Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-27MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL AND PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 2:00 P.M. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor/Chairman Spiegel convened the meeting at 2:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember/Member Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Buford A. Crites Councilman/Member Jim Ferguson Councilman/Member Richard S. Kelly Mayor/Chairman Robert A. Spiegel Also Present: Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager Sheila R. Gilligan, Director of Community Affairs/City Clerk/Agency Secretary Carlos L. Ortega, RDA Executive Director Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW OF DISPOSITION, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY - SAN BERNARDINO COACHELLA VALLEY CENTER. Mr. Ortega noted that last Thursday he provided a summary of the current agreement deal points to the City Council/Agency Board for its review. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel stated he had two major concerns in the agreement terms: 1) Campus name— inclusion of "Palm Desert" in perpetuity or other mutually agreeable alternative; 2) CSU University Development Planning Committee-- its composition and authority. MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Ferguson asked which agency had the final say with regard to the Development Committee's recommendation, for instance, if the University president wanted to implement something other than the committee's recommendation. Mayor Spiegel answered if there was a disagreement, the issue would return to the committee. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites further questioned the campus name issue, asking if the City Council/Agency Board would accept, "California State University Coachella Valley at Palm Desert." He pointed out that the California State University at Sonoma wasn't actually in Sonoma, but 30 miles away in Rohnert Park, a smaller community. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel felt the name issue was adequately addressed in the agreement's present language; he felt it was going to be some time before the name would become important, and it should be jointly decided by the City and CSU. Councilman/Member Ferguson asked how it was known that the proposed campus was a viable CSU site, or if the City/Agency was being led on in the hope of getting funding for a branch campus of CSU-San Bernardino. Further, he said the original memorandum of understanding (MOU) required the performance of a feasibility study, which was never done. In listening to Mayor/Chairman Spiegel talk about how far in the future the project was, he wondered if the area could even support a CSU campus. He felt the City of Palm Desert was the only entity putting up hard money; the land was already purchased to be given CSU by grant deed. Therefore, he was concerned because CSU had floundered in its fund raising efforts for many years, and he had no reassurance they would meet their $16 million mark in a comfortable time frame while tying up the City/Agency's's land. He felt conveyance of the land should be conditioned upon the performance of a feasibility study. Councilmember/Member Benson recalled that when the land was offered to CSU, several months passed before the proposal was accepted, which she thought could be attributed to CSU's performance of a feasibility study. Mr. Diaz said CSU had done so; the site was feasible. He understood that once the four year institution was present in the Valley, the demand for a separate campus would be generated from within, from faculty and those involved with it. He compared it to College of the Desert's (COD) Copper Mountain Campus and its separation issue-- whether or not the CSU campus was called a satellite campus, etc. at first, eventually it would become a separate university. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel commented that the growth of CSU-SB at COD had been dramatic — expansion was necessary, there was no more room. He and Councilmember/Member Benson recalled last year's graduating class had approximately 200 students. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel felt CSU had the money, it just wasn't being discussed openly. Therefore, if the campus was built, he thought it would be its own attraction for students, citing 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the various sports activities and quality of life factors to attract non-residents, in addition to offering a four-year system to those students who currently left the area to obtain their education. Further, he felt there was a desire to recruit light industry for the area through the efforts of the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, and the CSU campus would be a catalyst for such endeavors. Councilman/Member Ferguson concurred. However, he was concerned that the City/Agency was being asked for $14 million (value of the land), without the benefit of hard numbers -- population growth projections, projections of sustainable growth for the branch campus through the various phases of maturation, a definitive construction schedule/fund raising targets, etc., none of which he'd seen to date. Councilman/Member Kelly felt it wasn't a problem if the City/Agency held the land for a time, and he felt CSU's fund raising efforts were genuine. His greatest concern was that the land was used for the purpose for which it was intended when the City/Agency promised it to CSU and that it wasn't parceled off. Mr. Ortega responded that the agreement's initial language specified that the land was being transferred for the purpose of a CSU in perpetuity. However, he said in the last meeting with CSU's attorney, CSU raised the issue about not using the site for a campus at some point in the future and how the Agency would be compensated. He said CSU's attorney then drafted two pages' worth of language related to that possibility. Council/Agency members expressed their aggregate concern for such a possibility, when their intent was strictly for a four-year university and not so that the university system could perform land development for profit. Councilmember/Member Benson said she thought that was the reason there were 40 acres in the project's first phase followed by a sufficient period of time for initiation of the second phase, etc.; and should the second not be initiated, it came back to the City/Agency— the original agreement based on CSU's feasibility. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites cautioned his colleagues that while a feasibility study was a tool, it was not a guarantee. He felt there were many intangibles (i.e. Coachella Valley population and composition compared to those of Riverside and San Bernardino where the communities were very feasible, yet existing campuses were underutilized) that were not factored into a study where the Council's/Agency's intuition for such things mattered more. He suspected that in the years identified in the reports, the Coachella Valley would easily support a four-year public institution. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel concurred. Councilman/Member Ferguson agreed; however, he understood there was no hard money pledged beyond that of the Hubbard's after four years of fund raising— there was a $3 million donation contingent on several conditions, and he wondered why private sector donors didn't 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * have the same foresight. He said of the $16 million CSU needed for phase one, he believed there was less than $5 million. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel said that if the Council/Agency agreed, there were plans for Al Karnig and the architect chosen by the committee consisting of he, Rick Holden, and several local architects to make a presentation at the public hearing. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites agreed with Councilman/Member Ferguson that perhaps some more information should be provided to the Council/Agency Board prior to that time. Mr. Diaz commented that one of the difficult issues for CSU in its fund raising efforts was that the land wasn't in their hands yet-- donors were harder to convince when there was nothing to show. Councilmember/Member Benson understood; however, she questioned why CSU's attorney didn't want to return the land if it went undeveloped. Mr. Ortega replied that there were provisions for both Parcel A and Parcel B. He said initially the 40 acres would be conveyed, with a given number of years to begin construction or else it reverted. On Parcel B, he said they agreed it would be phased, and when evidence was presented to the committee that the phase about to be constructed was feasible and within the time frame per the agreement, then it would be conveyed or would revert back to the Agency. Councilmember/Member Benson questioned why Mr. Ortega's earlier statement seemed otherwise. Mr. Ortega clarified it was after the university was built and all the options had been exercised that CSU wanted the option of making the site something else, which differed from it being a university forever. The Council/Agency Board expressed its displeasure with such a plan. Councilman/Member Ferguson said he agreed with Councilman/Member Kelly that the City/Agency needed to retain control of that land, a desirable piece of real estate, and he understood the need for CSU's donors to see something concrete. He was concerned for his colleagues' "wait and see approach" on the hunch that the project would be successful. He felt that CSU was looking for equivalent land value, $14 million worth of assistance from the City/Agency, and until that assistance was provided, CSU believed it would continue to spin its wheels. Therefore, he proposed the City/Agency keep the land and give CSU $14 million in assistance by building phase one of the university, with the option for CSU to buy the land back when the money was raised. He said there would be vertical construction immediately, the City/Agency would have design control over the building, which would also provide CSU with a fund raising tool, students would be going to school, while the City/Agency retained land control without spending more money. Councilman/Member Ferguson went on to say that he asked Agency Counsel if such a proposal was legally viable, and he asked Dr. Peter Wilson if CSU would entertain the idea, but he first wanted to find out if his colleagues were interested in such a plan. 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Diaz commented that at one time, it was not a $14 million investment of the City/Agency, and the sole reason for acquiring the subject land was for a CSU campus; however, the City/Agency was hearing that the difficulties experienced in fund raising were attributable to the fact that the land was not in CSU's possession. He said the agreement could be written specifically so that the site was used for a university campus. Further, he said there had not been a Cal State University closed in the State, nor did he believe there was a public university closed within the last 100 years anywhere in the country. Councilmember/Member Benson added that it was the City/Agency who initiated the project by offering to give the land for that purpose, and CSU then conducted its own study. Upon question by Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites and Councilman/Member Kelly, Mr. Ortega responded CSU would not receive any phase of the large property until a plan was presented to and approved by the University Planning Committee, as called for in the DDIA, adding this had been one of the issues of contention. He said the initial agreement stated everything had to be approved by the City/Agency; CSU said they couldn't live with that, but they were willing to create a committee. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites rebutted that the committee was for architecture, not for releasing land. When Mr. Ortega said it did include review for release of land, Councilmembers/Agency members voiced their opposition to such a condition. Mr. Diaz remarked there was already plan and an EIR to guide the development. Councilman/Member Kelly said as elected officials of the citizens of Palm Desert, they could not release their responsibility over control of the site. Mr. Ortega said the current agreement stated that Parcel B land would be turned over to CSU after it had presented evidence of a financing plan for the next phase to the committee. Once that was done, he stated that phase of land would be conveyed. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites felt that aspect had to be with the City's/Agency's approval. He went on to say concern over the subject committee had always been that it was an avenue to get around the issue of the State of California's sovereignty, which it didn't want to relinquish in terms of architectural review, etc. Likewise, he said the City/Agency wanted to retain its sovereignty with regard to the land, architectural review, and traffic, etc., and the committee, to be ruled by majority, was formed to review such issues. He remarked that had been done, and he felt it was an inventive way of getting around all those issues; however, it wasn't intended to eliminate the City's/Agency's ability to control the land. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel posed the question that if in 20 years, a new City Council/Agency Board determined it wanted to develop a shopping center on the remaining 160 acres after CSU had developed the first 40, where would CSU be? He understood CSU's concern for such a possibility. Mayor Pro-TemporeNice Chairman Crites suggested the agreement specify that the 5 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * City/Agency would turn over the land when financial feasibility, etc., was met; however, the City/Agency would have final say. Councilman/Member Kelly admonished that the City/Agency determined what was meant; it couldn't do whatever it wanted with the land. Mayor Pro- Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites answered that if CSU provided financial feasibility, the Council/Agency couldn't refuse. Councilman/Member Kelly agreed future Councils/Agency Boards couldn't take such action; the present members had agreed on the purpose of the site. In response to Mayor/Chairman Spiegel's further question how it could be stipulated that the land was not developed as something else by future Councils/Agency Boards, Mayor Pro- Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites said the agreement should state that it was the intent of the City/Agency to do the plans specified when financial feasibility requirements were met. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel noted the agreement already said that. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites commented that if the City/Agency appointed half of the aforementioned committee, and it took two-thirds majority, there was control. Councilman/Member Kelly noted it was fine for the committee to make decisions on architecture and the like; however, he felt it inappropriate for that body to make decisions over use of the land-- that was the Council's/Agency's responsibility. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites offered that the agreement could be structured such that on occasions where land issues were to be considered, the Council/Agency Board would constitute the City's/Agency's half of the Committee. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel concurred, stating that four Council/Agency Board members could be appointed. Councilman/Member Ferguson asked why it was objectionable to furnish a building that could house classes immediately for CSU and allow it to then buy the land, instead of giving the land and letting CSU buy a building. Mr. Diaz responded he felt control of the land put the City/Agency in a better situation for determining the site's future; additionally, purchase of the land would definitely make its price $14.6 million-- others needed to step forward. He said the City/Agency was giving the land, and if it wasn't developed into a CSU, then it reverted back. Councilman/Member Ferguson noted that further into today's agenda was review of the Redevelopment Agency's bonding capacity. After preliminary review, he felt there was some $60 million worth of bonding capacity that needed to be exercised within the next four years or it was lost. He said given that amount of money, and there was already a nexus between the grant of approximately $14 million of present land value in exchange for the educational benefits to be returned such that it wouldn't be a gift of public money, he suggested issuing bonds and building phase one, retaining ownership of the land. Further, if the project took off as was anticipated, land transfer issues could be worked out at that time, thereby obtaining a university when it was wanted, as it was preferred to appear. He noted that currently CSU was housed in modular buildings on the College of the Desert campus; therefore, he wondered what sovereignty 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * issues existed between lessor and lessee as opposed to being a landowner. He thought the aforementioned would be a way to get everything the City/Agency wanted by approaching it in a different• manner. In response to Mr. Diaz, Councilman/Member Ferguson said the land could be either given or sold to CSU; the outcome would end up the same. Councilman/Member Kelly was concerned that this option gave more land. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel agreed. Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites said if it was financially a net wash, he was not opposed to getting the university off the ground sooner by looking at an alternative method of financing, as long as Dr. Wilson, CSU, Agency Counsel, Executive Director, and City Manager felt it was a good deal. He said he was concerned for keeping the project from collapsing over the other issues. Councilman/Member Ferguson agreed with Mayor/Chairman Spiegel that if there was a structure for students to enter and attend classes, the fund raising momentum would pick up, employers looking to relocate here would take note that there was a sited four-year university, high school seniors would think twice about going to school outside the area, and there would be put into motion, on a definite time line controlled by the City/Agency, all the economic development benefits to be realized while retaining the land. In response to Councilman/Member Kelly, Councilman/Member Ferguson said he was still concerned for feasibility, as he wanted to ensure a prudent investment by the City/Agency on behalf of the taxpayers. However, if he assumed everything he'd been told by his colleagues and staff was true, and it was such a great deal, he reiterated Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites' comments that there were times the City/Agency could go ahead and do things in a way that would be far better than if a conventional manner was utilized. He went on to say that to date, he'd merely posed the question to Dr. Wilson, Mr. Strausz, and Mr. Ortega, with none of them providing concrete opposition to it. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel commented that one of the possible reasons was that a major donor would rather be named on a building instead of an acre of land. Mayor Pro-TemporeNice Chairman Crites suggested a report be produced where both alternatives for initiating development of the campus were listed, including the advantages and disadvantages of each and how they would both achieve the City's/Agency's desired outcome. Councilmember/Member Benson added that discrepancies over points of the agreement, such as the issue of land control related to compliance with certain conditions of the development of a university, should also be addressed in the aforementioned report. 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Kelly expressed his desire for inclusion of a provision in the agreement between the City/Agency and CSU stating the property was to be utilized solely for a university campus and no other use. Council/Agency Board members generally concurred. In response to question, Mr. Ortega stated CSU had a 30-year option on all of Parcel B; he felt that could be tightened. Further, he said there were provisions that required CSU to build and complete construction within 36 months-- that could be extended, otherwise it reverted back to the City/Agency. However, he stated CSU had a 30-year option to obtain the necessary funding. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel noted that there were plans to approach other cities, Rancho Mirage Indian Wells, and La Quinta, for funding. He felt they would participate. Councilman/Member Ferguson reiterated his earlier remarks that he was underwhelmed by CSU's fund raising efforts and wondered if CSU was providing enough definitive data to donors, including something such as a partnership opportunity. Therefore, he felt it was unwise to give the land and have it tied up for 30 years without guaranteed assurance of fund raising ability. He preferred the approach of making it happen according to the City's terms to avoid that occurrence. Mr. Ortega commented that CSU could not exercise the Phase B option until Phase A was complete; however, CSU had 12 years to complete Phase A. Mr. Diaz felt the action that needed to be taken at this point was to provide Council/Agency Board members with the most recent draft of the agreement, including those provisions as set forth in this meeting, so that productive discussions could occur. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel compared CSU's fund raising goal for the Smart Classrooms project, which was nearly fulfilled, due to the fact that there was a tangible end result. Mayor Pro- Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites added that CSU was soliciting applicants for what was essentially a fund raising position. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel said he understood that 15 % of any CSU's budget had to be raised by the president of that school, and he felt there was more on hand than City officials were privy to at this time. Council/Agency Board members concurred that they would like to know that status so they could decide accordingly. Mr. Ortega said after just speaking with the Agency's attorney, it was felt that he and CSU's attorney had resolved their legal issues. A revised draft should be available by the end of the week, and he would provide it to all Council/Agency Board members at that time. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel cautioned that if the fine points, as had been discussed, were not included in the revised draft, it would be unnecessary for CSU officials to participate in the May 13 meeting. 8 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Councilman/Member Ferguson requested staff work with Agency Counsel to determine whether the idea of constructing the necessary buildings for Phase A was a viable method for expediting the project. With City Council/Agency Board concurrence, staff was directed to proceed with drafting the revised agreement, including the provisions as discussed at this meeting, and research with Agency Counsel the alternative method of financing the project with construction of buildings for Phase A of the campus site and provide such information with newly drafted agreement to Council/Agency Board members for their review by Wednesday, May 5. B. REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL LIAISON POLICY AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY'S COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. Councilman/Member Kelly said he had requested this item for discussion as someone had brought to his attention comments that Council/Agency Board members were influencing Committee/Commission decisions in those instances where such a liaison served, noting that Architectural Review and Planning Commissions operated without liaisons. He acknowledged that when Council/Agency Board members participated in Committee/Commission discussions, there was inevitably an influence which would inhibit some members from speaking or acting freely. Councilman/Member Ferguson remarked that since he'd been a Councilmember, the Public Safety Commission had three times opposed the comments he'd made at those meetings. Therefore, he believed there was no undue influence on that entity, yet he appreciated the opportunity to express his thoughts on matters of concern to him. Further, he did not feel that the Desert Willow Committee was ever unduly influenced by Councilman/Member Kelly's presence. Councilmember/Member Benson didn't feel liaisons naturally influenced the Committees/Commissions; she felt they listened closely to the discussion. She noted that one Art In Public Places (AIPP) Commissioner recently thanked her for speaking up when they were hesitant to do so. In the long run, she believed Council/Agency Board member liaisons aided the process and offered expertise that was otherwise unavailable to citizen members. Mayor Pro-TemporeNice Chairman Crites felt it was his responsibility to primarily stay out of the Committee's business unless asked. If his input was requested for how he felt the Council/Agency Board would receive a particular proposal or if there was an existing policy or precedent regarding a certain issue, then he responded with such information. To illustrate, he said he normally left AIPP meetings when slide shows were presented so that he wasn't even asked for his opinion on particular art pieces. He believed the liaison function was worthwhile 9 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in its conveyance of necessary Council/Agency Board action and policy information to those supporting legislative bodies for their continued effectiveness. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel concurred. Additionally, he felt the liaison function served as a vehicle for informing the Council/Agency Board of what was happening at those Committee/Commission meetings. He cited an example of Project Area No. 4 Committee's consideration of a stop sign on Hovley Lane, where he advised the Committee to agendize the matter as the Council/Agency Board would want the Committee's recommendation prior to taking an action. Council/Agency Board members concurred that the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission operated satisfactorily without any Council/Agency Board representation, leaving the City Council as the final arbitrator for any rights of appeal. With Council/Agency Board concurrence, it was determined that the Committee/Commission liaison function served by City Council/Agency Board members would remain as it stood presently, not to influence those bodies but to provide the necessary information link between them to facilitate the process of administering City/Agency projects. C. REVIEW OF POLICY RELATIVE TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel commented that there was not much available land for light industry. Therefore, he believed that creation of the City's Business Support Center had been the appropriate vehicle for fostering economic development in the City. He further noted that department was presently developing a proposal for a small business loan program for City Council/Agency Board consideration that would also benefit economic development. It was his additional feeling that the City/Agency should do whatever it could to assist the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership. However, as far as Palm Desert developing a plan for light industry in the City, he was unsure that was the direction it wanted to take. Councilman/Member Kelly concurred. Mayor/Chairman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct that there be no new committee formed for the purpose of advisement on matters of economic development in the City of Palm Desert, but that the City work through its Business Support Center and the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership to support such efforts. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites and carried by unanimous vote. D. REVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BONDING. Mr. Ortega reviewed the Agency's current bonds, cash, and projects with Council/Agency Board members and the proposed future projects as they related to bonding capacity. He noted those 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * included the Agency's share of the widening of Fred Waring Drive (there would also be CVAG participation); purchase of 120 acres; Town Center parking (Project Area No. 1); Desert Willow related projects for Project Area No. 2; and items for Project Area No. 4, including purchase of land for a regional park and the installation of drainage and landscaping in the Project Area, as well. Responding to question by Councilman/Member Ferguson, Mr. Ortega stated presently the Agency could potentially issue another $16 million worth of bonds. In response to further inquiry by Councilmember/Member Benson, he stated Project Area No. 3 currently had no projects budgeted; in the current year those funds were utilized to pay sales tax debt for the Costco (Price Club) center, present obligation at approximately $500,000, and one of the areas had to incur that amount in cash. He noted as projects were identified, some of those funds would probably be shifted to Project Area No. 1. Mr. Dennis Coleman, Redevelopment Agency Finance Manager, responded to the question of the Agency's bonding ability for the life of the four project areas by stating he was unsure the Agency would ever meet its full capacity unless the income flow increased dramatically. However, he said based upon the Agency's current conservative growth projections to such time as no more debt could be issued and assuming overall interest rates of 6.5 %, it was estimated as follows: 2003 - $14,360,000 in Project Area No. 1. 2097 - $20,875,000 in Project Area No. 2, noting this included the $16 million mentioned previously in the discussion. 2011 - $7,975,000 in Project Area No. 3. 2013 - $9,985,000 in Project Area No. 4. Responding to statement that monies from one project area could be spent in another, Messrs. Coleman and Ortega said that was if the findings could be made that there was benefit to that project area-- such as a golf course which was of benefit to the entire citizenry. Mr. Ortega said a drainage project was more specific to a particular area and needed to be set forth by an engineering study. He went on to respond that staff would be returning to the City Council/Agency Board through the budget process with a plan for maximizing debt capacity (debt to the City), noting that in Project Area No. 1 after January 1, 2004, any excess increment could be spent but not bonded against, and the Agency would pay that amount to the City-- providing funds to do projects for the next 15 years. 11 MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 27, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Coleman went on to answer that the last time increment could be collected in Project Area No. 1-Original was 2025; the plan terminated in 2015. Further, after 2025 in Project Area No. 1-Original the County, the School District, the College District, and the Water District received funds; the City/Agency received some funds at its 7 % rate, the higher level of assessed valuation. Mr. Gibson added there was an exception for Housing Authority projects that were still being paid into, that portion would remain. Mr. Coleman said for Project Area No. 1- Added, the plan terminated in 2021; 2031 to collect increment, and 2037, 2039, and 2043 in Project Area Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Councilman/Member Ferguson commented that he'd recently seen a listing rating Palm Desert as the fourth largest Redevelopment Agency in California. With City Council/Agency Board concurrence, staff was directed to provide members with a discussion paper and recommendation from the above information as part of the budget process. V. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Councilmember/Member Benson, second by Mayor Pro-Tempore/Vice Chairman Crites, and unanimous vote of the City Council/Agency Board members, Mayor/Chairman Spiegel adjourned the meeting at 3:29 p.m. ATTEST: . ci .c.en SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERKEICY SEC CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA/ PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AZA.5 ROBERT A. SPIEGEL,%MAYOR/CHAIRMAN 12