Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOUSG CMSN - 7/12/06PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK FROM: PATTY LEON, RECORDING SECRETARY DATE: AUGUST 10, 2006 SUBJECT: HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES Attached are the Housing Commission Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2006, approved at the Housing Commission Meeting held August 9, 2006. Please submit to the Housing Authority Board. Thank you. cc: Carlos L. Ortega, Executive Director ReCelltdBY HOUSG AUTH ON "(9(/•4 VERIFIED BY: r) Original on file with City rk's Office CITY OF PALM DESERT HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 12, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chairman Carrie McLeod convened the meeting at 3:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Members Absent: Carrie McLeod Larry Saindon Verna Smith Leo Sullivan Linda Ward Also Present: Jane Turner Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Dave Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment and Housing Janet Moore, Housing Authority Administrator James Conway, Project Coordinator Jessica Gonzales, Management Analyst Bryce White, Senior Construction Contract Administrator Patty Leon, Recording Secretary Guest(s): Teresa Vakili, RPM Company Missy Wightman, Project Coordinator III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Housing Commission meeting of June 14, 2006 With a Motion made by Leo Sullivan and seconded by Larry Saindon the minutes were unanimously approved. Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 V. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. COMMISSION REPORTS Larry Saindon reported on the Housing Sub -Committee meeting that met earlier that day to discuss the signage for One Quail Place. The sub- committee reviewed the designs and costs provided by Calendar Girls and requested that the signs be smaller and double -sided, as well as pleasing aesthetically. Also discussed at the sub -committee meeting was the necessity of providing signage at the rear of the property, off of Park View which staff indicated they felt it was necessary for emergency purposes. B. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO HOUSING, AND SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AUTHORITY, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS An update was provided to the Housing Commission for review. Carrie McLeod welcomed newly appointed Verna Smith to the Commission. Larry Saindon asked about the Council's action on the Photovoltaic Panels at Palm Village Apartments. Janet Moore stated that the City Council continued this item pending additional information. The information requested was about payback periods which was already presented to the Housing Sub -Committee at the meeting of June 14, 2006. Janet Moore informed the Commission that Council member Buford Crites resigned from the Council effective July 1, 2006. She stated that his resignation changed the dynamics of some regularly scheduled meetings. For that reason, Mayor Ferguson would probably not attend the Housing Commission meeting today, as a follow up from the last meeting, but has indicated he would attend a future meeting. She noted that the Council members are taking their summer recess after the Council meeting scheduled tomorrow. G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 C. RPM MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS The Monthly Status Report for June was reviewed by the Commission. Upon question of the annual re -certifications, it was explained that re - certifications are conducted monthly at lease renewals as opposed to doing them all at once, as was previously done. D. REPORT #1 - MONTHLY OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE RENT STATEMENT Report # 1 for May was reviewed by the Commission. E. REPORT #2 - MONTHLY NET OPERATING INCOME STATEMENT Report #2 for May was reviewed by the Commission. F. HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTIES UPDATE (JAMES) An update on the Housing Authority properties was provided to the Commission. A memo was provided by Missy \Mghtman regarding One Quail Place signage. James Conway summarized the update and displayed pictures of California Villas renovation project. In regard to Laguna Palms renovation project, construction is anticipated to start in 2007. The property will be 100% vacant during the renovation. The existing tenants will be relocated within the Housing Authority properties. - Mr. Conway clarified the wording "dog house" used on the report to describe the utility conduit boxes located at the edge of the buildings. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Palm Desert Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 James Conway reviewed the staff report and asked the Commission to reject the bids. He stated that nine packets were picked up of which only two bids were submitted. Unfortunately, all of the required information was not included in either of the bids received. Leo Sullivan questioned if we had to literally reject the bids to which Mr. Conway responded yes. Justin McCarthy also noted it was based on the legal process of bidding. Linda Ward asked if Liberty Landscape, our current contracted company, had submitted a bid package and what were the reasons for rejection. Janet Moore responded that Liberty Landscape was one of the two bids received. She stated the reason for the rejection was due to inconsistencies in the bids such as questions they did not respond to and documents that were missing. She explained that because of this the legal process is to reject both bids. Larry Saindon asked why the staff report was on the Council's agenda for tomorrow night and asked why the Housing Commission needed to review it when the Council is already going to. Mrs. Moore explained that everything on the Housing Authority's agenda to review must come before the Housing Commission for review. In the event that the Housing Commission does not approve something staff would state that at the Council meeting. She mentioned that most items are done the same way; items are reviewed the day before the Authority meeting so that we don't have to wait until the next meeting. She noted that the Housing Commission meetings are usually scheduled right before the Council meetings. Mr. Saindon stated and Leo Sullivan agreed that it seemed like they were just "rubber-stamping". Mr. Saindon indicated his concern because the Council's agenda item is to reject this, so even if the Commission says no the Council will act on it anyway. Justin McCarthy stated that in some cases these issues really are pro - forma and even the Council might have difficulty if they voted not to reject the bids because there are some legal issues involved. He noted that was one of the problems with contracting, especially the bid process, because we are constrained by certain legal requirements. If asked, the City Attorney would probably say we are obliged to reject the bids under the 4 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes12006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 circumstances. Now, if this body elected for one reason or another to object to staffs recommendation, that would be conveyed to the City Council. The Council, at their discretion, as is the case with all recommendations, could accept, modify, or reject whatever recommendation they receive. Carrie McLeod advised Mr. Saindon that this is just a recommendation as stated in the motion. Mr. Saindon stated he read the motion but his question is not the recommendation because most of the Commission's items are recommendations to the Council and/or the Housing Authority. His question is why is the Commission doing something this afternoon that the Council is already doing tomorrow night. Mrs. Moore replied that every action the Commission is going to take is agendized for the Commission meeting as well as the Council meeting. Mrs. Moore also stated that as an advisory body, the Council looks for the Commission's recommendation. According to the Bylaws, this Commission is to review everything before it goes to the Housing Authority Board. In the event that the Commission had an adverse action to what was recommended, that would be stated at the Council meeting. The Council may then refer it back. She explained how in some cases the Planning Commission has voted to approve a project and the Council will review it and note their concerns and send it back to the Planning Commission, even though it's been approved already. Linda Ward asked how the Council could review the minutes before tomorrow's meeting to know what was discussed at the Commission level. The Council may reject the bids not understanding what the Commission's thinking is. She further stated that the time frame is so short; it feels like a rubber stamp because there's too much procedure going on. She questioned if what is said here today is verbal to the Council or in writing. Mr. Sullivan stated that although he is probably the biggest critic in a lot of areas, he has seen that when there's an objection by the Commission that is conveyed to the Council verbally. It's either up to Janet Moore or Justin McCarthy to make that presentation at the Council meeting that the Housing Commission does not agree, or they voted to turn this down, or they want to accept it. He indicated Ms. Ward was right, there is not enough time to be able to produce the minutes and have them reviewed by the Council before the meeting tomorrow. Mr. Conway stated there is a 10 day submittal of staff reports. 5 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mrs. Moore stated that the last submittal of staff reports she believed was June 29th for the Council meeting tomorrow. The cutoff date for the Housing Commission reports was later this time and allowed us to give the Commission a staff report for discussion that won't be forwarded to the Council until a future meeting. Mr. Sullivan asked if the Housing Commission was the only commission to meet before the City Council meetings. Mrs. Moore replied that the Public Safety Committee meets on the same day as the Housing Commission and sometimes Planning Commission and/or the Architectural Review Committee meet a couple of days before the Council meets. This is done to have items reviewed before the Council meeting by the respective Commissions and Committees. She noted that otherwise projects would be delayed. Mr. Saindon stated he was still not satisfied with the answer with respect to this. He expressed concern that the Commission was brought something the same week as the Council meeting, but staff is saying that the City Attorney will probably reject it due to contractual laws. He stated he was kind of in a quandary and asked why the Housing Commission was even voting on this and why staff didn't just say that because the bidders lack of following procedures no landscape contract is going out. He again questioned why the Commission was voting on this item. Mrs. Moore replied that this question has come up before and that the Bylaws state the Housing Commission responsibilities are to review all items that come before the Authority Board. In the event there are any irregularities in a bid process, all bids such as in this case must be rejected. There are certain actions that are simply a legal requirement but require a formalized action. You can, as a Commission, in cases where the recommended action is required by law, the Commission could vote not to vote on issues such as these. However, staff feels that it's just as important that they bring these items to the Commission so that they can see what has happened. She reiterated that we did not get full bid packages and wanted the Commission to be aware of it. Mr. Saindon stated he appreciated that and did not want to stop that procedure but did not think that the Commission should vote on it. He felt staff could have given them all the information and said the Council is going to reject the bids because the bidders did not follow procedures. He stated that he wouldn't want to vote for it nor vote against it, since it's just a matter of information as stated by Janet Moore, and that's what he would appreciate. G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mrs. Moore reminded Mr. Saindon that this came up when he was Chair and one of the things discussed was that the Commission would review and advise on all items to go before the Housing Authority. She indicated that if the Commission wanted she could talk to the City Attorney and ask if the item is a routine motion or a routine approval that the Commission could just review it but take no other action. If the City Attorney says it has to be presented to the Commission, or if he says no, it can be informational to the Commission and the Council is going to recommend rejection of all the bids, staff can do that as well. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern and addressed Mr. Saindon and stated that the Commission had some questions in the recent past about their responsibilities on this Commission and did not want to indicate that they want something to be taken away. He felt it has been done in the past, and would not like to have that happen, stating that if each one of these things are taken way, what would the Commission's responsibilities be. Mr. Saindon stated he did not want this type of information taken away either but they don't really need it. He felt that it should have come to them basically stating that the Council is going to reject all bids on landscape because they didn't fill out the questions, they didn't get a bond, whatever the case is, the Council will reject it and further information will come back when we get it, however we say it. He felt that this was coming like the Commission is going to make a decision on something when they are not. Mr. Sullivan stated that he thought Mrs. Moore was leading toward that if Dave Erwin tells her that they really don't need to see that stuff, that's one more thing that the Commission does not have and he did not want to see that. Mr. Saindon clarified that he does want to see it just doesn't want to vote on it. Mr. McCarthy stated that he understood the Commission's issues. Some of the actions that staff has brought forward are in many ways nondiscretionary and staff does not have the discretion to not recommend them. In this case, it is a legal process that if there is a qualified low bidder, staff has to recommend them, and does not have a basis to not recommend them. If they did, they would put the City in some sort of liability position. Some of the actions are indeed nondiscretionary even on the part of the Council. He noted that a number of actions like this, as a matter of course, are automatically rejected. He provided an example of how the Council, as a matter of policy, automatically rejects claims made against the City until further review with the joint powers insurance G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\200617-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 authority and/or the nature to review the claim and how then the issue is resolved. Mr. Sullivan stated he understood that the Council rejects all claims and often questioned that procedure. He agreed with Mr. Saindon's comment about being a rubber-stamp in some ways, but felt that they were still basically getting the information, and felt that the Commission was still providing the Council with the review of what they have been presented with and asked to concur. The Council is receiving that agenda with the recommendation for rejection in this case. Mrs. Moore stated it is important for the Commission to know that when the Council reads the minutes of the Housing Commission meetings, they look at what types of discussions and questions you have. This gives them a general idea what types of things you question. In this particular case, the first question asked was why are they being rejected. The Council will read that and will read what you questioned and how we responded. That tells them that you are looking at this action whether it's routine or not and asking why we are doing what we're doing. She indicated that she felt that it is just as important to let them know that you are asking why that process is the way it is, even if is a "rubber stamp" action. Mr. Sullivan stated that now Mrs. Moore's comment goes against what they just talked about with regard to the minutes being ready for tomorrow's meeting. The Council will review those minutes next month. Mrs. Moore stated that the Council does review their minutes and looks at what their comments are about specific actions, even though they are already taken. It gives the Council a general affirmation and confidence with respect to the review of items by the Housing Commission, not just at today's meeting necessarily. Mr. McCarthy also noted that the Council will ask if the Housing Commission has seen a particular item. They may not get too deep into what the comments are because the recommendation is approval but they'll make occasional inquiries and ask if the Commission has seen it depending on the item. Mrs. McLeod recalled what Mrs. Moore stated earlier regarding the establishment of the Housing Commission and how the City Council requested that they be an advisory to them and this is just part of that. She stated that the Council wants the Commission's recommendation, and know they will have the final say but want a recommendation, that is all. She concluded by asking if there was a motion on this. G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes12006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Action: Motion was made by Larry Saindon and seconded by Verna Smith to approve and forward a recommendation to the Palm Desert Housing Authority to authorize RPM Company to reject all bids for the landscape maintenance for the Housing Authority Properties as non -responsive. B. California Villas Change Order to Portrait Homes, Inc. James Conway reviewed the staff report. Carrie McLeod referenced the Change Order attached to the staff report and questioned if there should be a line through the word decreased since the request is to increase the dollar amount. The correction will be made as well as the dollar amount. Action: Motion was made by Leo Sullivan and seconded by Larry Saindon to approve and forward a recommendation to the Palm Desert Housing Authority to Change Order No. 2 to Portrait Homes, Inc. (Contract No. HA23650) for the exterior renovations at the Housing Authority Property known as California Villas C. Laguna Palms Contract Amendment No. 2 to Prest Vuksic, Inc. James Conway reviewed the staff report provided to the Commission for review. Action: Motion was made by Verna Smith and seconded by Linda Ward to approve and forward the recommendation to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to authorize Contract Amendment No. 2 to Prest Vuksic, Inc. contract No. HA 231010-A for additional architectural services for Laguna Palms Apartments. D. One Quail Place Change Order No. 1 to Petronella Corporation James Conway reviewed the staff report. Mr. Conway stated that the specifications called out for a certain amount of plywood sheets to be replaced per carport. That number was exceeded 9 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes12006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 due to damages to certain carports that was undetected until the repairs began, as depicted on the photographs attached to the staff report. Action: Motion was made by Larry Saindon and seconded by Verna Smith to approve and forward the recommendation to the Palm Desert Housing Authority to authorize Change Order No. 1 to Petronella Corporation Contract No. Ha 23590 for the One Quail Place Carport re -roofing project. E. Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget Janet Moore reported that as she and Mr. McCarthy have announced for the last several months, the Agency will be buying a 30-unit apartment complex that was potentially at risk of losing its affordability. The property was previously subsidized by Housing Urban Development. The Redevelopment Agency Board authorized that the Redevelopment Agency to negotiate and acquire the property. The acquisition will probably take place during the Council's summer recess. Because of this, the complex will need an operating budget once its acquired. Therefore, staff is asking that the Commission forward a recommendation to the Palm Desert Housing Authority to authorize this budget upon close of escrow. She explained that it will not take effect in the event escrow does not close. The property houses mostly seniors; 26 affordable and 4 units at market rate. Through attrition, those market rate units will be recertified onto the affordable program. She asked the Commission to forward the recommendation on the condition that it closes escrow and we acquire title. Leo Sullivan questioned the presentation format of the budget and what the expected revenue was. Mrs. Moore noted the sections of the budget that indicated the revenues and expenditures. This format is how the Finance Department actually presents the fiscal budget. The summary portion is just for any deviations in expenditures. Verna Smith asked about the property's location. Janet Moore responded it is located south of Highway 111 on Candlewood Street. Larry Saindon interrupted and asked Mrs. Moore why she did not tell the Commission where it's located and referenced the agenda published in 10 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes12006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 the Desert Sun that showed an address of 74000-74002 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mrs. Moore questioned the location since she thought it was located on Candlewood Street. Mr. Saindon read the article again stating the location of the 30-unit apartment complex and asked why we didn't tell them. Mrs. Moore apologized and stated that Candlewood Street and Shadow Mountain intersect each other and didn't realize the address was on Shadow Mountain Drive. She noted that the City Clerk added the address to the Agenda. Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Saindon's point is why are we not divulging this information, which we talked about in the past. Mr. Saindon stated that Mrs. Moore was misunderstanding him. He stated that it is not the specific actual address but was the mere fact that the Commission was not given the location. He referenced the paper stating it said a 30-unit apartment. This is in the paper and is a public notice. He further stated that the public gets the notice and how is it that the Commission does not get this notice and felt the reason was because they can't be trusted. Mr. McCarthy interjected by stating that this is for the budget but that he understood what the Commission was saying. He stated that it made a lot of sense to inform them of its location. He noted he did not know how it got in the paper. Mr. Saindon stated that the Commission has gone through this and this was a bone of contention months ago. He stated that he has always felt that there was concern that they couldn't be trusted with confidential information. He indicated that he respected that to a point but when the property goes into escrow if they can't be told in closed session or executive session where the property is located then why are they messing with it. Mr. McCarthy responded that the City Attorney has explicitly said "no" to the Housing Commission having closed sessions. With respect to taking an action on a budget item, informing them of its location made a lot of sense, a perfectly fair request. He stated he had no problem with that and asked them to treat it as an oversight. With regard to formally entering into escrow, he commented that it only happened within the last couple of days, some of this is anticipatory. 11 G:1RDA\Patty Leon\WpdocsU-lousing Commission\Minutes1200617-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mr. Saindon asked if the property is only into escrow within the last couple of days how is it that they have a report on it already and also asked if it will close by August. Mr. McCarthy replied that the close of escrow was still pending. The property is still in its due diligence phase. He noted that the budget was forwarded ahead of time since one of the past concerns of this body was that the budget was brought after the fact. He stated that staff has apprised this body that a property was indeed identified and they were working on that property and felt that identifying the location now seemed perfectly reasonable given that the property is in escrow. Mr. Sullivan stated that if the staff report went out ten days earlier as previously mentioned, then Mr. McCarthy is lying that it didn't go into escrow within the last couple of days. Mrs. McLeod stated that what confused her was she respected the fact that there are people out there that might say too much accidentally, but asked why the Housing Authority allowed the publication in the newspaper and why didn't the Housing Authority discuss that in closed session. Mrs. Moore responded that the City Clerk added the address to be posted in the newspaper. Staff was directed not to put it in the report since it was actually going out before we were in escrow. The agenda was published a day before this meeting. She stated that the property wasn't expected to close escrow until December however, the seller suddenly needed to close by July 31, 2006, so it became apparent that things needed to be done very quickly. Mrs. McLeod stated that was not her question and asked how the City Council discusses items as if they are so protected then why are they discussing this item tomorrow at their Council meeting as a public discussion when it hasn't closed escrow yet as opposed to closed session. Verna Smith asked if it was normal to put together a budget for a property before escrow closes. Mr. McCarthy responded that the action presented today had nothing to do with the terms and conditions of the purchase. He rephrased her question by asking if she meant why isn't this budget item in closed session. Mrs. McLeod stated she did not have a problem not knowing the exact address but wanted to know why anybody that opens the Desert Sun can 12 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes1200617-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 read that and why it is not in closed session. Mr. Sullivan stated that the problem he has is the reverse of what Mrs. McLeod was saying. He stated that Mr. Saindon pointed out that particular item in the Desert Sun that came out yesterday, and how the address was in the newspaper and felt that they are still treated as stepchildren and are not told these things. He noted that it was getting a little annoying. He stated that they ask these questions and keep getting told that they can't tell us because it's being negotiated; it's in closed session, yet the entire public sector knows the address of this property and they don't. Mr. McCarthy stated that the solution would have been to simply defer this action until after the escrow closed but staff was trying to be sensitive to this body's previous concerns. Now, staff is being verbally chastised for doing what was asked by this Commission. He noted he could not control what goes on in a City department and how they publish something, however his staff brought this now in order to be sensitive to a previous issue. Mrs. McLeod stated that if the Commission did not have this in their agenda packet today, Mr. Saindon would have still had the newspaper and that would not have solved anything. Mr. McCarthy responded no because staff could have conceptually deferred this action. The acceleration of this action prior to actual closing was in effort to be responsive to this body. Mrs. McLeod stated that no one had questioned that. Mr. McCarthy stated that this is a budgetary action not a real estate transaction and it has to be considered in open session and that's what precipitated as being picked up as part of the agenda. Mrs. McLeod inquired why the Council could not do a budget discussion as part of closed session. Mr. McCarthy responded that the Council does not approve this item as closed session, because it technically would not be deemed an appropriate action for closed session. He stated that he could bring back the budget after close of escrow and have the Housing Commission approve it then, but this was done as a means of being responsive to their concerns. He reminded the Commission of the last time staff ran into this issue of bringing a budgetary action after the fact. He further noted that now staff was being tripped by the fact that this item has to be an open session item that it gets picked up as part of it. 13 G:\RDA1Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mrs. McLeod asked why it seemed like a double standard and how you see something in the paper and could not understand why it would not be a closed session item but open to the general public. Mrs. Moore stated the staff report is the same report as what the Commission has in its packet, with the exception of the address being in the paper. This was sent out to the Commission before that address went in the paper. She reiterated that the agenda was posted on Friday and she had no idea it was going to be in the paper with an address, most of the time parcel numbers are published and not street addresses. She advised that this item was sent out in the packet to ensure that the Commissioners received it ahead of time. If the Council were meeting closer to the close of escrow date then the City Council would get it after the close of escrow. Mr. Sullivan moved to approve this item but expressed that this issue should be brought out, stating to get departments together in this particular situation so the Commission nor staff get embarrassed again in the future. He stated that if they were going to use a 30- unit apartment as an example then do it as a 30-unit apartment building and expressed that he did not want to see an assessor's parcel number (APN) because he can look up an APN number along with all its details any time he wants. Mrs. Moore stated that as soon as the Council plans to negotiate on a property, the parcel number is noted in the agenda for the City Council to discuss it in closed session. Mr. Sullivan stated that the parcel number should be presented to them at the same time. The assessors parcel number is a very public item. Mrs. Moore stated that it is stated on the agenda the way that it is during negotiations which indicates the parcel number. Mr. Saindon questioned what the replacement expenditures are in the budget. Mrs. Moore stated that this budget was indicative of a property similar in size and type and what the replacement expenditures are for that property. She noted that they would not know what exactly they would need to replace until they are able to go into every single unit on the property. Mr. Sullivan asked if this was an interim budget to get us through August 31st since the due diligences have not been completed. 14 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mrs. Moore explained that this was a fiscal year budget and it was created to cover the time from acquisition to June of next year. Mid -year adjustment are conducted in December to request additional monies if necessary, depending on the conditions of the property. Mr. Saindon asked on the difference between replacement expenditures and capital improvements. Mrs. Moore described replacement expenditures to be items that already exist that need to be replaced such as fixtures on the walls, lighting, bars in the pool, etc. Capital improvements are improvements on the property to make it a safe and more functional as an apartment complex. Country Village was used as an example of replacement expenditures for items that needed to be addressed right way. Mr. Saindon inquired if the Commission knew what they were looking at when speaking of capital expenditures and capital improvements and how it's not added on the report that we need to put in a sidewalk, we need to put in lights, or we need to do this. Mrs. Moore stated because they did not have anything specific at this time, the budget is based on the experience of the Authority on a similar sized property. Mr. Saindon questioned why we were putting money there without knowing what it will be spent on. Mrs. Moore reiterated that it was based on a similar experience that we had with a property of that age and size. In the event there are items that need to be addressed right away this will cover the expenditure. Mr. Saindon requested that Mrs. Moore describe the categories listed on the report. Mrs. Moore explained the categories and asked the Commission if they would like a detail description line item by line item of the property at the next meeting. Mr. Saindon stated that if they could get a breakdown that would be great. After Mrs. Moore provided a detail description of each category, the following motion was taken: 15 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Action: Motion was made by Leo Sullivan and seconded by Verna Smith to approve and forward the recommendation to the Palm Desert Housing Authority to authorize approve the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget for a 30-unit apartment complex and authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate funds from the unobligated Housing Authority fund upon close of escrow. F. Palm Desert Housing Authority Resolution No. HA-30 and Rental Rates Janet Moore reviewed the draft staff report and explained that after actual implementation of the policy on rental rates we found a couple of exceptions, which is why it was being amended. She provided detailed information as to the revised method of implementation and how it would allow lease renewals every 12 month for those who are additionally assisted or those who require 12-month leases. Upon question of why the staff report was labeled draft, Mrs. Moore stated that the report has not been finalized. The attorneys have not reviewed the report yet and in the event there are changes due to legal reasons those changes will be made. The report is in draft form so that we could get it to you in the event you go dark for August, as was requested at last month's meeting. Mr. Saindon expressed concern approving it in draft form and asked that the report be brought back in its final form for approval. Discussion ensued with suggestions made to forward the recommendation to approve substantially as to form pending legal review. Given that there is no urgency, Commission agreed to review the staff report in its final form. Action: Motion was made by Larry Saindon and seconded by Linda Ward to table this item until its in final form. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. HOUSING AUTHORITY NEWSLETTER (July) Newsletters were reviewed by the Commission. Linda Ward requested that a thank you letter be sent to Jim Angle and his wife 16 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes1200617-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Addie Angle for the magnificent jobs they did at our properties. Mr. Angle was the assistant manager at Las Serenas and Mrs. Angle was the property manager at California Villas. Motion was made Linda Ward and seconded by Leo Sullivan approving that a letter be sent on behalf of the Housing Commission. B. AGENCY HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE An update on the Home Improvement Program was provided to the Commission for review. James Conway stated that 14 new applicants were recently assigned to Rancho Housing Alliance. They are currently conducting inspections and work write-ups. Discussion ensued with the application process and how the loan amounts are determined. Janet Moore stated that the guidelines of the Program are being revised in terms of the funding limits available to applicants. She explained how the current maximum loan amounts are insufficient for the desired or in some cases necessary work repairs requested by the homeowners. A proposed amendment to the guidelines will be provided to the Commission for review once completed. Larry Saindon requested a concise home improvement regulation and a recommendation of maximum grants and what the government states we could do. Janet Moore stated that the Home Improvement Program is not a Federal Program but a City program however when we use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money the only requirement by them is that there is a bidding process in the event the grant exceeds $100,000. She noted that our own bidding requirements are formal bids for any type of work over $25,000, so we are more stringent than CDBG. Bryce White advised on the precaution of paying prevailing wage if determined substantial rehabilitation, which is usually considered at 25% of the total. Justin McCarthy informed the Commission of several considerations that will assist in determining the funding amount towards this policy: 1) Avoid paying prevailing wage, which does not benefit the homeowner; and 2) Staying within the bidding structure so we don't create more work for the homeowner. In addition to CDBG funds and the accurate amount to allocate towards this use since those funds are also utilized in a variety of different ways. 17 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 C. PALM VILLAGE APARTMENTS An update on Palm Village Apartments was provided to the Commission as well as updated pictures of the construction phase. A newspaper article regarding the solar panels was also provided for review as well as an update in a memo by Missy Wightman. Bryce White reviewed the summary provided to the Commission with regard to time frames and events surrounding the construction of Palm Village apartments in addition to a chronology of the design, approvals and construction. D. CATALINA GARDENS COMMUNITY ROOM An update and pictures of the Community Room were provided to the Commission for review. A copy of the Community Center Rules and Conditions of Use was provided to the Commission as informational. Janet Moore reviewed the proposed policy for the application of use of the community room and established policies. The policy reflects a priority given to Catalina Community Apartment leasing office activities or meetings. The community room will be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will be attended by a staff member. Discussion followed whether security should be required if the facility exceeded its maximum capacity and the types of functions allowed. Given that an RPM staff member will be on site during its operation to ensure renters comply with the policy, security was determined to be unnecessary at this time. Linda Ward requested that the amount of the cleaning deposit be raised. Mrs. Moore commented that the original proposed amount was lower and that was the standard going rate for cleaning services. It was noted that the City's Risk Manager had reviewed the policy in terms of insurance requirements and fees and was acceptable. It was explained that the policy will be forwarded to the City Council as an action item but is being presented to the Commission for informational purposes. Bryce White reviewed the update provided. 18 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes1200617-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 Mr. Sullivan expressed concern with regard to the bid requirements in place and stated that this is a discussion they should have at another meeting since it was too late now, but felt that this lowest bid thing did not make sense at all in this world today. He stated that the contractor is $600,000 short, $500,000 lower than the next highest bid and felt that we would have probably been done if we had chosen the higher bid. He does not agree with the lowest bidder rule and wants further discussion on this. E. Phase II 20 Acre Site Update: 1) Falcon Crest 2) La Rocca Villas Dave Yrigoyen stated that construction for the single-family homes is progressing. With regard to the application process, he reported out of the 1000 applications distributed, 140 were received and are currently in the review process. Pictures will be provided at the next meeting. Regarding La Rocca Villas, Dave Yrigoyen reported that construction has started with the foundation complete. The developer was asked to build a prototype of a single unit to ensure everything requested was incorporated. At this time, Janet Moore extended an apology for Mr. McCarthy's excusing himself from the meeting as he is acting City Manager and must attend to a city function scheduled at this time. She informed the commission of an unfortunate incident that took place recently at One Quail Place, in the event it is published in the newspaper she wanted them to be aware of it. This matter is being handled by the police department but explained that there was a stabbing at the complex. It was between a resident and his visitor. F. Estonia Protocol Janet Moore reported that staff is continuing their efforts to reduce energy within the Housing Authority properties. As information purposes, Dave Yrigoyen reported that the Redevelopment Agency is conducting an analysis of all the housing revenues with regard to the 20% set aside portion in order to issue a housing bond to fund the majority of the projects currently on the books. 19 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc Housing Commission Minutes JULY 12, 2006 IX. ADJOURNMENT Leo Sullivan questioned if the Housing Commission had a schedule for next month, to which Vice -Chair Carrie McLeod responded no. Mr. Sullivan proceeded to motion that the Housing Commission have a meeting on August 9tn as opposed to going dark as previously discussed. Verna Smith seconded the motion. With members of the Housing Commission concurrence, Vice -Chairman Carrie McLeod adjourned the meeting at 5:42 p.m. The next meeting will be held on August 9, 2006. PATTY LEON, RECORDING SECRETARY 20 G:\RDA\Patty Leon\Wpdocs\Housing Commission\Minutes\2006\7-12-06.doc