Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-12MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1996 CIVIC t-r IN i raft COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kelly convened the meeting at 6:15 p.m. City Attorney David Erwin asked that the City Council and Agency Board add to their Closed Session items two items which came up after the Agenda was posted dealing with real property negotiations (Government Code Section 54956.8) - parcels of r.„r;,.ly in Section 4 owned by the City, with negotiations to be conducted with 1) Intrawest and 2) Marriott Corporation. Councilman/Member Crites moved to add these items to the Agenda for discussion in Closed Session. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. Upon motion by Crites, second by Spiegel, and unanimous vote of the Agency Board, Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:16 p.m. for dinner and Closed Session to discuss the above items and those listed under Agency Counsel Reports and Remarks. Chairman Kelly reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Jean M. Benson Member Buford A. Crites Member Walter H. Snyder Member Robert A. Spiegel (left at 8:00 p.m.) Chairman Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, Executive Director Ramon A. Diaz, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Agency Secretary John Wohlmuth, ACM/Director of Administrative Services Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Paul Gibson, City Treasurer/Finance Director Pat Conlon, Director of Building and Safety John Nagus, Community Arts Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Associate Planner Mary P. Gates, Deputy City Clerk MINUT£S PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of November 14, 1996, and the Adjourned Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of November 21, 1996. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 33, 33DR, 34, 35, 34DR, and 35DR. Rec: Approve as presented. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Parkview Professional Building 444 Parking Lot Planter. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the expenditure of $3,087.00 from the Parkview Building Fund for the installation of stamp concrete in the planter area south of Building 444 Parking Lot. D. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for Parkview Professional Office Buildings as of September 30, 1996. Rec: Receive and file. E. MINUTES of the Housing Advisory Committee and Citizen's Advisory Committee of September 11 and October 21, 1996. Rec: Receive and file. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. R11020 - Deep Canyon Road Storm Drain (Project No. 517-95) Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $68,102.80 to Buso Constructors Inc.; 2) Accept the transfer of $68,102.80 from the City's Account 110-4311-433-3320 to the Redevelopment Agency Account No. 850-4341-433-4001 to pay for Change Order No. 1. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No.2 to Contract No. R11020 - Deep Canyon Road Storm Drain (Project No. 517-95) Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $25,934.19; 2) authorize the transfer of $25,934.19 from contingency to base. H. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORD for Contract No. R11020 - Deep Canyon Road Storm Drain (Project No. 517-95). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. I. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of a $2,500 Contract with Munisoft to Provide Public Finance Professional Services Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify the contract with Munisoft for $2,500.00 to provide public finance professional services. J. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Design Contract Amendments - South Course, Desert Willow Project Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize amending the professional services contract of Dream Engineering in the listed short term, and award a contract to Waterscapers lake design (Contract No. R12130) in the listed amount: Consultant Not to Exceed Short Term Expense by 12-31-96 Dream Engineering $ 6,000 Waterscapers $25,400 Upon motion by Snyder, second by Crites, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. V. RESOLUTIONS None VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT FOR THE JEAN M. BENSON CHILD CARE CENTER (Contract No. R11810). Member Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a lease agreement by and between the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") and the Family YMCA of the Desert for a five-year lease of the Jean M. Benson Child Care Center for the purpose of operating a child day care center on the premises of the Desert Rose Project. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. B. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT NO. R10730 (SCAQMD) AND APPROPRIATION OF $100,000 TO SUPPORT THE CONTRACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1997. Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation. Member Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the following: 1) Ratification of Contract No. R10730 between the City of Palm Desert and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the development and demonstration of a pilot program for fuel cell vehicles; 2) appropriation of $100,000 from Agency Unobligated Funds (Bond Funds) for the FY 1996/97; 3) authorization to spend the funds, as per the obligations contained in Contract No. R10730. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DESERT WILLOW EQUIPMENT LEASE (Contract No. R12110). Mr. Ortega stated that staff wished to withdraw this request at this time until after discussion of the next item. Following the discussion, Mr. Ortega stated that staff would withdraw the recommendation and would come back with an alternate recommendation. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT GREEN FEES THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE MINUTES: Rey CLO Redevelopment Agency Executive Director DY Dave Yrigoyen, Redevelopment Manager RSK Chairman Richard S. Kelly BAC Member Buford A. Crites JF Jim Ferguson, Desert Willow Advisory Committee GL Greg Lindquist JMB Member Jean M. Benson WHS Member Walter H. Snyder SRG Agency Secretary Sheila R. Gilligan CLO Just as a quick background, the agreement between the Agency and Kemper requires that the Agency and a subsequent owner, and we propose that that subsequent owner by the City, have the authority to establish green fees. In your Agenda packet, staff had submitted a recommendation. That recommendation was taken before the Desert Willow Committee, and the Desert Willow Committee in fact moved that we provide more discounts to Palm Desert residents. Therefore, Dave has an updated staff report, and he'd like to explain what that means. Along with that motion, the Committee had other conditions, and Dave will also explain what those were. DY As Carlos indicated to you, you had previously received a staff report which outlined the method by which we looked at calculating the original green fees. Essentially the Committee in its first meetings in its discussion of the green fees indicated that there should be an across the board discount (we originally took to them a 25 % discount) and that that discount should be utilized throughout the entire green fees. When we went back to the Desert Willow Committee again a couple of days ago, we had that discussion once again. We outlined to the Desert Willow Committee that we were looking at the feasibility of purchasing equipment in an effort to try and mitigate the impact to the next revenues. After consultation with out Legal Counsel on the mitigation measures for the maintenance equipment and for the cart equipment, we were informed by our Legal Counsel that that was something that we couldn't do; however, we were informed that we could continue to look towards the mitigation of the impact of the temporary clubhouse lease facilities. When we went to the Desert Willow Committee, they were under the impression that we could do all three items, and, therefore, their recommendation that was forwarded to the Agency Board was that we would proceed to purchase all three items, thus mitigating the net revenue figures to the tune of somewhere around $319,000. With that recommendation, they requested that a portion of those revenues, those savings, be passed on to the residents 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * of the City of Palm Desert in the form of a 25 % discount. As we stated earlier, in reviewing that with our Legal Counsel, we were informed that this could not happen. However, we do have a mitigation to the net revenue bottom line of $96,000. If you look at what we've given you in the second staff report, we have outlined to you essentially the Desert Willow Committee's recommendation. We've also outlined to you the impact of the 20% discount on the net revenue line, which is $136,731. That does not include the $96,000 savings on the maintenance facility. The net revenues on the 25% discount was reduced by $73,000. The attachment breakdown that we provided to you essentially outlines that an adjusted net revenue with $136,731 plus the $96,000 figure would give us a bottom line adjusted net revenue of $232,731 on a 20% discount to residents. The similar looking at the 25% discount and the adjusted net revenues, including the $96,000, would give us an adjusted net revenue figure of $169,000 for the 25% discount. This is information that the Desert Willow Committee doesn't have and, therefore it is unfortunate that we haven't been able to get that to them in time. But it is something that we feel it's an urgent need to begin to establish the green fees on the golf course that we are forwarding the recommendation, the original recommendation, to the Agency Board, that the Agency Board establish the attached green fees based on a 20% discount. We have attached for you a summary of competitive rates that you can look at in order to analyze how it is that we come about this. You have the Desert Willow Golf Course Resort proposed rates for summer, fall, and peak outlined, and also you have comparative, or what we might call slightly close golf courses, not quite to the par of the Desert Willow Golf Course, in Desert Falls, Indian Wells, and Marriott. You'll notice that those rates are higher except for the Indian Wells Golf Course in fall. If you have any questions on the development of this rate schedule, we have Greg Lindquist, the General Manager of the golf course, to identify for you the specifics on that. You also have attached for you a posted green fee rate with carts starting February 1, 1997. The proposed rate schedule outlines both the 20% discount and the 25% discount on a dollar figure basis, which would ultimately be...the recommendation of the staff would be the 20% discount, which would be the first item as outlined there. You also have attached for you in the memo is a method by which Kemper Sports Management, which I can have Mr. Lindquist explain, will do their public services in conjunction with their relationships with Palm Desert High School, College of the Desert, and their junior golf programs. Essentially, based on that, we would be willing to answer any questions that you might have. At this point in time, we would recommend that figure based on the fact that we do need to establish golf course green fees at this point in time. Mr. Lindquist can address that a little bit further. He's the one that's getting the phone calls. And the fact that the green fees posted are not a static green fees, they need to be reviewed and adjusted from time to time based on the market climate. That would be staffs recommendation. RSK Questions? Stay there, Mr. Yrigoyen. BAC A suggestion. We have one member of the Desert Willow Committee.. 6 11+IINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DY Yes. BAC ...with us this evening, who has remained this five hours. I would suggest that we ask him for input as well. RSK Would you like to give us some input, Mr. Ferguson? IF (unclear) GL I am happy to address any questions you might have relative to the rate schedule. Also, I would be happy to go through the information sheet that was prepared that relates the public benefit items that we feel like as a management group are brought to the table by Kemper Sports Management and by the on -site managers as well and different departments. So, obviously I think the public benefit as it relates to the High School, the Palm Desert High School in particular, working with the young men and women as it relates to instruction and access to golf course times and practice, etc., having also met with an individual at the College of the Desert as it relates to the golf management school there will be formalizing a program there whereby they will provide us with periodic staffing needs in return for having access to the golf course. Kemper also has a very good junior golf program established at other courses that would be very similar here and of high quality, and we will be establishing a men's and ladies' organization, if you call it a men's club or a ladies' club so that we can have functions and promote golf within the City of Palm Desert. So those are a few of the programs that we would have that again we feel like will bring much to the table in terms of public benefit. If there are specific questions that relate to the rates, I'm happy to try to explain them. RSK Any questions from the Council? JMB I have a comment but also I guess a question at this point. How do you... how would you intend to screen whether they are a resident or not, and what constitutes a resident? GL Well, we've talked a little bit about that. We would have some kind of a card, a laminated card, that is very similar to what you use to identify yourself as a Palm Desert resident at the health club over here. BAC YMCA GL Or the YMCA RSK Parks and Rec 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GL So it's a fairly simple drill to get people a card, and a lot of it would have to be done up front, but that's a process that we would have to go through. JMB How would you check. Anybody can come in and say "I live at 73-510 Fred Waring" and you put that down. GL No, they'd have to have some kind of a utility bill or some kind of verification that they live in the confines of Palm Desert in the City limits. RSK Pay a $10 charge for two years or whatever to handle the cost of processing the card and put their picture, kind of a reader, the Parks and Rec uses a reader so that you put your card in the thing and it reads it and tells who you are. BAC Parks & Rec will accept a utility bill, will accept a driver's license, they'll accept a County R. Wayne Watts bill, I mean there are a number of things that they accept as identification and then they also have, if you don't have any of those things, then they'll...they have an appeals thing as well that, you know, if you live somewhere but somebody else pays your utilities, and so on and so forth (unclear) I had to go through that for a friend. JMB My other is not a question but a comment. I just think the fees are too high for the residents. I would just...if they did want to play on a Friday and Saturday or even the Monday through Thursday and it was $80.00, for a couple that's $160.00 for a couple, and most people that I know that play golf play once a week, and I don't know how many people have $500.00 or $600.00 in their budget for golf, but for the residents I think that's extremely high. I just don't see...I just don't see it, period. I just think we're going to get a lot of flack on that kind of money, and we're not going to be getting a lot of (unclear) taxpayers' money we're spending on that course and then have them come in and say "Gee, I can only afford to play every two or three months because my budget doesn't fix it". The people in Palm Desert that can afford that are already belonging to clubs and they play there. We're trying to attract a general resident in the City of Palm Desert, and it certainly wouldn't be in my budget. GL Well, I think having been in the golf business for 25 plus years, I can certainly appreciate where you're coming from because I've been at private clubs and also been at municipal clubs. And one of the very difficult things as an operator is to be charged with the fiduciary responsibility of doing the correct thing financially by establishing rates and projecting rounds of golf based on those rates, etc. Then it's a very delicate balance between putting something on the table as far as a rate and making it appeal to residents such as Palm Desert residents as well as try to make sure we do what we're supposed to do in terms of generating the kind of revenue that would be expected to support a project of this magnitude. Certainly one of the things that we have to look at as an operator is what the competition is paying, or what 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * they're charging for these particular...for comparable golf courses. Because as we've listed here, we've listed about eight or nine golf courses that we would consider apples and apples to Desert Willow. We could go down another ten or twelve courses and we would be comparing apples and oranges. We would certainly have courses that offer golf for less than what we would propose to charge the Desert Willow residents as well as non-residents. But I think our balance here is that we've tried to project that this is such a...it's a very world -class public golf facility, and so our instincts and our expertise has told us that based on what we want to project in the way of a quality operation that we feel like we fit into this criteria of golf greens fees. I'm happy to go into deeper discussions as it relates to how we came up with those particular rates, but basically it's, you know, driven by the balance of the competition versus what we feel like our obligation to the City is to provide a bottom line revenue that drives a profit. JMB I guess I feel our obligation is to the constituents out there to let them use the course that we used their money to build, so in this case they're not going to be able to (unclear) RSK Any other questions? Nice to know... BAC We do have the option...we do have the financially feasible option of either 20% or 25 % depending upon what we wanted the profit margin to be, is that correct? GL That is correct. BAC Thank you. GL That is correct. RSK Any other questions for Mr. Lindquist? GL I think one of the other things, too, that I would just make mention of is that, again, in the very delicate part of the year that we're looking at in the summer time when we're getting more competitive in terms of rates, and I would echo what David brought out earlier, which is to say that these rates are not static rates, they are rates that have to be flexible based on where the competition goes and what it takes to generate revenue. So many times as an operator, you know, we'll look at short term situations and being able to turn on the tap and turn it off with respect to what we feel like we need to project in revenue on how we stand at budget year to date. And I guess the final thing is that I want to make sure that everybody knows that June through October the deficits, or the projected deficits for bottom line loss range from $65,000 in June to $173,000 in October. So looking at those graduated losses in those five months, it indeed puts a lot of pressure on us as operators to try to make 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (unclear) sure that we are able to recoup that in the winter season and obviously not go any deeper in debt in the summer season. GL And indeed that's what we try to do, absolutely. JMB Their rates can be highered or lowered on the other end (unclear) GL You bet, and I would concur with you 100 %, and I think from our perspective in going into this market in the beginning is that we wanted to project a rate in the beginning that was not...that was very competitive, meaning .that would draw more golfers to our golf course than what our competitors would be at similar golf courses. And that's why I think we tired to...although we could be, if you take a look at the peak rates, we could be certainly in the $140 or $150 range and, you know, be justified in terms of the quality of our golf course. But the thing that comes back is that, you know, we really want to make sure that we make a real profound impression in the beginning. That's we've got our rate as low as $110 in the peak season, with the expectation that we can grab a good market share, then come back the next season with, you know, a little healthier golf greens fee. RSK We might even, when we get some experience, be able to raise peak fee and lower the rest of the fees. GL Certainly. Yes, and I could share a experience out of Phoenix Golf Course, where I was managing for about four or five years, that that very thing happened, where the winter visitor rates got significantly higher as our golf course matured, and indeed the summer rates, not by anything...not driven by anything else except for golf courses and more competition, the rates in the summer time got lower, you know, so that again goes back to that concept that we're...we don't have a static rate. What we're saying here is these are what our rack rates are, or these are what our proforma'd rates are, irrespective of what we might need to do in the short term to grab additional business or do whatever to make the operating bottom line do as well as we can. JMB It also concerns me that if peak at the Marriott is $140 and our peak is $110, and the Marriott is our premier r.,,r:.. Li within the City, and we want to keep the occupancy and the guests there happy, but we're trying to lower them across the street and $30 for four people, you've got another $100 there that "oh, I'll walk across the street", so we're shooting ourselves in the foot with our own property. GL Well, I, you know, I could share one experience that happened this past week with the Marriott, and that is that I just got through booking 700 rounds of golf with one group in about four days at a rack rate of $125, so we were able to upsell the group from $110, taking into consideration the surcharge, the $10 surcharge, and also 10 MINUTES PAINT DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * adding a little higher fee because of an upsell situation as it related to an additional amenity. So we're certainly going to try to upsell our rack rate here as much as we can based on what the competition is and based on what the non-resident person will bear. So, I feel very good about that. The response has been excellent. RSK Mr. Ferguson, would you like to report on behalf of the Desert Willow Committee. JF Well, I think most of you were there after the recess of the City Council joint meeting with the Desert Willow Committee meeting, and I'll just incorporate by reference everything I said then for here and just highlight on two points. I still believe, and I just confirmed it with Dave, that since 2 % of the total rounds of the golf course involve the seven-day surcharge, I can't imagine that it would cost the City a whole lot of money to waive the surcharge for Palm Desert residents. Secondly, I think that the rates are too high. I agree with Councilmember Benson and have felt that way all along. I would think that if this Council is pressed by the (unclear) of setting fees, and we're getting information at the very last minute that changes the rate schedule that even the Committee looked at, at a minimum my recommendation would be 25 %. You will recall that of the non -staff, non -elected officials on the Committee, there were four of us. One voted against, one abstained, and two voted for a motion that specifically asked staff to go back and look for additional ways to cut, and what staff is presenting you is what they presented us before we changed it from 20% to 25%. So in once sense I feel like we're moving backwards and I don't have the benefit of the information that was disclosed in the last couple of days and feel very ill -prepared to comment on it other than if I feel this way and I sit on the Committee, I can only imagine how people who live here and don't know much about what's going on are going to think. I think they're going to look at the bottom line rate, they're going to look at the $35 fee in Indian Wells, which is a maximum fee, which coincidentally is our lowest fee, and they're going to look at 25 % in Palm Springs. And, yes, we have a nice golf course, but we have a world -class Civic Center Park. So why not give Palm Desert residents the opportunity to play at a world -class golf course at a rate that's at least comparable to Palm Springs, even though you can't compare, as I've heard, Tahquitz Creek and Desert Willow. So, my comments are not on behalf of the Committee because they did not have this information, but my opinion hasn't changed that they're too high and I would ask that you would, at a minimum, adopt the 25 % and go back and take a look at these six months from now and see if they're really...if further adjustments can't be made. RSK Thank you. What's the Council's pleasure. WHS I sat in on all of the meetings, I listened to all of the discussion as Jim Ferguson has set forth. I recognize that it's a delicate situation wherein we're trying to...the original philosophy we did in thinking about creating this golf course was to create one for our people, but we also said we wanted the finest golf course that could be built. Apparently from the cost of it, we must be building the finest golf course that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (unclear) could ever be built. I would recommend that we, because of the urgency of getting this show on the road and the fact that we're talking about putting golfers on there in just a very short time, in my opinion, from now that go ahead with the program as submitted using the 25 % discount for City people...give it a shot, let's see what it does, in six months we can make any changes we need, but in the meanwhile, we'll be getting this thing off in a proper manner and getting the show on the road, and I think that's terribly important. So I'd recommend approval as submitted by the staff utilizing the 25 % discount. JMB And eliminating the seven-day surcharge for residents? WHS I would eliminate the seven-day surcharge...well, I don't know about that one... WHS Okay, I would eliminate the...you're only talking about two percent anyway, so I... RSK Let's try it and see what it does. WHS Eliminate the... RSK ...30 days and we could come back and address the Council. WHS Okay, so my proposal, my motion is as submitted with the 25 % discount for our City people and the ten-day fee be dropped... JMB Seven-day. WHS Seven-day fee be dropped from the City people. JMB And reviewed in six months? WHS And reviewed in six months. RSK Or maybe sooner if necessary. WHS Sooner if necessary but no less than...no more than six months. CLO Mr. Chairman, I'd just like a clarification that the motion is 25% across from all the posted rates... WHS No, just for the...just exactly where it says... 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CLO Just where you have it here and then where they're already low it would only be 20% and, for example... WHS Right, the twilight would be no change... RSK Straight across the board... WHS Just as it's submitted here. BAC 25% period. CLO Well, no, if you look at it, the twilight, where it's already low, I think it's only 20%. So, it's 25% only when it's the peak, the highest, but if you want to, we could do it 25% across the board. RSK Let's make it simple...25 % across the board. CLO I'm just wanting to make sure we know that. WHS 25% across the board. BAC Now, I have a question. Mr. Ferguson says we have only two percent of the seven- day advance will be City residents... DY No, the proforma only outlined two percent of the $10 rate... two percent of the rounds as being the $10 rate surcharge for advance tee times. That's what the proforma outlined. That's the center rate, the seven-day surcharge. BAC So two percent of all rounds, period. DY Of all rounds, period. BAC And of that two percent, then some percent of the two percent are Palm Desert residents. DY Yes, but we couldn't surmise that from the proforma. BAC So if it was half, then it would be one percent. DY One percent, correct. BAC Does that significantly alter the financial projection? DY No. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BAC And rather than Kemper being responsible, Mr. Yrigoyen has chosen (unclear) puts us in the red he will be personally responsible (unclear)... WHS That will not be in the motion. That statement will not be in the motion. No way. You got it, you live with it. BAC I would second, then, Councilman Snyder's motion... RSK Is there any other discussion? BAC ...to review at the minimum six months and sooner if appropriate. WHS Correct. RSK Would you indicate your pleasure by voting. SRG The motion carries by unanimous vote. E. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR THE DESERT WILLOW GOLF COURSE PROJECT Mr. Rudy Acosta, Projects Administrator, reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Member Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, ratify the following (under $5,000) contracts for miscellaneous design services on the Desert Willow Golf Course: 1) Pearson & Assoc (Palm Desert) for architectural design services for both comfort stations in the amount of $4,200.00 (Purchase Order No 4307); 2) Dream Engineering (Palm Desert) for electrical engineering services for temporary clubhouse facility in the amount of $4,995.00 (Purchase Order No. 4297); 3) Ray Lopez & Associates (Palm Desert) for landscape architectural services on the temporary clubhouse facility in the amount of $4,900.00 (Purchase Order No. 4298); 4) Waterscapers (Buena Park) for lake systems materials and shop drawing engineering review for all Golf Course lakes and water systems in the amount of $2,850.00; 5) Waterscapers (Buena Park) for lake and water features construction observation and inspection services in the amount of $4,950.00; 6) ASL Consulting Engineers (Palm Springs) for reclaimed water reservoir construction inspection services in the amount of $4,985.00; 7) Pearson & Associates (Palm Desert) for architectural re- design services for both comfort stations in the amount of $3,200.00. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. R10880 (PARK WEST GOLF) FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ON THE DESERT WILLOW PROJECT. Mr. Acosta reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Member Benson stated that she had trouble with a temporary clubhouse in a half million dollar program. She said she felt there should be something in there to reflect that it is not temporary and that the building will be used for something else. She said it did not sit well with her to come in later and tear down a half million dollar building and put up something else. Mr. Acosta stated when this was first presented to the committee, it was based on research in the golf industry that indicated that most golf course projects provide temporary clubhouse facilities in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $350,000 as a tear down item because they are minimal with respect to the overall cost of the project. Much of the facilities that are going in on this particular facility will be reusable with regard to the utilities that are going in. Member Benson said she felt there should be something in there that it is not temporary, that the building will be used. Chairman Kelly suggested wording that says "used for other purposes". Member Crites added "official clubhouse/learning center". Mr. Acosta responded that this could be done. He added that $110,000 of this amount was for permanent comfort stations. Member Benson stated she felt the wording on the billing needed to be changed so that it does not say "temporary" clubhouse. Member Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 for additional construction services in an amount not -to -exceed $456,000.00; 2) Authorize the appropriation from the base contract contingency, with the wording stipulation as requested by the Agency Board. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None IX. OLD BUSINESS None 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Ortega asked that the Agency Board adjourn this meeting back to Closed Session to complete discussion of items from earlier in the meeting. B. AGENCY COUNSEL Report and Action on Items from Closed Session Made at This Meeting. 1) The Agency Board, by Minute Motion, denied Claim #324 against the Redevelopment Agency by Hanover, Kosaka Associates and George Hanover in an amount not less than $7,084.00 and directed the City Clerk to so notify the Claimant. Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a): maven Wvmer Litigation, United States vs. Idaho Real Property, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 94-56491 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b): Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b): Number of potential cases: C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None XL AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS None XIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 16 11HINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XIV. ADJOURNMENT With Agency Board concurrence, Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, for the purpose of holding a Closed Session. ATTEST: Me- SHEILA R. G GAN, SE ARY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVE • ' MENT AGENCY p.,,,\LA„u RICHXRD S. KELLY, CHAIRMAN v`- 17