term of 30 years with no options to extend. It will expire in 2025. 2) It provides for a minimum rent of $100,000 per year with two exceptions. In the first few years we phase in the minimum rent to allow the developer some time to build up the cash flow, but by the fourth year the minimum rent will be $100,000 per year. Also, if there are sufficient revenues on the project in the early years to exceed a certain level, the developer will still be obligated to pay a percentage of the developer's gross revenues to the Agency as additional rent. 3) Location under this agreement is on Portola Avenue. 4) There is an obligation of the Redevelopment Agency to lend the developer $3 million for the construction of this project. Agency is obligated to lend that money only after the Agency has reviewed and approved a budget satisfactory to it and at its sole and absolute discretion showing there will be enough money pledged between the developer and the Agency to complete the project. In addition, the developer is obligated to contribute $1.25 million minimum to this project, so if it could be built 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * for less than $4.25 million ($3 million plus $1.25 million), the Agency would contribute less money. If it will cost more, the developer is obligated to pay the additional money. 5) The developer is obligated to pay taxes for this property including possessory income taxes. 6) Developer is limited to use of the property for a sports park facility. 7) Developer is obligated to comply with all laws and conditions of approval relating to this project. 8) Developer accepts the physical condition of the land as is. Developer will have the opportunity to go and study the land and if the developer decides he does not like the condition, he can terminate the agreement. Mr. Rabin noted there was a short time period in the few months after it is signed for the developer to evaluate that. 9) Developer has to provide for all utilities. 10) Developer has to do all construction. If they want to make any alterations of a substantial nature, Agency approval must be obtained. 11) Developer is obligated to buy insurance for at least the amount of the Agency contribution ($3 million) with the Agency to have first call on those funds subject to rights under California law for the borrower to use proceeds to rebuild if there is enough money to do that. 12) Agency has the right to approve any assignments or subleasings of the premises, which consent cannot unreasonably be withheld. 13) Developer is obligated to fully indemnify the Agency for any losses or liabilities that might take place on the property. 14) If the developer does not pay rent on time, they would be liable after 20 days for a late charge and interest on the unpaid rent. 15) Section 30 indicates that developer's recourse against the landlord is only to the property. If the developer has any complaint with the landlord, they cannot look to any other assets of the landlord other than the property. 16) Developer is obligated to make certain warranties and representations. 17) Landlord has an option to terminate this agreement unilaterally if landlord approves another location. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor/Chairman Crites asked that Mr. Rabin discuss the initial loan for construction. Mr. Rabin stated the developer was obligated to pay principle and interest payments on that loan. The interest rate would vary between 5.5% and up to 9%. If the developer's gross revenues are between zero and $1.8 million per annum, the annual interest rate would be 5.5%, and it scales up to 9% if the gross revenues are above $3.5 million. In addition, he said there was a specific table of principle payments attached to the agreement. He said it was to be spread out over 30 years and at the end of the term, if the term expires before all the principle has been repaid, the developer has to make a balloon payment of the remaining principle. Upon further question by Mayor/Chairman Crites, Mr. Rabin stated that if the developer does not pay the interest or principle as set forth in the agreement, the Agency will have a deed of trust and promissory note and can foreclose. If the project is successful, the developer will be able to pay the rents and the interest; however, if the project is not successful, the developer will not have the money to pay the rents and the Agency will take the project back. Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to this project. MRS. MARLENE PAISOKOPF, resident of Desert Falls, asked for clarification of the developer being able to sublet the facility and asked if it was true that there would be no recourse in terms of the Council to the party who might be subletting. Mr. Rabin stated that the agreement provides that the Agency would not unreasonably. withhold its consent to an assignment or sublease; however, the agreement requires the assignee or sublessee to assume the obligations of the developer and does not release the developer's obligation under the lease. If an assignee or sublessee were to come to the Agency, the Agency would have the right to evaluate their credit worthiness, their reputation, and their ability to operate this property. If the developer would want to be released of its obligations, the Agency would have the right to consider releasing the developer as well, but there is no provision for automatically releasing the developer of their obligations. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated he understood that everything that is in this that applies to the developer would also apply to any successor. Mr. Rabin responded that as a condition of any assignment or sublease, they have to assume all the obligations. Mrs. Paisokopf suggested that the Council consider reviewing any sublease should it come up and that the Council reserve the discretionary power to hear this within the agreement. MRS. DEBBIE BYK, resident of Silver Sands, stated that at the beginning of the discussion on this item, mention was made that the developer did not have the finances for paying for 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the permits. She said the fees involved were not mentioned but it was said that the City would be loaning the developer the money to pay for the permits. She asked for clarification. Mayor/Chairman Crites responded that in the original budget, the developer had made certain assumptions on how much the fees would be and developed the budget with that number in mind. They have found out that Palm Desert's fees are considerably higher, including some fees for traffic uniform mitigation, public art, etc. The amount of money the City was willing to potentially loan to this project had remained the same. The amount of money to be spend for fees then means the developer has to increase their component into the project in order to pay those. Mrs. Byk asked whether the developer had seen these terms and whether they had agreed to all the terms. She asked if the developer had the total financing in place. Mayor/Chairman Crites responded that if the Council and Agency approve this, the developer has to accept it or there is no project. The first money to go into the project would have to be the developer's contribution to the project. Mr. Ortega stated that the exact number in the current budget for the developer to pay was about $1,288,000 and the developer has a specific period of time within which they must raise that money and bring it in to us or the agreement goes away. That time period ends July 31, 1995. MR. MARTIN MEYERS asked if he had misunderstood that the anticipated revenue was $2,750,000 per year. Mayor/Chairman Crites responded that this was just an example for the audience to note that what happens is that the developer is responsible for the repayment of the loan. The developer is also responsible for a rental payment of a minimum amount and then depending on how much gross revenues the City would also receive a percentage of that. He said what the audience heard was that the attorney say if the gross revenues in a given year were x number of dollars, here is the amount of additional dollars that would come back to the Agency. Mr. Meyers stated he understood there was a 20-year plan on that property for the college. When Councilman/Member Wilson responded that there were 20 years in which to exercise the use for a university, Mr. Meyers asked if there was any conflict since this is a 30-year loan. Mr. Ortega responded that there would not be any conflict because there is also a buy- out provision in this agreement which would need to be modified somewhat if we consider the same project on Cook Street. Mr. Meyers stated as he understood it the payback of the loan was about $100,000 per year average plus interest. There is also $100,000 per year minimum rent. He asked if the budget indicated what revenue they would have to generate in order to pay that, and he asked if that had been examined. Mr. Ortega answered that Mr. Wolk had done an independent feasibility analysis. Mr. Meyers said he hoped that the 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * development of the sports park and the limiting factor to it did not exclude the possibility of bringing some of these other events into Palm Desert that were mentioned. He asked if there was a way to define use of the property further to allow such events. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated that while the Council would welcome allowing him to meet with staff and the developers, any substantive changes from the agreed upon conditions would have to then come back for public hearing and be decided in that forum. Mr. Meyers said that in the meeting held with Mr. Odekirk, he had mentioned at that time that he might be able to make a change and go back to a hard surface floor. He asked if that had been incorporated into the plans rather than a soft floor. Mayor/Chairman Crites noted that the developer was indicating that yes, this had been incorporated. JUDGE ARNOLD H. EINBINDER, 549 Desert Falls Drive East, stated he understood a feasibility study was prepared to enable the Council to intelligently review the project to determine whether it was a project it wanted to go forward with or not. His understanding about that document was that it forecast certain events and certain established amounts of monies for those events including the number of people who would be involved. He said if those events do not take place and if the reliance on events that would be categorized as "concert events" are no longer a viable activity, there may be a difference in the feasibility study. He expressed concern as to whether or not that had been taken into consideration at this point. Mayor/Chairman Crites noted that this agreement was for the site in Section 4. He said because of the time it takes to go through some State law requirements, a report of this nature for the site on Cook Street would be before the Council/Agency in late February, and those documents being public meant that anyone could look at them ahead of time. Judge Einbinder said he also understood that when certain conditions are set out by the Council some time ago as to whether or not this project would go, the request was that it go to one of the "Big Five" firms for the feasibility study. His understanding was that this was not accomplished when this particular feasibility study was prepared. He also expressed concern that the project may not comply with AB1290 in various respects such as: 1: the limitation of a 20-year loan; and 2) the requirement that an environmental impact report be presented to all taxing agencies. He also expressed concern with the issue of liability and the type of policy to be acquired. Mayor/Chairman Crites asked whether financial feasibility was examined without concerns as part of the funding base. Mr. Wolk noted that the latest version of his study did not include the fact that therewould not be concerns at the sports park. 20 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * •* * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Wilson asked whether Mr. Wolk was in the process of looking at the financial impact of not having concerts, and Mr. Wolk said he was. Councilman/Member Wilson asked whether in Mr. Wolk's judgment there were enough other revenue streams to make this a profitable venture without concerts. Mr. Wolk responded that it would be profitable but not as profitable without concerts. MR. RON ODEKIRK stated that the study Mr. Wolk did and the information the developer gave included no concerts. He said all the activities that Mr. Wolk analyzed were sporting events and that no concerts had been included in any of their projections. Mr. Wolk added that the study he prepared did not include concerts, but it did include special events. Mayor/Chairman Crites asked for an answer to the question asked relative to AB1290. Mr. Rabin said the question was whether or not AB1290 limits loans to 20 years, and he said he was not aware of that requirement. He said there was also a question as to whether or not redevelopment law required a copy of the Environmental Impact Report to be delivered to all taxing agencies, and he said he did not know enough about that requirement to answer the question. Mr. Ortega added that when a redevelopment plan is created, there are all those requirements, and there is a provision by which all taxing agencies be met with and that they be given a copy of the plan and the EIR. He said this had been done with regard to this project area. Other than that, he said he was not aware that pursuant to AB1290 specifically those reports were to be provided to taxing agencies. Mayor/Chairman Crites asked that staff check into this to make sure. He asked for an answer relative to the issue of insurance policies. Mr. Rabin responded that the Judge was correct that this was a very important provision. He said this lease provides for a $5 million liability insurance policy and the developer is obligated to indemnify and hold the landlord harmless and to name the Agency and the City as additional insured on the policy. Mayor/Chairman Crites asked that Mr. Odekirk define "special events" and asked if he was correct in understanding that all special events have to have permits approved. Mr. Diaz responded that Mayor Crites was correct in his understanding that no matter what they are, all special events must be approved by this body before they happen. Mr. Ron Odekirk said the special events they had been projecting would be no more than six per year and up to as many as 5,000 visitors. They would be charity softball games, charity basketball games, etc., with celebrities in most cases. He said they were all sporting events. 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. GERALD FORREST, 10 Las Cruces, Palm Desert, questioned Mr. Wolk's qualifications to make a true analysis based on financial data. Mr. Wolk responded that he was not an accountant but had been doing these studies of larger and smaller sized developments since 1983 and he believed he was very well qualified to do what he was doing. Mr. Ortega added that in this case a "Big 6" firm would not be the type of consultant we would want to hire to do this. Upon question by Mayor/Chairman Crites, Mr. Ortega responded that staff, the Finance Department and the attorneys had all look at the financial data. MR. ED BYK addressed Council and questioned who had supplied the figures Mr. Wolk worked with. Mr. Ortega responded that Mr. Wolk's report indicated he did an independent feasibility study on his own. In fact, his proforma differed from that of the developer, so he did not use their numbers. Upon question by Mrs. Paisokopf, Councilman/Member Wilson explained that the developer had provided information to Mr. Wolk as to the types of activities. Mr. Wolk then did a financial analysis of what that kind of activity would bring in. Judge Einbinder asked to read into the record the digest of AB1290 sponsored by Representative Eisenberg 09/08/93. He said it provided in the digest term limits on redevelopment plans and that it had two categories: new redevelopment plans and existing redevelopment plans. He said the new plans limited the time to incur debt to a maximum of 20 years, and this time limit may be extended through a plan amendment for up to 30 years upon a finding by the Agency that substantial blight remains within the project area and that the blight cannot be reasonable eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. He said he did not think that was relevant to this particular instance. He said it also indicated in regard to existing redevelopment plans that it limited the terms for the incurrence of debt under the redevelopment plan to a maximum of 20 years or the year 2004, whichever is later. Mr. Ortega stated that the Judge was correct but that was talking about the Agency incurring debt when it issues debt. He said the Agency had just come through the process in the last several months of amending all its redevelopment plans to comply with AB1290 in accordance with what the Judge read. He said what the Judge was talking about was the Agency incurring debt, not making loans. With no further testimony offered, Mayor/Chairman Crites declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember/Member Benson stated she did not see how the figures on Section 4 could pertain to the section where the ball park is going to be built. She said it seemed that everything would be different and there would be no point in approving this one. She said 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * she did not agree with approving a financial agreement for the Portola site when the figures could change as well as everything else for the facility to go on the Cook Street site. Councilman/Member Wilson responded that the Council approved the Conditional Use Permit for Section 4 with a 90-day sunset clause thatif the project is relocated on the Cook Street site, then the Conditional Use Permit on Section 4 goes away. But if something should happen to stop the project on Cook Street, this would then revert back to this location. He said that as Mr. Ortega indicated, there is also an abort clause in this agreement that says if we approve a different location, this approval dies on this project. He added that Council would have to do this all over again on the Cook Street site. Councilman/Member Kelly stated it was his understanding that there was no rent for the first 12 months. Mr. Rabin responded that there was no minimum rent in the first 12 months. If the developer is successful enough to reach $1.8 million in gross revenues in the first 12 months, there would be 6% of the gross revenues payable as rent during that period of time. If the developer realizes only $1.799 million in gross revenues in the first 12 months, there would be no rent. Councilman/Member Kelly asked what would be included in gross revenues. He said when he was looking at these types of installations around the country, one of their biggest revenues came from things like, for example, by agreeing to use nothing but Budweiser beer they would derive a lot of revenue from that. He asked if that was included. Mr. Rabin stated that gross revenues were definedin the agreement as all revenues relating to the project minus special authorized exceptions like sales taxes. He said if there was some special concession paid for an exclusive, we should include that so there is no question that it be included. Councilman/Member Kelly stated for the record that he would like the definition to state this is included as well as any other kind of revenue such as that. Councilmember/Member Benson said she felt that even before the fiasco in Orange County, no one could convince her that the City putting $3 million into a project and the developer putting in $1 million was a good investment for the City. In the wake of Orange County, she said she would reiterate that and felt the Council must be more fiscally responsible. She did not think this was something the City needs. She said the City had spent millions over the last 20 years providing sports facilities for the youth of the Valley, and now to provide a facility to bring in other communities for something that is not necessary at this time was just fiscal irresponsibility. Mayor/Chairman Crites stated that this facility was sought because it would bring in new revenues for the City and it would provide access for both adults and children for needed 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s fields since the ones we have now are full. He said the guarantee on this was a facility for which someone else has paid over $1 million to build and the City would get back way more than it put in. Councilman/Member Snyder agreed and said it was the responsibility of the Council to find ways *to keep our city fiscally strong and also to appeal to all the people, not just a small group. He said this was an opportunity to create a facility that would also be a money maker for the City. Councilman/Member Snyder moved to: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 302 making certain findings with regard to the transfer of land for the use of a Sportspark in the area of the NW quarter of Section 4 and approving the Disposition and Development Agreement for such use (Contract No. R09390); 2) waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 94-127 approving the leasing by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency of approximately 22 acres of real property located on the east side of Portola Avenue, south of Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert, California, to Ronald Odekirk and Rick Odekirk. Motion was seconded by Wilson. Councilmember/Member Benson asked whether if before any money is disbursed on this the financial check that the Investment Committee has set forth would apply to this as well. Mayor/Chairman Crites responded that staffs indication was that this would be run through the new process. Mayor/Chairman Crites called for the vote. Motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers/Members Benson and Kelly voting NO. Mayor/Chairman Crites noted that in February the Council/Agency Board would look at an agreement somewhat similar to this on the Cook Street site. XVII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - D None XVIII. ADJOURNMENT 1. Consideration of Letter from the Del Webb Corporation. Mayor Crites asked that this be added to the Agenda for discussion as an item which came up after the Agenda was posted. Councilman Snyder moved to add this item to the Agenda for discussion. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Crites stated that this letter was asking for Council to send letters to the United States Postal Service supporting Sun City Palm Springs' being part of the Palm Desert Post Office area rather than Indio. Councilman Wilson stated he would support the request in view of the fact that our city limits go right up to almost the entrance to Sun City Palm Springs. He said this community was closer to Palm Desert's city limits than Indio. Councilman Kelly said he would agree to grant the request. He added that he suspected the residents of Sun City Palm Springs do most of their shopping in Palm Desert, and this would encourage them to shop here more if they had a Palm Desert address. Mayor Crites stated that his initial perception was to not support this request because he did not see any reason for the people who live within the City limits to have to stand in longer lines at the Post Office to serve a community that by its very name chose to not even be part of Palm Desert. Councilmember Benson said she had told Mr. Pankratz previously that she would be happy to support this if they changed the name to Sun City of the Desert. Councilman Snyder said he felt Councilmember Benson's proposal should be submitted to Sun City Palm Springs for response. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to send a letter of response and state that if they changed their name to Sun City Palm Desert, the Palm Desert City Council would be happy to support their request to change their Post Office address to Palm Desert. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Wilson ABSTAINING. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, after the Mayor has had dialogue relative to the name change and if it is not agreeable, direct that the Mayor indicate to Sun City Palm Springs that the City Council would be willing to negotiate on the use of the Palm Desert Post Office. Motion was seconded by Kelly and was defeated by a 2-3 vote, with Councilmembers Benson, Snyder and Crites voting NO. 2. Request for Consideration of Letter from Gisborne, New Zealand. Councilman Snyder moved to add this item to the Agenda for discussion as an item which came up after the Agenda was posted. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Crites noted that he had just received a letter from Sister Cities in New Zealand, asking that he participate in the Sister Conference to be held in Palm Desert's Sister City of Gisborne from March 24-26, 1995. He asked that this be referred to the Sister Cities Committee for report and recommendation. 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilmember Benson stated that she would be happy for Mayor Crites to participate in this conference and represent the City of Palm Desert. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, grant tentative approval of this request and ask the Sister Cities Committee to consider and provide its input. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote. 3. Mr. Ortega stated that several employees had been with the City for the entire time Councilman Wilson had been on the City Council, and staff never felt he would leave. He said he was sure these employees would concur that the City is undoubtedly losing one of the best people, not only in Palm Desert, but one of the best Councilmembers who will ever serve the City of Palm Desert. Councilman Wilson thanked everyone and said he would look at his map and remember everyone always. With Council concurrence, Mayor Crites handed the gavel to Councilman Wilson to adjourn his last meeting as a Palm Desert City Councilmember. Councilman Wilson adjourned the City Council meeting at 12:30 a.m. ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLiGAN, CITY- LERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, ALIFORNIA 26 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * * * * * CRITES: ALTMAN: KELLY: BENSON: zXnint i "A" TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM X-A COOK STREET/I-10 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Old Business, Action Item for Cook Street: We don't have a whole lot to give you tonight, but whatever it is, Dick, Dick and me will try to do it. Mr. Kelly, do you want to start it out, or do you want Dick Folkers to? I'm willing. We have been negotiating with five other agencies for the last several months with the idea of coming up with a bridge/street/road benefits district to fund 25 % of the cost of three interchanges - Monterey, Cook Street, Washington, and we got quite a bit of opposition on the method of doing that. One of the agency representatives has insisted that there be a guarantee by the agency doing the work that they would pay the money back. One of the problems with that is that the way the Measure A Program works is that you set priorities; and at the time we set priorities, we also decided that instead of waiting for the money to come in we would sell bonds. We would get the money up front, the projects built and therefore....(unclear)...we'd be able to use it, which we did, put the money in the bank somewhere. So then we said that if the agency advanced 50% of the funding, then that would raise their priorities so they could go ahead with the project sooner. And, then at the time the project did become eligible, they would get their money back. So, over time, people started thinking that that money is given and that's the end of it. But all the manuals and everything you use says that money..(unclear)...come back. The idea has always been that every project built would be completely paid for by Measure A. The County is not going to guarantee money that...by the way, AB 300 is a matching bill were the State matches the money and our Measure A is a matching program so we're eligible right away so that's where that other 25 % gets paid. The whole thing boils down to the fact that we're having lots of trouble getting an agreement amongst five agencies to come up with an acceptable bridge assessment district; and it appears to me that considering all the problems we're having and the fact that we are funded on Cook Street, Monterey and Washington are not, but Cook Street has funding....75 %. So if our City did put up their 25 % we could go ahead with Cook Street. Looking at the amount the City of Palm Desert is responsible for and the amount Indian Wells..(unclear)..and the County is responsible for, it's beginning to look to me like we'd be way ahead to go ahead and do Cook Street on our own. Either with an assessment district on our own or just take over and make it a redevelopment project and do it. I don't know, there are some other little problems going along that are holding us up also, I'll let Dick take it from there. Probably the main reason for putting it on the agenda here is to bring you all up to date on what's been happening and thought we're gonna possibly get some direction from the Council, what you think we ought to be doing. The five agencies are...the County 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KELLY: FOLKERS: WILSON: FOLKERS: KELLY- WILSON: ALTMAN: EXHIBIT "A" No, the five agencies are the City of La Quinta, the City of Indian Wells, the City of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho Mirage. Let me just give you a status as far as the project moving along. We had our project development ..(unclear)... on Wednesday for the various interchanges. On Cook Street, we're moving along quite well. The County real properties group, we're working with selected appraisers and they're going to be doing their appraisals right now so hopefully within the next 60 or 90 days, they could begin to purchase property. The agreement we have with CVAG is that construction dollars, the way they've been operating, would not be released till we get some kind of agreement or payback and that's where we're kind of between a rock and a hard place. Bruce has looked into some of the requirements and regulations CVAG has in their book of standards. Anyhow, so we could begin to pick up the right of way pretty soon but we ..(unclear)..have some money. We're working with the water district on the relocation of the sewer line on the north side. Yesterday we found out there are 550,000 cubic yards of sand that's available at the corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey that could be trucked down there which cuts our costs down considerably. So things are failing into place so we can reduce some costs. It's just a matter of getting the go ahead. I had an opportunity today to talk with the City of Indian Wells and they're looking at the costs for them and looking at a new General Plan that will down -zone a lot of the properties so their costs may drop dramatically. This kind of goes along with what Councilman Kelly was saying - if these costs keep dropping, it's going to end up that Palm Desert's going to have to pay the lion's share. If we're going to pay the lion's share, we might as well go ahead and do the thing using our own initiatives and our own money so we can just handle our concerns. If we move forward with Mr. Kelly's recommendation, we would commit our 25% to be repaid back from Measure A money? It would be my recommendation - we're working with MFS to do a roads and bridges benefit assessment for our City, so we would still go ahead and assess out the appropriate part for our City. And the part for the County, which keeps being reduced unfortunately, the part for Indian Wells which seems to be somehow being reduced, would then be picked up by them.... We could move ahead and fund it ourselves and form our own bridge assessment district....(unclear)....based on when we would expect to get our money back. So am I correct in understanding that basically all we would have to do to CVAG is tell them we will pay back the 25 %? We'd say we'll form a bridges and thoroughfare just for Palm Desert....and as property develops...remember that was a hurdle when we had a public hearing. 28 MINUTES - REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * L' Aniri11 „A„ WILSON: But I guess, I think the longer this project is delayed, the more it's going to cost. And the faster we can get moving...can we, even before we form a bridge and assessment district, make a commitment to CVAG that someway we'll pay that 25 % back over a period of time and get this thing going so we can get the money released, buy the land, get the engineering done, and get that interchange built? BENSON: Then how do we get our money out of the other cities? KELLY: We don't worry about it. Because it's a piddling amount, that's why. The whole thing is being held up and it's a piddling amount. It's going to affect us far, far, far more than them. It's a piddling amount that they won't agree to. ALTMAN: We'll put together the scenarios because Dick's ready...in fact, your Councilmember has a very good memory. When we were sitting arguing with our neighboring city, he's brought something up I'd forgotten about. He says local governments can secure future reimbursement at the time their projects have come up for funding. That's in the adopted manual. Well, our project is up for funding right now. So maybe it's a moot point, do we have to pay the other (unclear)...get 100%.... KELLY: It might be a moot point, I think it already is prioritized and is supposed to be funded right now. And up front, every city picked one project that they wanted to be #1. In other words, it was ready now, and we picked Cook Street. Basically, the City Manager is right. It is at priority right now. It is to be built and the whole program says it's supposed to be 100% funded and they should fund it, and we should move ahead. Maybe if we have to, we'll instruct our City Attorney to lay out the facts for them that we want the money right now and we're going to start building. Because we're learned all of the rules and all the regulations, and everything is done...it's prioritized right now and we should get full funding to move ahead. SNYDER: Why don't we, as a Council, set forth the fact that A) we'll do just as Mr. Kelly says and we'll ask our City Attorney to set forth what we need to do so that we can move this project tomorrow - we want approval to go ahead, period; and, as a set -back to that position if that looks like it's going to be entangled in a long period of discussion, i.e. law suits, whatever, that we also approve the City Manager, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Folkers to go ahead with doing it ourselves, if we must and do whatever measures we have to take to obtain our funding back so that this program moves immediately. WILSON: I would second that, if that's a motion. CRITES: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? 29 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BENSON: WILSON: BENSON: ALTMAN: CRITES: BENSON: SNYDER: ALTMAN: CRITES: GILLIGAN: jy]1t�11,11 "A DECEMBER 22, 1994 * * * * * * * * * * * * No, but we could put a gate at Cook Street and then all the people that want to go to Indian Wells have to stay in Palm Desert until they pay up their share. Put a little transponder on all Indian Wells cars so they have to stop. They think it's no value to them, so we can place a value on it. We're not the most popular people over at their meeting, I'll tell you that. Well, you know we've got some people over there who could afford to do their part in a second and that miserly, cheap attitude of "we don't want to do anything to help anybody else" and "our citizens don't go anywhere", they should have their backsides kicked and be publicly embarrassed. Why don't you phone the press? You did that on Rancho Mirage. Do 1 get the impression you're upset with Indian Wells? You won't be allowed at the meeting after this... We have a motion and a second, please vote. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 30