Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-14MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Walter H. Snyder convened the meeting at 5:40 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Member Jean M. Benson Member Richard S. Kelly Vice Chairman Walter H. Snyder Member Robert A. Spiegel Excused Absence: Chairman Buford A. Crites Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/RDA Executive Director Ramon A. Diaz, Acting City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Agency Secretary Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services Paul S. Gibson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code Compliance Phil Drell, Acting Director of Community Development Lisa Constande, Environmental Conservation Manager Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING bra- iit BER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of August 24, 1995. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AG1rNCY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, and 13. Rec: Approve as presented. C. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Signage Program (Phase III of the Civic Center Park) - Contract No. R08360. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion on the subject project. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Professional Services Contracts for the Section Four Golf Course. Rec: Removed from Consent Calendar. See Section VI, Consent Items Held Over, for Agency Board action. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for Purposes of Inspecting a Golf Course Development. Rec: Removed from Consent Calendar. See Section VI, Consent Items Held Over, for Agency Board action. Vice Chairman Snyder asked that Items D and E be removed for separate discussion under Section VI, Consent Items held Over. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Spiegel, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote. V. RESOLUTIONS None 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING r t A rav BER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Professional Services Contracts for the Section Four Golf Course. THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS ITEM Kra WHS Vice Chairman Walter H. Snyder MR Mike Rowe CLO Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Carlos Ortega RA Project Administrator Rudy Acosta JMB Redevelopment Agency Board Member Jean M. Benson RSK Redevelopment Agency Board Member Richard S. Kelly RAS Redevelopment Agency Board Member Robert A. Spiegel SRG Agency Secretary Sheila R. Gilligan WHS The next item, Consent Items Held Over...the first item held over is Item D. I believe we have Mike Rowe. MR Honorable Mayor Pro-Tem and Councilmembers. My name is Mike Rowe. I'm representing The Keith Companies. I'm the Division Manager of the offices at 41-865 Boardwalk in Palm Desert. This is not really the time that I'd like to stand up and speak in front of you, there are other opportunities in my field to be able to address this board. There is something that needs to be stated for the record in regards to this item that we're talking about here and specifically on the engineering segment of that item not to the landscaping issues, the landscape architects. There was a proposal, I want to give you a little history about how the...this whole ordeal came to fruition. There was a request for qualifications sent to our offices on August the 8th. It was to be returned in one week, on August 14th. That date was continued to August 16th giving a little bit more time to prepare these packets. Then I was calling after a two -week period to see how the process was proceeding, and one of the firms that is awarded, that was awarded one of the contracts, let us know that the firms had already been selected. This was on August 28th. We then made some inquiries as to how this process took place and especially the...I guess the speedy timing of it, and we found that the...I guess, the process took place with the short listing of three of the firms and then the interviews of those firms. After the interview of those firms, two of those firms were selected to give proposals on this amount of work and then those firms were then awarded or the decision to award those firms was made by August 25th. I've put calls into the Redevelopment Agency as well as the Golf Dimensions who was the author of the RFQ. I got a response back from Carlos of the Redevelopment Agency and tried to request the format that the decisions were made. I had...just got a call from the Golf Dimensions 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING bra r i+1BER 14, 1995 « * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * « * * « * * * * * Company this morning in regards to how the selection process was taking place, and I have not received any formal notification to date of how and why and that the firms who were and were not selected based upon their recommendation. In conversations with the staff of the City Engineering department, I found out that the firms that were selected to receive the RFQ's were all qualified to do this work. The work in question is in regards to the golf course improvement plans, some streets, and some reclaimed water lines. The interview process occurring within two weeks after a review of the qualifications of qualified firms I think was rather quick and the final, I guess, icing on the cake was to have the fees negotiated without having the fees being a criteria in the selection of the firms to do this type of work. The firms that were selected were Palm Desert firms, I'm sorry Palm Springs firms. The firms that were not even short listed were all Palm Desert firms. We would like to have an opportunity obviously to be able to give a fair shake and the qualification process and selection process of being able to do this work for the City. We have been in business for 12 years, myself personally have been working with the company for nine years. I've worked on numerous golf courses and know exactly how the process needs to be put together. I have yet to work on a golf course to where there is a combination of engineering efforts in regards to the preparation of the construction drawings for this type of project. My understanding now is there are three firms. The first firm that got the grading contract which was not a public bid, the other two firms are now working on one portion of the street, one portion of the reclaimed water line. Both of these, both of these items could be done by the same firm for obvious expedience and more than likely a more competitive fee. I'm not sure if...I'm not really here to argue the case. I would just like to be able to not have special consideration but at least honest consideration and fair consideration in the efforts of being able to do this work for the City of Palm Desert. We have done work for the City of Palm Desert. We are in the process right now of doing work for the City of Palm Desert. When we proposed for the work with the City for public jobs, we always have a proposal that has a fee associated to it that was based upon using qualified firms. We have never had our qualifications denied for any of the projects here in the Coachella Valley. We are in the process of doing the street widening for Highway 111. We were asked specifically not to give qualifications on both items, only on one item, even though it was obviously, each one of the firms was qualified to do both. In closing, I would just like to have reconsideration of the engineering effort in this project for the City's benefit as well as for everybody else that has an opportunity to bid on this job to make sure that...I know we have the qualifications, I know they have the qualifications, but as a city we're looking at this from an economic standpoint as being... having the best firm with the best fee doing the project using public funds. Thank you. WHS Mr. Ortega, would you care to comment on this matter? CLO Yes, Mr. Chairman, Rudy, who is the staff person who handled the project, and our consultant is here. They will explain to you what the process was and how the firms were recommended for selection. 4 Ms PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * * RA Mayor and members of the City Council...this will be a little drawn out, so bear with me. It has been the City of Palm Desert's policy since 1990 when the Mini -Brooks bill was adopted, which is a State Government Code Chapter 10, 45.25, to follow what is known as a QBS, Qualifications Based Selection process when it comes to awarding contracts to professional design services, and that includes engineers, Landscape architects, architects, construction management services, project management services. What QBS is is basically is selection based upon competence and not based upon the lowest price. Initially, I believe the legislative action was a Federal Government action back in as far back as 1972. And California adopted it in 1990 and renamed it the Mini -Brooks bill. But essentially what the QBS selection process requires public agencies to do when selecting professional services is to number one identify the scope of work, number two establish a project timeframe and an established budget, this is an estimate at this time, generate a list of qualified candidates and send out RFQ's which are Requests for Qualifications. Now, throughout out years of working with public works projects here, I think we have a very good idea of which firms are qualified and which firms have strengths in particular areas. All the firms that we selected, including Mr. Rowe's firm, were all deemed qualified; otherwise, we would not have listed them for a Request for Qualifications. Once the City mails out the Requests for Qualifications, if the firms are interested in participating, they then generate a statement of qualifications, and those are received by a particular deadline. I won't argue that the time was short on this particular process. We would love to have had another week or two to give that, but from the other side of the coin, I've been in the private industry. Types of information requested in RFQ's are the type of information that you have on a shelf ready to fire out in a firm's brochure. And then what you do is you enhance and embellish particular information that will help you win the contract for a particular project. Once the staff receives the statements of qualifications, we evaluate the firms based upon an evaluation criteria that was included in each firm's packet so that each firm will know what particular areas we are going to be looking for their strengths in. And this may include capabilities, location, prior project experience, and very important, references. Once we have established a ranking, then QBS directs us to interview, solicit interviews with the top rated firms only. And the purpose of that interview is to establish whether indeed you still have the same comfort level with that particular firm as you did in ranking their proposal or their statement of qualifications. If you still feel comfortable with that particular firm, then at that time you can request a fee proposal for the scope of services. Until that point you cannot ask for fees. You cannot ask for fees from other firms that are not ranked as high because the purpose of this is not to prejudice your opinion on the best qualified firm, knowing that there might be a lower price out there. Once you negotiate a price and you feel that you have negotiated a fair and reasonable price for the scope of services as outlined in the RFQ, then at that time you make your recommendation to execute a contract with that successful candidate. If you are not successful or comfortable with that fee that they have given you, then at that time you have the option to sever negotiations with that top rated firm and to on to number two and so on and so forth. The reason we have not officially notified the unsuccessful candidates is because we do not feel that it is a done deal until we see the green dots up here at the Agency Board meeting, and we feel 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING br r i i 4BER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * it would be premature for us to send out "thank you for participating in our process" letters "however, you were unsuccessful" until it's a done deal. And subsequent to that then we issue contract documents to be executed. In this particular process here, the evaluation criteria was listed on the report or on the RFQ, so I'm a little confused as to the lack of understanding on that. As for the possible disadvantages of us having to spread the work out, I think that, during the summer we established through the Section 4 Committee that we recognize that fragmenting contracts would cost more work. We were leery that it would cost more in terms of price also. But we were willing to take that chance because we wanted to maximize opportunities for local firms to participate in the Section 4 project. Understand that the last several years has caused a down -sizing of a great majority of our local design firms which severely limits their capabilities to tackle large- scale projects. So in answer to that, we decided to be a little bit more creative and come up with demarkation points within the different disciplines that we thought would be workable in terms of coordination and workable in terms of price to maximize the opportunities for our locals to participate. So there's no argument that it would be easier for myself or the project management team to deal with one firm in landscaping and one firm in engineering and so on and so forth. But we accepted that challenge, and contrary to our fears of the costs, we are experiencing I guess great results in the fees that have been proposed as all of the contracts that we have on this Agenda and this particular staff report tonight as well as the three others that were approved on August 24th are in the low range of our estimated fees. So we feel rather proud and rather successful that we have been able to negotiate all our prices in the low range. We have great enthusiasm from our locals in being able to participate in this project. WHS Thank you, Rudy, good explanation. Any questions of Rudy by the Council? JMB Who all is on the Section 4 Committee? RD Section 4 Committee? Mayor Crites, Councilman Kelly, the department heads, myself, and Senior Engineers Joe Gaugush and Gregg Holtz, Ken Weller, Dave Yrigoyen, also from the Redevelopment Agency, Carlos. RSK Did you mention... RD Oh, we have two new members, two new members from EDAC, Dave Tschopp and Dave Rolston, were just added to the Committee also. JMB Thank you. RSK From the community, so we have community and Economic Development, which was the instruction of the Council. JMB Right. RAS What we're approving tonight is six different contracts? 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING bra irAr1BER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RD Yes, sir. RAS And six firms, four of the contracts are Palm Desert firms... RD Yes, sir. RAS ...one of the contracts is Palm Springs... RD Two. RAS ...two are Palm Springs... RD The contract for the roads, streets infrastructure, utilities is with Mainiero Smith of Palm Springs, and the reclaimed water, the other engineering contract, is with ASL of Palm Springs. The three landscape contracts are all Palm Desert firms. RAS ...and one is a firm in Costa Mesa... RD Yes, he was the only one...it was our objective that the only reason why we would not bring to you a local professional in this case is because we were unable or unsuccessful to find participation in, or expertise in, that area. RAS And also, it's tonight the contracts that you're requesting is to award at up to a little over $500,000 total. RD The total price of all the contracts, yes. RAS And the contract for the firm that's in Costa Mesa is $31,000... RD Yes, sir. RAS ...so it's a very small percentage of the total being... RD Yes, sir. RAS ...requested to be approved. RD Yes, sir. RSK I might add something. We had a meeting with several of the contractors, local contractors. And included in that meeting was a lengthy discussion about the use of local contractors, and we agreed wholeheartedly we have always had that policy. I don't think there is any doubt in staffs mind that the Council has always directed them to as best as possible use local contractors and give local contractors an opportunity to bid on all of our contracts, and we have always, and I didn't hear any 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING bra r tdiBER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * of those contractors, they agreed that when we talked that local contractors, we were talking about the Coachella Valley. And the reason we talk about the Coachella Valley, a firm may be located in Palm Desert, but the employees may actually live in other cities and vice versa in the Coachella Valley, firms in other cities in the Coachella Valley, their employees may well be citizens of Palm Desert. And I think we've always agreed that we were trying to support the Coachella Valley, and it would be almost unreasonable to ask that we try to identify each small city and select only from that city, and if I'm wrong in that, you know I would sure like the Board to direct me otherwise, because when I sit on the Section 4 Committee I understand my direction right now in dealing with local contractors, and I have spent a lot of time in the past and more time in the last few months in this effort to use local contractors. And my interpretation of local contractors has always been the Coachella Valley because our citizens work all over the Coachella Valley. The firms in the Coachella Valley hire people from Palm Desert. They're in Indio, they're in Coachella, they're in Palm Springs, they're in Cathedral City, but their employees are from Palm Desert and other cities outside of those cities. And so my effort on interpretation of local cities, local contractors is within our Coachella Valley. So I agree 100% to do everything we can to keep Palm Desert healthy, keep the money at home, but we also have to realize that the base that we operate on, sales tax, is generated probably 75% from outside the City. So I know I don't think we should get in a contest between cities in the Coachella Valley, they do shop here (unclear) or we'll come out on the short end. JMB I would agree with you. I think we've always meant that it should be the Coachella Valley because of the demographics of it. So that's my interpretation of it. WHS Further discussion of this matter? May I have a motion. RSK On the basis of working with this and the Section 4 Committee for the last three months and the effort that staff has made to use local contractors, which I heartily approve of, I would move that we approve these contracts. JMB Second. WHS Thank you. Moved and seconded, please vote. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ar r i r.,AIBER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SRG Motion carries by unanimous vote. WHS Next item that was removed was Item E... THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE AGENCY BOARD ACTION Member Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to enter into agreements for professional services on the Section Four Project with the following consultants: 1) Ray Lopez & Associates, ASLA, of Palm Desert (Contract No. R1047Q) in the amount of $45,500.00 to provide landscape architectural services for the project's perimeter streetscapes and medians and with optional sand stabilization (scope one); 2) Ron Gregory & Associates, ASLA, of Palm Desert (Contract No. R10480) in the amount of $87,000.00 to provide landscape architectural services for the project's clubhouse site design and landscape, maintenance facility, entry drive, monumentation, and sand stabilization at main entry drive (scope 2); 3) Horton/Shepardson & Associates, ASLA, of Palm Desert (Contract No. R10490) in the amount of $66,000.00 to provide landscape architectural services for the pmject's golf course, driving range, learning center, and sand stabilization of conference center pad; 4) Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering of Costa Mesa (Contract No. R10500) in the amount of $31,800.00 to provide design and engineering services for the project's lake and water features (no local expertise in this discipline); 5) Mainiero Smith and Associates, Inc. of Palm Springs (Contract No. R10510) in the amount of $166,551.00 to provide engineering services for the project's roads, bridges, infrastructure, and dry utilities; 6) ASL Consulting Engineers of Palm Springs (Contract No. R10520) in the amount of $117,500.00 to provide engineering services for the project's reclaimed water facility and water wells; 7) provide a ten percent contingency pool of the total amount of above contracts in the amount of $51,435.10 (10% of $514,351.00). Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Out -of -State Travel for Purposes of Inspecting a Golf Course Development. Vice Chairman Snyder stated that although Chairman Crites had no objections to having people go look at the area, he felt we should wait until we determine more than just one outfit to look at. Member Kelly stated that this is one consultant who we know will bid and the golf course is at a stage that will be ideal to visit. He said when others come up and we know they will bid we should visit those also. Member Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize two Board Members and appropriate staff to travel to Phoenix, Arizona, for purposes of inspecting a golf course development. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by unanimous vote. 9 • MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING brit Lt 1BER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 FOR THE MULTI -AGENCY LIBRARY. Mr. Ortega noted the report in the packets. Redevelopment Analyst Dennis Coleman reviewed the staff report, noting that there had been approximately $534,000 in change orders to date, with a balance of approximately $165,000 remaining in contingency. Upon question by Member Spiegel as to whether $165,000 would be enough at this point in construction, Mr. Coleman responded that it was enough at this point but that it was tight. Member Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to send written consent to the College of the Desert (District) to approve Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $86,218.00. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Member Kelly asked if anything was being done to name the new library. He said he did not think it would bed there if it were not for the City of Palm Desert, and he felt Palm Desert should be included in the name.' Ms. Barbara Bowie, Librarian, stated that the Committee was looking at naming the library. She said it was time to rename it and the Committee did want to include Palm Desert in that name. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Ortega noted the items listed on the Agenda for Closed Session. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. AGENCY COUNSEL Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): 1) City of Palm Desert v. REFCO Capital Corp.. et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 92-7631-RTK Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8: Property: 5 acres Street Address: North of Country Club Drive and east of Portola Avenue Assessor's Parcel No.: 620-200-020 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos Ortega and Dave Yrigoyen Property Owner: Emily Ann Corey, Eve Corey Poling Under Negotiation: 2_ Price Terms of Payment C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY XI. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF THREE MEMBERS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Member Spiegel moved to continue this matter to the meeting of September 28, 1995. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING art i tvIBER 14, 1995 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XIII. ADJOURNMENT Member Spiegel moved to recess the meeting at 6:14 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss items listed under Agency Counsel Reports and Remarks. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote. Vice Chairman Snyder reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. and immediately adjourned the meeting. ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, SEC ARY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ka(.14,-/A-1 WALTER H. SNYDER, VICOHAIRMAN ,z() 12