Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-08MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING T'HURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * I. CALL TO ORDER H. ROLL CALL Present: Member Jean M. Benson Member Richard S. Kelly Vice Chairman Walter H. Snyder Member Robert A. Spiegel Chairman Buford A. Crites Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency David J. Erwin, City Attorney Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Community Development/ACM Sheila R. Gilligan, Secretary Gregg Holtz. Senior Engineer John M. Wohlmuth, Assistant to the City Manager Paul Gibson, Director of Finance Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code Compliance III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of May 25, 1995. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVI_, -)PMENT AGENCY ;.. JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY - Warrant No. 48. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon motion by Spiegel and second by Benson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. V. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 308 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP. Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation. Member Benson noted that in the Policy Statement, Item 1, it should read resident owners, not occupants. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 308 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS FROM THE AGENDA ADDENDUM: B. RESOLUTION NO. 309 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING ITS RESOLUTION NO. 306. Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation. He noted staff was asking that we increase the tax exempt bonds and delete the Series B taxable bonds from the resolution. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Snyder, Resolution No. 309 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF THREE DELOSS MCGRAW PAINTINGS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14,223.00 FOR FUTURE PLACEMENT AT THE MULTI -AGENCY LIBRARY (Joint item with the Palm Desert City Council). 2 MINUTES - PALM DESERT REDEVE :.ENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * *"* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 Mr. Folkers stated that while the staff report was self-explanatory, Ms. Sass was available to answer any questions City Council might have. Member Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the design and direct staff to acquire three Deloss McGraw paintings titled "Oiseau" diptych, "Lune du soir", and "Lapin du soir" for an amount not to exceed $14,223.00; 2) that the Agency direct staff to direct the District (C.O.D.) to enter into an agreement for acquisition of artwork for the Multi -Agency Library. Member Benson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote of the City Council. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None IX. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTED REVISIONS TO EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR SPORTSPARK. Following is a verbatim transcript of this item: CRITES: ODEKIRK: CRNDALL: Mr. Odekirk, I believe you wish to address the Redevelopment Agency. Good Evening Mayor Crites, City Council. I am Richard Odekirk, 43670 Lisbon Way, Palm Desert. He's right, next month we. are 3 years so I guess we really are Old Business. I promise to keep this as brief as we can. In December, you did approve our project and there has been some things happen with our company - some of you are aware of, some of you may not be. We've undergone a change and a few things we'd like to pass in front of you and get your feeling on, and get some formal action if we can. In doing that, I've got a couple of people here that would like to address you. They've been instructed, requested, to keep it very brief and they will do that. All I ask is that before you vote, if you have any questions or comments, I'd like a chance to respond to those before anything is done. Lynn Crandall is an attorney that represents Big League Dreams Sportspark and I'm going to introduce him right now and we'll fill you in as we go on as to how things are going with our project. Mayor Crites, Members of the City Council, we've had a series of discussions with Mr. Ortega and he's correct, there are two substantial changes as he described them in what the Odekirks are asking for. 3 MINUTES - PALM DESERT REDEVI.:_JPMENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * CRITES: CRNDALL: These changes really relate to two broad areas - one is the form of the entity that would operate the park that would undertake the obligations that are part of the agreement, and the other is the timing. There are a series of performance criteria that are set forth in the development agreement, the DDA, beginning with one on July 31 st which has to do with coming up with the money; but there are various other performance criteria. We are asking your consideration that the form of the entity be changed and for you to recognize that fact, that's really sort of a discussion item because the agreement doesn't, I think, restrict the form of the entity but we want to keep you informed of what we're doing. The timing is, of course, part of the agreement. As you all know I've had a long-term relationship with the Odekirk family, as long as we've all been in the valley here. For two or three years, I've been helping them with the sportspark project. It has received your OK up till now, with some very extensive hearings. The original concept that was brought to you before and was talked about was one under which the Odekirks would form an entity and their plan was to do that with a number of investors. That is still a possibility, but through a series of events, another avenue has been presented to them. And they think it's best for them, and they think it's best for the City of Palm Desert and I can explain why. Softball is one of the fastest growing sports in the United States. It's incredible and I'm not talking only about youth, I'm talking about people from age 20 to age 65 and 70 playing this sport. I have 6 children, all adults, four of them are into this softball thing. They go and they play in these leagues, they do it at night after work, it's a real recreational activity. To refresh your recollection, this park here is not designed to achieve revenue from the selling of seats like at a baseball, you know the Dodgers or anything, to give these people who want to participate in this activity a place to do it and the operators of the park get revenue for renting it for a league game so to speak. Well, when the solicitation of investors process was going on, the project came to the attention of a man named Michael Bolton. Now I've got a lot of grey hair and some of you had grey hair and I'm not real familiar with Michael Bolton, but Michael Bolton is a....well the Mayor doesn't have grey hair...but Michael Bolton.. You need to get some more money for glasses. OK, Michael Bolton is a well-known singer of national stature and he came to them and he said I'll do this whole project. It happens that Mr. Bolton is a well-known softball player. He goes to a rock concert in Phoenix, Arizona, he has his own team and they play in Phoenix, Arizona, and the next night he gives his rock concert. I'll do this whole deal, provided it's all tax-deductible, this has to be set up as a charity. Well, we're not going to do it that way, Mr. Bolton. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVI ANT AGENCY _ JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * But, as time evolved, that became where the interest was: To do this on a non-profit basis as a charitable activity. Through a series of events, Mr. Bolton is not going to step up to the plate for the million point two or three dollars to do the whole deal himself, but he'll still be involved. But this has led to an evolution of the project to become one, to be a non-profit entity. We think it's very, very good. The response the Odekirks have had to this is going to be talked about by others, but it's been very, very satisfactory and there is an organization that's in the process of formation called the Big League Dreams Youth Foundation. The bottom line is, that if you'll allow it to go this way, this is going to be very good for the City because the monies that are produced that are excess over operating expenses are going to be distributable to youth sports in the valley. I believe the documentation is going to be set up so that the emphasis is going to be on youth sports in the City of Palm Desert because that's where the facility is located. The time is required because to go this direction, you've got to form an entity, you've got to get your tax-exempt certificates from the federal government, from the state government and of course you have to do the funds solicitation. We've gone a long way toward getting the committee together to do that; but as you all know, charity is big business here in the valley, so there's competition among charities and it's something that...there's a job out there to do. But I think you all know that in the charitable context here in the valley, there's not a lot of activity towards sports parks or towards softball. There are other activities we're all familiar with, where we're going to banquets and making donations. This is a unique concept. The point is that people who like this activity, who want to participate in it, who are involved in youth sports, are stepping up to the plate and saying we want to be involved. Some very, very prominent citizens, as other people will mention, here in the valley. I'd like to introduce the man who is the president and organizer of this organization, Mr. Jim Hardy, and he's going to address you briefly too. HARDY: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Members of the Council, good evening. My name is Jim Hardy and I'm a full-time resident of the valley, living at 48-490 San Vicente in La Quinta. I have been involved in sports and with athletes all my life. I'm a believer in the benefits that sports programs bring to kids and young adults and the values sports teaches. I was born and raised in Los Angeles and played all sports in high school and played football and baseball at USC. I played professional football in the NFL for seven years and was a businessman for almost 50 years. I was the general manager of the Los Angeles Coliseum and Sports Arena for almost 15 years, where we staged the 1984 Olympic Games. Since moving full-time to the Coachella Valley, I am still involved in helping kids as a volunteer football coach at the high school. I read of the Odekirks Sportspark and made it a point to meet the Odekirks. I found that I shared many of their goals of helping kids of our area by increasing sports opportunities. I think this park is a terrific project and I fully support it. In our discussions, I found that the Odekirks would be willing to assign the ownership rights to a youth foundation and build and manage a park to benefit youth programs. I have been 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE._. PMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * willing to be an active supporter and the principal organizer of the foundation. On behalf of the foundation, I have retained legal experts who have formed the non-profit corporation and Nancy Henderson, who is here, of the law firm of Colley & Chitchister will answer any questions in a few moments. Under the foundation plan, a Board of Directors selected from prominent local citizens, will oversee the ownership of the park. I plan on being a member of that Board. One of our responsibilities will be to allocate profits of the park operations to youth organizations that need and request them. Recognizing that the City of Palm Desert is playing a major role in this development, it would be the priority to help Palm Desert programs first. We believe, however, that through special events, we can help youth programs throughout the entire valley. I have helped organize an advisory board of supporters consisting of valley citizens who want to help. Some of those signed a letter that I recently sent to you. I would like to read a list of some of the illustrious people that have joined me to support this plan. The following: Paul Jenkins, Patty Caruso, Dennis Chappel, Lynn Crandall, Carole Englehardt, John Foster, Gordon Jensen, Ray Kaiser, Joanne Kinnon, Bruce Legowitz, Dr. William Narva, Richard Oliphant, Bill Powers, Daryl Salazar, Dick Shalhoub, Walt Traver, Harold Waite, Betty Williams, Roy Wilson, Daryl Gribeau. And the following athletes have also joined this select group: Bert Blileven, Rhett Butler, Michael Cooper, Glenn Davis, Tommy Davis, Bud Furillo, Tom Haller, Jay Johnson, Ralph Kiner, Chuck Knox, Johnny Lujack, John McKay, Dave Robinson, John Robinson, Jack Whittaker, Maury Wills, Steve Young and Wilt Chamberlain. I believe we can make this happen. There are several important meetings scheduled within the next two weeks that show the promise of being the answer to raising the funds we need. If it becomes necessary to hire a professional fund-raiser, this will be done which will make it take a little bit longer. We are joining the Oderkirks to request an extension of time needed to make this foundation a reality. Now may I introduce Ms. Nancy Henderson. HNDRSON: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you on behalf of Big League Dreams Youth Foundation. I am an attorney, I work in Rancho Santa Fe, California, which is north of San Diego. I work for the firm of Colley & Chitchister. We specialize in the representation of non-profit organizations, representative organizations that are our clients are Desert Charities, the El Dorado Country Club, Pepperdine University, and many others. We are pleased to be representing Big League Dreams Youth Foundation. My purpose before you today is to give you an understanding of where we are in the formation of this non-profit organization, to show you that this is a real organization that is worthy of working with you. In April of this year, we formed Big League Dreams Youth Foundation as a California non-profit corporation by filing Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State. We have substantially completed an application to the Internal Revenue Service for an exemption for income taxation as an organization described in Internal Revenue 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVEI .. -:ENT AGENCY _ , . JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Code section 501(C)3, for those of you who are familiar with the Internal Revenue Code. As Mr. Hardy has indicated, we have been able to assemble an advisory board at this point of 39 committed individuals, some of whom are members of the community, others who are noted sports figures and those committed to the sports community. Those 39 members were listed by Mr. Hardy, so I won't relist them for you. From those individuals, we will be hand- picking a Board of Directors that we expect will initially consist of 8 members. Presently, we expect that Paul Jenkins will serve as Chairman of the Board, Mr. Hardy will serve as President of the organization, and we will determine from the other individuals selected for the governing board, as opposed to the advisory board, who should serve in the various official capacities of that board. On that note, I would like to encourage you to consider, since this organization - Big League Dreams Youth Foundation - would be working every closely with the City of Palm Desert, I would like you to encourage selecting somebody from the City Council, or appoint. somebody from the City to represent the City Council even if they are not City Council members to serve on the board. Certainly, as attorneys, we can draft the bylaws to provide you a mechanism whereby you have control over that appointment and therefore have some greater input into the actual governance of the organization. That said, I will be available for any questions you might have about the legal or tax issues concerning the foundation. ODEKIRK: Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Ron Odekirk and I'd like to summarize what we've said here. That is, that we believe that the direction of a non-profit organization has a lot of merit. We think that we'll get a good response from corporate sponsors and advertisers, particularly if we're benefiting the youth programs of the valley. We'll get better celebrity participation in some of our special events. We'll get good local participation. The plan that Mr. Hardy has outlined is to have a Board of Directors that will distribute the money to the youth programs of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. Were not asking you to change the agreement in any way except as to the dates and we're asking in an abundance of caution that we extend the dates that we're responsible to meet by one year on all of the dates that are called for in the agreement. We do expect that some of the things are going to happen on a shorter timetable and some important meetings are imminent and we're hopeful that we will have some positive results without 90 days. We're working hard and diligently with our supporters, corporate sponsors, etc. to find a quick solution and we would like to move forward as soon as we can on building this, but we do recognize that this park is going to be here for 30 years and the Odekirks are going to be, hopefully, involved in managing that and I can't think of better opportunities for my sons to be involved in managing a park that is benefitting the youth programs of this valley as opposed to doing it for some investors for profit. You're going to be asked to vote on our request to extend the dates and if you make the decision not to do that, that will tell us you don't want this to happen in this manner and we'll go back to forming the project as a profit -making organization. We'll go back to our investors 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVE., PMENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 CRITES: KINNON: CRITES: BENNETT: and we'll make it happen. We'd prefer that it happen in this manner if it meets your approval. We're available to answer any questions you might have. Is that the conclusion of the speakers on this issue? No. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Joann Kinnon. I live at the Pointe in Escobar in Palm Springs and as a voter, I keep hearing about how children of today are the future of tomorrow. It seems like a popular phrase that receives a lot of lip service and not much action. Now is the time for us to catch on and let's take advantage of this great project being offered to the community Our youth population is growing. I have four sons here and our overall population is growing. Let's plan ahead. Let's also teach the future voters of tomorrow that we care. Let's set an example for them to emulate for our future. And let's make a safe place for them to play ball. It seems like this is a perfect opportunity, when we're funding the youth charities within the organization and this will also be a perfect team plan. The City can team up with the sportspark and then we are teaming up with the youth. I think this is the time and after having three years of planning, let's don't shelve it right now. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to offer comment? Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilpersons. I'm not going to be such a skillful speaker but I'm going to go through a little information for you. My name is Brian Bennett, 43-717 Virginia Avenue, Palm Desert. I was born in Indio, California and I was raised here. Right now, I work with the Palm Desert Baseball Youth as an instructor and a coach. After talking with Rick Odekirk in a couple of meetings, I found it very advisable for me to speak with some of the other coaches and parents with kids in the league to see how they felt about having a sportspark in Palm Desert. A lot of the other coaches are friends of mine that I grew up with here in the valley. They're very interested. It's something that we, as kids, did not have here in the valley. We went out of town. I went to the San Diego School of Baseball, Arizona School of Baseball. We tried in 1985 to put a Desert Classic Baseball Camp together, which was very successful. It did not venture out. I would like to say on behalf of the 3,000 kids in Palm Desert Baseball Youth that you have their support, that they're behind you. Approximately 6,000 parents are behind you. They believe in this program and even more so now that it becomes a charitable organization where funds can be receipted and put into use for youth organizations for scholarships at the high school level, for youth camps and programs of high caliber and well put together camps, clinics, coaching certifications, umpiring certifications, different areas in which most people probably don't think. I want to give you a little bit of my background. I'm a graduate of Indio High School. I went one year at College of the Desert, went one year at San Moreno Valley College. I _8 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVI +....ENT AGENCY - JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * played five years in the minor league organization of the Houston Astros. I came back here because my parents live here in Palm Desert. It's a safe haven and of all the places I've been to, I've found this place is secure and the people here are more like family than any where else I've been. I've worked for the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic for the last ten years. I've been working with funding and the program that's•put out every year. I found that in raising money and putting myself with my athletic background ,into the community that one of the strongest points in our community throughout the valley are our youth sports organizations. Whether or not everyone here is an athlete or enjoys athletics, or cares about athletics, when you look at our youth, you want to put together programs that identify them as individuals and team players where they can grow and learn and teach. I found throughout my career in baseball - I did camps for San Diego School of Baseball, I did camps for the Houston Astros, I did camps for private individuals who had businesses that traveled throughout Southern California putting camps on - that one of the main focuses that we did was showing kids throughout limited experiences how important it is to work together, to teach yourself fundamentals and a skill. That it's not just the sports that are important, it's the skills of mathematics, English and literature that are going to pronounce your area of individuality in our society. My career is over and there wasn't a lot I could do about it but there is a lot I can do in my community to bring some of these educational tools to our kids at a younger age. It took me to the age of 20 to 21 to learn some of these fundamentals. I think that the sportspark is going to fund money, I hope it's regulated right and put into the right programs, and well -thought out, but it's going to put money into an area of our education that we're not going to get through our school system and I do thank you on behalf of all the parents, coaches and kids, for your support so far and I hope you continue doing so. Thank you for your time. CRITES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to offer comment? Questions or comments from members of the Redevelopment Agency Board? SPIEGEL: I guess I don't understand. I've been involved with the sportspark now for two years, along with Mr. Odekirk. First on the Planning Commission and now on the City Council, and it was first a profit -making operation that was being put together for adults, not for kids. It's not going to be a safe place, as I understand it, for kids to play ball. It's a place where adults play softball for a fee. And then, as I understand it - correct me, Mr. Odekirk if I'm wrong - the City is going to give Mr. Odekirk some money after he comes up with some money, about 2 or 3 times as much as Mr. Odekirk is going to come up with. Then, if it is not a successful program, the whole ballfield structure goes back to the City, as I understand it. Now, we're trying to change it into a non-profit kind of situation that hopefully that would be successful and hopefully monies would go back to the kids, but if it isn't successful then it goes back to the City. So if people have put over a million dollars and it isn't successful, it goes back to the City. It's difficult for me to equate what I just told you, if I'm correct with what I've been told tonight. Any comment? What don't you understand? We're talking about a safe place for kids to play ball, right? 9 MINUTES • PALM DESERT REDEVE.;J :. PMENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ODEKIRK: SPIEGEL: ODEKIRK: SPIEGEL: ODEKIRK: SPIEGEL: ODEKIRK: SPIEGEL: ODEKIRK: SNYDER: CRITES: ODEKIRK: No, two pieces. One the sportspark facility. It also will be used by local people For World Series kinds of things... For a variety of kinds of things. It's not primarily a little league park? is primarily an adult It's not primarily a little league park, no. Nor would it be under this proposal. And is it correct that if it's not successful, it goes back to the City? Right. Under any scenario. Whether it's profit, non-profit, whatever? Right. I too have been... Let's let Mr. Odekirk answer this question and sort of go on down the line. All I want to do is to make sure...there is one thing you're not clear about and it's this. We've undergone quite a change in philosophy in the last 6 months in that we're going to be doing a lot more youth things, a lot more youth leagues are going to be playing. We're not just going to be only playing our special events in there and in fact with the revenue going to the youth sports, they're going to want to be able to use our facility more often. It's not only an adult sportspark. In fact, we are building roller hockey pavilions, basketball pavilions, and these sports are predominately children's sports. So when you talk about being a safe place for children, that's what the park is designed is as a family atmosphere. Second of all, whether it is done for charity or it is for profit, you're correct. If we fail, if we don't do the job which your City expressed confidence that you would do. If we don't do the job, then the park would go to the City, that's correct. But people who are going to put up the money for donations, contributions, and corporations are going to do this, have to be sold that we're going to be a successful enterprise just the way that a private investor has to be sold that we're going to be private enterprise. It's the same kind of thing so make sure you understand where we're going. It's not just an adult park and it hasn't been that way for quite some time. In fact, when you approved us one of the things Mrs. Benson insisted on 10 I<d NUTES PALM DESERT REDEVE :.:ENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * and we agreed to do it long ago, is that we are offering some appropriate time, and those are your words, for youth. And we are doing that and our projections, as our research has gone on, we have found that we can allow the youth league to use our facility without charging them and make the necessary park to make this park successful based off the fact that they bring so many family members that eat food in your concessions. So those are all big parts of what we're doing. I wanted you to understand that. SNYDER: I've been on this project also since it started....Sorry. CRITES: Let's go down the line. KELLY: I wanted to clear my mind on a couple of things. Staff report names four items here and so far we're basically talking about an extension of time. Is it our intention to address these other issues tonight, or only an extension of time? ORTEGA: We can address all the other issues, however, we felt that the funding issue is the key here. Because, if for example, we're not willing to amend that time extension -we're about six months away from when the money is due.. BENSON: Six weeks.. ORTEGA: Excuse me, six weeks... the agreement right now is with Ron Odekirk. Then, if we're not willing to amend those provisions, then I think the existing agreement and any new agreement that is very much like it, would be in jeopardy. There are other issues, however. KELLY: One of my concerns is...I have several concerns. I'm mightily impressed by the proposed Board of Directors and I'm mightily impressed by all the athletes involved and having been active in sports all my life, I recognize all the names and all the folks and I go back as far as Mr. Hardy too and can remember when he played at SC, so I'm very much impressed with the Board and the idea. I guess what bothers me if that I never have felt comfortable with the financial arrangements and we go back to when it was potentially to be a for -profit organization, I felt it was an extremely poor business decision on the park of the City. It looks to me like in that financial agreement the City was giving everything and taking all the chances. But something that concerns me there is that as much money, according to the financial analysis, that the ballpark was going to make and the small amount of return that the City was going to actually get on their investment, it's amazing to me why you weren't able to come up with an investor. Something is wrong if you never did get an investor for that kind of an arrangement, so to target the City, you ought to let us hash it all out here and I'm not asking you any questions...to target the City of Palm Desert as not providing enough youth activities, I don't think any other city in the county even comes close to what we've done. We have four ball diamonds right out here that we've just completed and that's just a small 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEV14,RMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * part of what we've done, so I don't think that's right and I don't think you should be doing that. I realize that this kind of a complex would be a nice complex and I realize we can always use more money for youth activities and I have projects that I'm working on right now to provide more youth activities for our City also. But, it seems like and this is talking directly to the extension, if this is a good thing and we have a lot of really well -qualified people and it would appear to me that there ought to be - if anyone can raise the money to do this, this group ought to be able to do that - but what's the problem with even if we started from scratch, I don't understand why we need to give an extension. If you put the whole program together and it's a good program, we can approve it anytime down the line and then from a Council standpoint we have an opportunity to look at it from a fresh start and a fresh approach and I don't see where there's any penalty to this organization to do it that way. If indeed it is a good program. Basically, if it's a good program, I think it would be good for us to have an opportunity to take another look at the investment plan and agreement between the City and this new organization and its new concept. CRITES: Councilman Snyder. SNYDER: We have indeed been on this for a long time. There has been a major investment by the people who have been trying to create this program. We've gone through most of these things several times. One of the problems in the current agreement that is in existence which satisfied all the negative impacts that were created, we have an agreement that has now been accepted by all and the program has been approved as it has been submitted, i.e., the environmental problems, the traffic problems and so forth. Apparently, what we're asking for now is to rush into and have them get the funding and create it within the time element which of course they have the right to do because that is in existence now. Or whether we would rather have a justification of giving them time to organize the non-profit organization which will benefit the City far more than a lot of things. It will obviously create considerable, hopefully if it's run right and we must have believed that it would be because we approved the program as it originally was, that this would create a considerable amount of funding for many programs throughout the City. I would far rather have us investing our money in a program that is a non-profit program, it justifies even better our participation in it. The City will be protected because if it doesn't go, there will be a facility worth more than twice what we had into it, but it comes back to us so we're not jeopardizing any of our funding. I would like to see us approve the extension of the time limit tonight. That's all they're really asking for to give them the opportunity to create the none -profit organization and put this package together in such a way that it will benefit, not just a few people, but a very good number of people in this valley. BENSON: I'd just like a little bit further on what Councilman Kelly said in putting together the non-profit organization from what I see, and if the City is putting in 2.5 million in this and then the non-profit part of it is going to be given to 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVE I . - ZNT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * *-* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * charitable organizations throughout the valley, it's another example of Palm Desert funding this type of thing. And as he said we've done a lot here and all the other valley youth use our program and we're happy that we've been able to do it. But on this one the hearings were all heard, and they were lengthy hearings, that the Odekirks were going to put in one point two or three million and a few months after it was approved I saw in the paper they said it was such a good program and they had about $266,000 of their own money they were going to put into it which is a far cry from 1.2 million and so they were looking for investors. No investors, no concept of that, it was in the Desert Sun - a huge article - and no part of that was brought out during the hearings. Now this is a different concept than what the public was attuned to at the time they were doing it and you've had six months to get some other investors in there and I happen to agree with Dick that if it's such a good deal, I'm surprised that you lost your investors once it was approved. Or, you never had them to begin with, I don't know. But I certainly am not for any time extension on it. There's been enough done on this. CRITES: Well, we have a request from the developer to have a time extension to do this non-profit. The developer says that if we don't go that way, they'll do it the other way. And whether they do or whether they don't, is something we cannot know until that day arrives. They may have the money, they may not have it. It's just a matter of pure conjecture until the moment our deadlines arrives whether they do or they don't. I can't imagine anyone who was favorable or unfavorable to this park being unfavorable to the idea of potential profits going back to youth in this valley, both in this city and anywhere else, versus going to private investors. Now, that may be different from what we were proposed, but I can't imagine anyone having the tiniest bit of concern that the profits if any go back into the valley into youth sports. You might figure out why somebody would be opposed to it, but I'd sure like to hear it. BENSON: I didn't say I said being opposed... is that the City of Palm Desert is putting up the 2.5 million... CRITES: We're putting up the 2.5 million whether it's investors or whether it's non-profit. That doesn't change one nickel. Whatever the amount is, it doesn't change a nickel whether it's private investors or non-profit. So that doesn't change. Perhaps, one potential thing might be to do with this is to consider a time extension, coupled with a reopening of the financial package in terms of where profits go, who does what with whom and so on and so forth. KELLY: I think something that I could go along with would be a time extension based on re -doing the financial arrangements and also stipulating that it will be non-profit. In other words, those two items...if we just give a straight time extension here, then eight months down the line if they decide they want to do it for profit, there's nothing legally that we could do about it. For me, I would want that it was stipulated that it will be non-profit and we'd work the program all out with a new financial package. 13 1NUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE...: PPMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CRITES: Or, that the issues of the financial package are opened and are a matter of.... KELLY: They would be opened and they would be oriented towards the new non-profit organization where those monies were going to go so that I think Councilmember Benson has a concern about, OK it's going to be non-profit, we're going to make some money for the youth and if we're going to put - up the amount of money that we're going to put in, it's a lot more than 2.5 million dollars, that we would want to have a say in how we did that and where that went. And it would be a whole different financial package. Now it's a great idea that we have here. I think what we need to do if we're going to give a time extension is to make sure that we're making the best decision for our citizens about how we handle that money, where it's going to go, and we do it. I think it needs to be stipulated it's a non-profit organization, if we give a time extension, and we open up the financial package. SNYDER: Would you be willing to consider a motion setting forth that we will indeed agree to the one- year time extension, provided that the program is indeed now a non-profit program and the time extension is based upon the fact that it is now a time extension program and that the staff will work with those people clarifying any items relative to the economic financial program to assure that the monies are properly expended, and so forth. CRITES: Before we place a motion...before the Chair rules that a motion is in order, I want to make sure that the members of the Agency Board have had ample opportunity for discussion on this issue. SPIEGEL: I'm glad to hear that the children are going to be able to use the facility. I'd like to have a better idea of what percentage of time they're going to have the facility to play. I agree if the City of Palm Desert is putting up 2/3 or more of the monies that there should be a consideration by the developer of profitable monies and where they go in the City of Palm Desert to various Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs and so on. Because we're not suggesting that some monies shouldn't go to other cities, but certainly the majority of it should go to the City of Palm Desert. And I would like to see that before I vote. CRITES: Let me get back to these issues. You would like to see...you need to see what before you vote? SPIEGEL: I'd like to see how much time the kids are going to be able to use the park. In other words, it was all adult. It was all adults and now there's roller hockey and that kind of stuff. We don't have a roller hockey kind of place here in Palm Desert - that would be good. I'd like to find out how much time the kids are going to have a chance to use it versus the adults and I'd also like to find out, of the profits what percentage are going to children's charities in the City of Palm Desert. 1.4 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVEI ANT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * ;r * * * * * * * CRITES: OK, your proposal would be then to give staff direction to work on the items mentioned by Councilmember Kelly, to include in that a synopsis of the issues about use and to bring all of that back wrapped up for inclusion into a motion for potential extension of time. Is that a fair summation ? KELLY: And what, realistically, what are we actually investing? Because if this was a great thing for youth, depending on what we're investing, we need to say hey if we invested that for youth activities in another way, what would we do with it? What would it buy? So we need to know how much we're really talking about from the City and what is it really going to do for youth. And is that going to be.... ORTEGA: Mr. Chairman, if that's what you want to consider then can I discuss maybe something different because our concern really here is that on July 31st also expires the time frame within which we can present them with an alternate site. So if we're going to look at all these things, what I would rather do is that the developer and we agree that that time frame for us presenting them an alternate site and a different agreement is expired say for 6 months... CRITES: Extended ORTEGA: ...extended until we can work out the deal. Because otherwise we have no choice but to bring the current agreement. KELLY: I'm assuming that if we give a time extension that we're talking about the Cook Street location. CRITES; He's asking for a time extension before we have to make the decision between the two. Otherwise, that has to be done... KELLY: I'm concerned that I want to be sure that it goes on Cook Street. BENSON: We've got separate items. ORTEGA: The real problem is that pursuant to 1290, we have to start the process with an agreement now unless we get an extension. SPIEGEL: Can we separate the two? Can we separate the location and vote on that tonight? And continue.... ORTEGA: No, you do not have an agreement on Cook Street before you. That's my problem. And you cannot have an agreement on Cook Street before you until we go through a lengthy process. So if we're going to consider an agreement on Cook Street on a different timeframe than we have proposed, then I think what we all need to agree on is 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVL,;, . iPMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * that that timeframe is now in the agreement within which we must present them with an alternate site is extended, either for an indefinite period of time or a definite period of time. And then we can deal with all these other issues. SNYDER: Other than that, 1290 under the Redevelopment Act catches us... SPIEGEL: How much time do you need? ORTEGA: Well, if we're going to look at a totally different structure and all those other issues, you know, we had frankly analyzed strictly a private for -profit venture that had certain assumptions about sales, that had certain assumptions about... ODEKIRK: Excuse me, we can cut this short, I think We're talking about all the things that we're not interested in doing. So let's let you know what our position is. I thought we had made it clear, but apparently we hadn't made it very clear what we were trying to do. We've been working on this under the position for 2 1/2 years. Rick brought this project to you with a group of investors intact, contrary to what somebody said here, we had the investors, we had the money to do this project. I don't like somebody implying that we were dishonest, because we're not. Through the delays the City caused us, and we're not complaining, we've cooperated with the City, but over 3 changes of location and 2 1/2 years of time it's natural that some of those investors disappeared. They went elsewhere. Now we finally got the approval on December 22nd for the site on Portola. Now we knew we were going to be moved and there was no question in our mind that our location is going to be on Cook Street. When we finally got an approved agreement and a lease, Mr. Ortega has been very cooperative in trying to revise the agreement to accommodate us to what we need to do without making any changes in the terms, the City...what we had proposed today was not going to affect the City's investment, it wasn't going to affect their return, we've already gone through those hearings as you know a number of times and the City is not giving the money, they're lending money. They're not giving the land, they're getting income from it. Refresh your memory, our projections show the City is going to be getting better than $180,000 a year in interest and debt repayment on the 3 million dollar loan that they're putting in. These delays have cost us a lot of time and money. The cost of this project has gone up considerably in that 2 1/2 years time. Our investment group has got to put a million and a half dollars in it. And you're not the only ones taking the risk. Our people are taking the first risk and if we lose, and we've put up a substantial amount of our money in this deal, if this deal doesn't work and we're not successful in making it work, we lose first. The City doesn't lose. Secondly, the City is sharing in the revenues of this park through the lease income and we've got an agreement with you and we're not asking you to change any of those agreements. We came to you with what we thought an honorable plan to say "we're going to take less from this deal and we've got a group of corporate sponsors and people that want to make this a 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE: .ENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CRITES: ODEKIRK: CRITES: ODEKIRK: non-profit organization." We like that concept but apparently you don't. We're not going to go back and open up hearings and go through the same thing we went through for 2 1/2 years. We're not going to go back and re -negotiate the deal. If you don't like what we're doing as a non-profit organization, then all I'm asking to do is be fair. We stood by for 2 1/2 years of delays. Now, since January we've been working down a road that we thought was the right direction. We talked a lot to staff members, we talked a lot to City Council people individually. We see a good project to do as a non-profit where the money, the profits, go to the youth programs. We thought we were heading in the right direction. Apparently, we haven't been because now there's a lot of discussion that you don't like the deal. I'm going to ask you to do this. We've wasted four months of time and considerable legal fees to make this a non-profit organization. If you don't feel kindly to opening up to an extension of time to let that happen, we're not going to take a chance on opening this door again and having 100 people come in here that don't want kids in their neighborhood. So I'm going to tell you what I'd like to do. No one has talked about opening public hearings. Well, you're talking about changing the deal. We want the City to know if you change this deal, how much money we're going to get out of this and change the whole terms of the deal. We've made a deal. No one said the "whole terms of the deal". We spoke specifically about looking again at the finance package if indeed you want to change the mechanism by which to do it. And...let me finish...the fact that you're asking for us to commit funds longer than our agreement had and to keep those funds available. This body has every right in exchange for that to ask for whatever they choose. You have every right to say "no" to that. But do not deny this body the right to consider those matters when you're asking for us to consider a major change in what we're doing. Indeed, when normally someone comes to us and says "here's what we're going to do" and we say "here's the date", when that date comes that date comes. You're asking for this to be delayed..fair enough. We're asking for certain considerations...fair enough. You have the right to say "no"...fair enough. Well, OK. I just didn't want the City Council to waste a lot of time. If I'm reading the Agency correctly, there is some opposition to doing this deal the way we're requested and all we really requested was an extension. We don't want to open the door to re -negotiating anything and we're not changing the deal with the City. The City comes first. The lease on the land comes first. The loan payments come first and whatever is left over goes either to a group of investors that we will put together, or goes to a non-profit organization. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVL JPMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORTEGA: CRITES: ORTEGA: CRITES: Now, maybe we asked for too long. If you think that a year extension is causing problems with your funding then we understand. In fairness, we would say this. We've gone down the road here since December, in a direction we thought we were on the right road. If you don't feel comfortable making an extension of a year, then tell us what you would be comfortable with and we'll see if we can put the deal together on the non-profit organization as we talked about. But if it's too short a time, I will ask you this. If you don't like the deal the way we've proposed, give us a little more time to go back to some of our original investors. We wasted four months apparently in trying to put this together and it's going to take another 3-4 months to put the money together. On a non-profit organization, I can't do it by July 31 st. Be fair with us, though, we stood by for 2 1/2 years. Give us a little time to come up with a million and a half dollars. If you want us to do it as a non-profit organization, we need more time than we do as a private investment deal. I don't want to change the deal. I don't want to go through a lot of hearings on that and more delays. We struck the deal with the City we thought was a fair deal and I want to either work on behalf of the youth organizations and my sons want to work on their behalf, and do it that way, or we'll got back to the private investors and we'll go through with the deal we said we would. We thought we were doing the right thing, but if it's not striking you the right way, if you don't think the year's extension is proper, tell us what you think is and we'll try to make it happen. Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of clarification. Our intention was to bring you an agreement on a different site, which by itself is going to require a public hearing. And, as you know, in that public hearing all of the issues, including the loan issue, including the deal, can be brought out. So especially if we were going to look at new financial issues, those would be brought out at a public hearing so there is no let us not fancy ourselves and say we're not subject to another public hearing because we will be. We will be subject to another public hearing no matter what we do this evening. No. if you decide we're not going to offer a different site, or.. If we offer them the Cook Street site, we will be subject to that hearing? ORTEGA: Correct. ODEKIRK: Can I ask a question of that? If you offer us the other site, which has been our understanding for some time and basically the same terms and agreement was going to be offered to us, do we have any assurance that once you've done that now we're off the Portola site. Is there a chance that agreement wouldn't be approved, on the Cook Street site? You say we're going to be subject to a public hearing which we don't mind going through but I don't know the purpose because we negotiated our deal. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE. .ENT AGENCY N _ ,:., NE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CRITES: When we did this last year, that issue that this had to be a part of this process has been known to everybody ever since that. This is not something new. We, by law, that's something we have to do by Redevelopment law. We have to finally do that...and we have to approve that site. KELLY: I think there's enough attorneys here that will tell you can't go through a public hearing and have it with a pre -conceived decision. I mean, anything can happen. ODEKIRK: Our understanding was that we were approved for a site. If it's not Portola, it's Cook Street. That was our understanding, that's all. ODEKIRK: We're approved on Portola until you move us to Cook Street. If we don't get approved on Cook Street, we have approval on Portola. That's our understanding and that's what it reads legally. That's what he's saying. SPIEGEL: I've got a question for staff. To change it from a profit to a non-profit kind of business - does that require a public hearing? ORTEGA: In this context, yes. Because the law that was passed that became effective January 1, 1994, now requires to have for the public all of the deal points. Those deal points include the type of entity that we'd be doing business with, so basically the loan provisions, the lease provisions and all of that...so the answer is yes. SPIEGEL: So if the decision is to go with non-profit, there's got to be a hearing anyway. So the location can be at the same time, right? ORTEGA: There's got to be a public hearing on the new site in any case. SPIEGEL: Yeah, but there also has to be a public hearing on the non-profit, so both could be accomplished at the same time. ORTEGA: If you wanted to keep the current site but just change the non-profit and all that, yes, we'd have to have another public hearing because we're changing the deal points that were subject of the analysis which the whole public had a chance to review. ODEKIRK: Without an extension, there is no non-profit. We won't do it and I promise you I'll be back here by July 31 with an investor deal and we'll shut out the youth sports. We'll do it this way. I'm not going to lose the project. I assure you of that. OK, that's what's going to happen, but tonight I want a gesture, what direction do you want me to go? It's that simple, if you want me to go non-profit and serve Palm Desert youth sports, you'll give me the time to do it. If you don't want that to happen, you make your decision and we'll live by that and our sports complex will be funded by July 31. That's all. 19 MINUTES - PALM DESERT REDEV1„ )PMENT AGENCY .. JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KELLY: But you do understand. We have to go through the public hearing process... ODEKIRK: I have no problem in going through that. I'm not giving up my rights on Portola until I'm approved on Cook Street. I understand that. So once I get approved on Cook, we relinquish Portola. That's all. KELLY: But a little problem....Mr. Odekirk just said he's not going through public hearings anymore. ODEKIRK: No, we said we're not going to re -do the financial deal. Because it sounded to me, Mr. Kelly, like you wanted to re -open the financial examination and we won't do that, that's all. I'm not going to change the deal we have with you. If we have to go through a public hearing, we have to. But we don't want to be left out in limbo, you understand. We made a deal with the City Council, that we were approved on Portola. And the only way we would be moved off of that would be if we had approval on the Cook Street. That's only fair. In any event, after 2 1/2 years of us being patient, be a little patient with us and tell us what you want us to do. If you want us to do the deal in 90 days, then give us a couple of more weeks, we'll do our best. If you say no you're not going to go beyond July 31, then so be it. But try to be fair with us. CRITES: Comments from the Agency Board? SPIEGEL: I don't want to be the big bad wolf and turn them down. It's for kids, you know, basically. But the way it's being put, and I can understand that BENSON: During the other hearings and all the youth that were here en masse because they needed the fields, they needed all of this, and even then it wasn't sure how much time they were going to get and now I just heard them say they wouldn't give them any. Well, he just said it would go back if they take out the youth sports....what did he say? ODEKIRK: We won't give the money to the youth programs, we'll give it to investors. We're still going to accommodate the youth programs, they just don't get the money. They're going to play there anyway. BENSON: All right, I'll stand corrected. But that's what I thought I heard. I still think the public hearing they were under a different impression than it is now and they knew that they had six months to get the money in. The last six months, up till July 31, and they can get it in 90 days, I think there's something funny here. CRITES: We need a motion to be placed on the floor so that .... SNYDER: I'll make a motion that we extend the deadline date for this program from July 31, 1995 to July 31, 1996, and that the staff will put together a package setting forth the program as it 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE .ENT AGENCY:. JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * currently is and whatever changes would have to be made to make this program a non-profit organization wherein the funds would be directed to youth activities in the valley and that because of our investment, we will have participation in the method and the manner in which that feat is accomplished. CRITES: There is a motion, is there a second? There being no second, the Chair is available for another motion. SPIEGEL: I have a question of staff. Is it possible for us to give a shorter extension because we've got to have a public hearing because everyone agrees that Cook Street is a better location from the City's standpoint. And we also have to have a public hearing because we're going from a profit to a non-profit organization. Is that correct what I just said. ORTEGA: That would be correct, yes. SPIEGEL: Would it be possible to give an extension to, like the first meeting in September, which is a couple of months off. You're going to have to have the public hearing anyway so to give a year extension without having it that's OK,we've had the public hearing and we've all voted on it, it's too long. But could we put it together by the first meeting in September, have the public hearing on Cook Street, on non-profit, and then take a look at whatever extension they want for...to raise the money. ORTEGA: If the deal points are not going to change. By deal points I mean, it is still a loan, it still has a certain interest rate, there's still the same lease rate, and all we're doing is with a different entity as opposed to the Odekirks, that is provided for in the current agreement. All they would have to do is submit to us the form of the non-profit, whatever statements we needed to look at, and it would be at our sole discretion whether we would allow the transfer to non- profit. However, if any of the deal points are going to change then I'm afraid we don't have time to do that negotiation and still meet the date that we have to meet in order for us to change the site. That's our problem right now. Basically, we're run out of time. SPIEGEL: Well, that's why I'm asking. Can we have an extension to the first meeting in September? ORTEGA: Yes, but I also think they would need to agree to give us an extension on the date on which we must present them with an alternate site. Otherwise, we have no choice but to present them with an alternate site and we must start that process now. BENSON: They have said they don't want to change the deal points on it. If it's a non-profit, they might have to change. SPIEGEL: You mean how much we put up and they put up kind of thing? 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVI._;;..)PMENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * '* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 ERWIN: CRITES: ORTEGA: SNYDER: ODEKIRK: CRITES: CRANDALL: SNYDER: ODEKIRK: ORTEGA: KELLY: ORTEGA: Well, I'll make a motion to move everything to the first meeting in September and give them the extension to the first meeting in September and then go through the public hearing and whole works again. I think you need to make this contingent upon them agreeing to waive any rights they have to insist on the operative dates. If they don't waive anything, I think you have a self-destruct provision going back to Portola. There does not appear to be a willingness to give a year. Then perhaps a motion that gives an extension on the issue of time for funding, or some shorter period of time, would be appropriate. They are now due July 31, right? July 31 kicks off two dates. One they must have the money, or two, we must have presented an alternate site by August 1. I'll modify my motion for six months. Would six months be satisfactory to you folks? We have no problem with that, but we still have to have the public hearing on Cook Street and on non-profit. ...if everyone agreed to let that whole thing slide.... Can I respond to that? Just a quick answer. A quick answer would be this...we'll accept a six month extension and we'll do our very best to get the non-profit organization formed. We'll know within 90 days whether that's going to work. We've got some important meetings with some of our contributors and some corporate sponsors. If it's going to take longer than that, then we'll stop that process and meet the six-month deadline. But I don't want to change the agreement. Right now, it's in the name of Ronald and Richard Odekirk. You have the right at the time that's done to approve an assignment of that agreement. If we are successful in making the non-profit thing happen, we'll come to you and say it's done and here is the organization and here is the money, would you approve and assignment to a non-profit organization and you can do without a public hearing. You can do that by virtue of the agreement. Am I right, Carlos? Except if we're going to move the site we need a public hearing anyway. I didn't hear the answer.. If we're going to move the site, we need a public hearing regardless. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEV1 1.. SENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * SNYDER: But that public hearing would only pertain to moving the site. ORTEGA: No, we will have to do a new report and all of the deal points are up for discussion. This is a new deal on a new site. It's a completely new deal. We have to do a 1290 report all over again. ODEKIRK: Carlos, I thought we talked that if we didn't change any of the fmancial terms and we just had an entity. Now, all along it's been in the name of Ron and Rich Odekirk, and its been well known by everybody that we were forming a company, a corporation of investors, now that's been well known. You said to me and staff did, that at the time we had the company formed and the money together that the City Council could approve an assignment to that corporation with the money without going to a public hearing. ORTEGA: If they stay on Portola. Let's assume that we did not offer them an alternate site and they stayed on Portola. The current agreement allows us to look at an entity other than Odekirk. Allows them a substitution as long as we approve that substitution. OK, no public hearing required because it's already part of the public hearing. That's what the agreement contains. If we offer them an agreement on a different site, it requires a public hearing and it requires a new report and notification pursuant to 1290. CRITES: Right, you two are talking about two different things. And in that new report, that new 1290, the language would probably say the same thing that we could by our choice allow them to change that and then at the time we did that, that could be done without a public hearing. So it's identical to what it is on Portola unless we change something. Does that help muddy the waters? ODEKIRK: Yes. totally. But that's fine. CRITES: Now. Councilman Snyder, excuse me...Agency Board Member Snyder, would you care to, or were you about to make a motion? SNYDER: What I'm trying to do is to recognize that we, as a council and as a board member, approved a program with these people that had all of the economics considered and the program was finally, through many difficult hearings, approved and they had a program to go ahead on. At our urging, we wanted to move it from Portola to Cook Street. We said if we can put together that on Cook Street, everything else remains the same. We'll just put the program down there. What we're trying to do now is to put the program in Cook Street, I think we're still trying to keep the same financial arrangements. The only difference being is whether it would be a program for hire, or a program for non-profit. They have requested time to put together the non-profit organization. They've also said that if w can't give them that time they'll go ahead and put it back and keep it as the program was already approved for them, and bring their investors back into it. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVI. IPMENT AGENCY : -JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KELLY: CRITES: ODEKIRK: SPIEGEL: ODEKIRK: CRITES: SNYDER: KELLY: SPIEGEL: ORTEGA: I think the decision we're faced with is which way do we want this program to go? Non- profit or as profit to the investors? I was trying to find a way to put the program in a non- profit program so that all the rest of our activities we receive financial remuneration for, we would still get our money back. So my motion had been to extend the program, extend the..our proposal...our action long enough for them to put together a non-profit program, rather than an investor program. If that's unsatisfactory to the council then I suppose we should say we will not give them an extension and let them go ahead with the investors and go ahead as it has already been approved. To me the only change we're making is whether it's non-profit or profit organization. I felt strongly toward the non-profit organization and I made a motion to extend the program long enough for them to put together the non-profit organization. Restate it... The motion is that with the concurrence of the applicant, that the time for making a decision. necessary or for the holding of public hearings and other matters necessary for transferring the rights to Cook Street be extended for a period of....in that case you can insert one day, one year, six months or whatever else it would be. And that's the motion period. That would do it. That way we're not.... Six months? Is that acceptable? I'll so move. I was not stepping up to answer councilman's question, I was stepping up to urge that Mr. Erwin's suggestion of contingency of moving the Section 4 business up as well, everything should be extended. I'm not sure that's clear in the motion. That is the intention of the motion. Everything would be extended... The motion is to grant an extension of six months and no other....no other.... Well, that's right. I've got to ask Mr. Ortega, can I include in there the relocation to Cook Street and you said it's got to be a public hearing so I can't, correct? What we suggest is that we deal with the current agreement because that's what you can amend or not amend. Here's what I would recommend. Let me try something, a motion...that you extend the timeframe within which the developer can provide the money to six months and that is contingent upon all other operative dates also being extended by the same time. Dave, is that correct? SNYDER: OK, who's going to make the motion? Carlos can't make a motion. 24 MINUTES • PALM DESERT REDEVE .ENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * *-* * * * * * * * _ JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORTEGA: Now we're going to suggest that as a motion, you have to make it. BENSON: And at the end, it can either be for -profit or non-profit. ORTEGA: No, what happens is then, them having given us the chance to present them with a new agreement, we will do so and we will hear that at a public hearing. And it will contain the new date for when they bring the money, it will contain all the other new dates extended by six months. BENSON: But for what though, non-profit or profit? Either one? ORTEGA: If all they want to do is change from Odekirk to non-profit, we will include that. If we're going to change any other deal terms with regard to lease with regard to profits, all of that, we need to see what they have in mind. Otherwise, all we're going to do is have the ability to substitute a non-profit for Ron Odekirk, that's all. SPIEGEL: But we can't we request to find out how much of the non-profit profit goes to the kids of Palm Desert vs. the valley. CRITES: We have the right to accept, or not accept, a change in ownership. And if someone came to me with a request to change ownership, we have the right to inquire as to why we should say yes. Included in that why is all the stuff about who does what to whom. SPIEGEL: So. we talking about a six month extension and then as it progresses, the other things happen. OK, what's the motion? SNYDER: Did you get the motion from Carlos? GILLIGAN: I got the motion, but who made it? CRITES: Sheila, would you like to read that motion back? GILLIGAN: Someone moved to extend the timeframe within which the developer can provide the month to six months and that all other operative dates will be extended for the same time. CRITES: And this motion only takes effect with the agreement of the developer. Our motion is only valid if they agree. Otherwise, it isn't. SPIEGEL: So the question is, does the developer agree to it? CRITES: We can pass this with that in there and they can say yes or not whenever they want to or not pass it as the case may be. - 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEV% JPMENT AGENCY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SPIEGEL: Is there a second? GILLIGAN: Who made the motion? CRITES: Councilman Snyder made the motion. Councilman Spiegel seconded the motion. Is there further discussion? There being none, a vote is in order. GILLIGAN: Motion CRITES: KELLY: CRITES: ODEKIRK: no. carried by a 4-1 vote with Member Benson voting Now, I have for the Odekirks one other issue I would like to get accomplished while we're all here on this issue. We have four items listed on the staff report. Item 1 is, I think, our good faith agreement that if we moved to Cook, we would pick up changes in infrastructure costs. I think that's something we agreed to and unless someone here wishes to disagree, then so be it. Item 2 we just talked about in terms of one year or not one year. Item 3, we've just extended for six months. Item 4, and that's one that I tried to be clear with you all the time and that is, that as far as this one member of the Agency Board is concerned, that we will continue to have interest in the development of the project and all the rest of those things that we think are necessary for appropriate financial scrutiny, not because of you, not because of anything else, but because it's public money and it's necessary, at least from this one member's bias, that we keep a very good eye on that given things that have happened in other communities and so on and so forth. Now, I understand that's not the direction you would like, but that's an issue in terms of prevailing wage and all those things that I've said "hey, you guys are going to have to figure that out" from day one. And this is one place at least and if my colleagues all disagree, that I don't find any wiggle room as a public servant representing the citizens of Palm Desert. I don't either. Is that agreement all the way across? At least you don't have to wonder about... We understand. But I would like to say that we've appreciated Carlos' efforts in this regard and that is that we expect you to protect the public's money but there's sometimes an attorney can change a word to make the deal work, without injuring any of your protections and we 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVEI LNT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * would hope that in good faith, that effort is being made. Because we're dealing with law firms that try to make this prevailing wage issue... CRITES: I'm sure it is, but note that the bottom line for this body is the first priority is the sanctity of the public funds. ODEKIRK: We understand. We're not asking you to take a risk on that. CRITES: All right, that way we don't have to come back to that as a separate item, and so onand so forth. X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9: United States of America v. Real Property, etc., et al., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 94-56491. RDA v. Bonnett, Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. 079025. B. AGENCY COUNSEL Absent C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEYE_: , PMENT AGENCY JUNE 8, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Benson, second by Snyder, and unanimous vote of the Agency Board, Chairman Crites adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 8:20 p.m. for the reasons stated by the City Attorney. He reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. and immediately adjourned announcing no action from the Session. ATTEST: ,72 SHEILA R. GIfLIGAN, SS"RETARY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEV OPMENT AGENCY UFORD X CRITES, CHAIRMAN 7 28