Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 - MINUTES - 3/13/2002 STUDY SESSIONSTUDY SESSION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS March 13, 2002 CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION A. Call Back to Order-Large Conference Room B. Flag Salute C. City Attorney Report on Matters Discussed in Closed Session-See Regular Meeting Schedule agenda this date. D. Public Comments - None E. COUNCIL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/REPORTS Councilmembers commented on various civic functions attended. F. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – PM10 is remaining a non-compliance issue in the City and the Valley and that a TAC with CVAG will be researching methods to assist bringing the Valley into compliance. G. STUDY SESSION 1. SMITH, KEMPTON & WATTS LOBBYIST CONFERENCE CALL Mark, representing Smith, Kempton & Watts, held a conference call with the Council to discuss issues of legislature anticipated and pending; and added that the Governor has stated that cities and counties should not suffer during the State’s budget crisis; that VLF’s will not be redirected; that more information on the budget will be available in May; that there are funding grants that may be upcoming; that conferences have been held with Battin & Kelly to discuss strategy; that Prop 40 passed by the State voters; that the City will be entitled to a one time $126,000 and that there is an additional guarantee of $220,000; that those funds could be used to fund the gap for the skate park; that Prop 42 also passed by the State voters; that will allow approximately $11 million in funds for road maintenance for the City by 2008; that the focus will be on infrastructure; that schools are pushing for general obligation bonds for the rebuilding of schools; that it does not seem the State will be increasing its allocation for statewide tourism efforts; that the Governor has not addressed lowering film fees in the State; that it would be good for the City of Palm Springs; that grants for Historic Sites are being reviewed; and that strategy will need to be developed. City Manager stated that he would continue to review matters with the Lobbyists approximately every 10 days; and that the next teleconference call will involve the Federal Lobbyists. 2. DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE Downtown Development Director stated that the June ground breaking is on schedule; that the agreements are in place; that there will be an increase of 300 parking spaces for the downtown; that the outside fixtures will be the same as those that are located in the downtown; that the landscaping around the structure will be extensive; that the top level will be slotted for 125 employee parking spaces; that there are some spaces that are already designated spaces; that the EIR is being prepared; that the Phase I & II of the environmental report have been done on schedule; that the design/build first proposed will not be recommended; that the target date of June 1st allows for the least disruption of businesses in the downtown; that the design/build would have been an advantage for time line, but that this is a tight site as far as utilities goes; and that there are too many complexities in this project to be good for design/build; that the competitive bid schedule will start on April 3, 2002; that a demolition and construction contract will be let; that the completion date must be before the season starts and no later than November, 2002. See attached Handouts. Councilmember Mills questioned if Walker was preparing the demolition contract along with the construction contracts. Downtown Development Director stated they were, and would include liquidated damages. Councilmember Mills stated that given the time sequence, the staff is correct; that the competitive bidding is the way to go and that the bid would be sufficient as to prevent constant change orders. City Manager stated that after the experience with the Palm Canyon Theater, there will be a change order project team to review all change orders. Councilmember Mills questioned if it would be worthwhile to have Walker include a third party construct ability review. Downtown Development Director stated that it would be worthwhile. Councilmember Mills stated the cost would not be great, but it is a good chance for second review of the documents. Mayor stated that the occupancy date is scheduled by November 30, 2002; it is indicated that the ground floor will be opened as soon as possible and questioned if there is liability if the full structure is not completed and the ground floor is opened for parking; and questioned if the $5 million is inclusive of the land acquisitions. Downtown Development Director stated that discussions would be held with Walker before anyone is allowed to use the structure and that the $5 million is the structure, not the acquisition of properties. Mayor questioned if there were columns in the structure, and requested explanation of the curb line in relation to street parking. Downtown Development Director stated that the sidewalk will encroach into the existing parking line; that there will be no on street parking around the structure; that Baristo Road will be the access road; and that there will be acceleration lanes exiting from the structure. Mayor questioned how many additional spaces were added due to the last parking project. Downtown Development Director stated that 10 or 12 were added. Mayor expressed a concern of tearing up Baristo and Arenas Roads at the same time. Downtown Development Director stated that Baristo does not have any businesses that will be impacted; that given the circumstances, there should not be a problem. Mayor stated that the proposal is somewhat disappointing; that the Council was told that when the Procurement Ordinance was brought forward that it was imperative to approve the Ordinance due to the design/build feature of the Ordinance for the parking structure; that it is not being suggested that the new recommendation is wrong, but that the Council was told one thing and then find this as the result. Downtown Development Director stated that as the contractors were putting the documents together, all were starting to get uncomfortable with the complexity of the site and that more time is needed for the quality of the architectural features. 3. HUMAN RIGHTS MURAL UPDATE Public Information Officer distributed handouts of proposed mural. Jamie & Jesus (student artists) explained in detail the meaning of the mural; Public Arts Commission staff stated that there will be no cost to the City. Public Information Officer stated that all concerned commissions had reviewed and approved the mural, Human Rights Commission, Public Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. 4. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT City Manager indicated that the discussion regarding this matter would be toward policy instructions. Director of Finance & Treasurer handed out the Mello Roos District current policy. Copy attached. Mayor requested the benefits and disadvantages. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that there are some risks with Mello Roos Districts; that there have been problems in the past; and sometimes everyone involved gets hurt; that one of the benefits is tax exempt financing for requirements of the project. Mayor questioned if using Mello Roos could be a tool to building more housing, making it beneficial to developers. Director of Finance & Treasure provided a handout regarding the proposed Revised Policy and Procedures for Special Assessment and Community Facility District (CFD) Municipal Bond Financing Programs, and discussed each item, stating current policy and proposed policy. Copy attached. Mayor questioned how this would be used in connection with TUMF fees; and stated currently a permit is not issued until TUMF fees are paid. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that in the proposed policy, TUMF fees could be added to eligible development fees, with a financing agreement. Mayor questioned if this would help in the building and sale of homes. Director of Community and Economic Development stated that Mello Roos has to be disclosed to the buyer, and that often it is not a positive turn; that it usually lowers the cost of the home to the buyer, however, it adds to their tax burden; that it does help facilitate development without asking for City assistance; and that requirements for schools and parks would fall on the developer to satisfy. Councilmember Mills stated that this gives the City another tool in the competitive market; that it gives the developer an opportunity to cut down up-front costs; and that the costs are transferred to the buyer, but spread out over longer periods of time. Mayor questioned the merits of Mello Roos vs. no Mello Roos. Suzanne Harrell, City Financial Advisor, stated that there are about 15 years of history regarding Mello Roos; and that people are aware of what it means. City Attorney stated that there is no doubt that the reason there are signs posted at housing developments stating “No Mello Roos” is that there is still confusion and negative feelings on Mello Roos; that this would let the developer decide whether to use Mello Roos or not; currently we do not give the developer the choice. Council direction is to give this issue some thought. City Attorney stated Mello Roos policy will be put on an agenda for resolution on a meeting in the near future. ADJOURNMENT