The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 - MINUTES - 5/8/2002 STUDY SESSIONSTUDY SESSION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAY 8, 2002 CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION A. Call Back to Order-Kleindienst absent B. Flag Salute C. City Attorney Report on Matters Discussed in Closed Session-See Page 2 of Agenda this date. D. Public Comments David J. Lynch, 1111 Tahquitz, stated that the Council should keep its meeting schedule as it is; that many attend the meetings; that is the time is change it may prevent those that do attend from attending. E. COUNCIL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/REPORTS Councilmembers commented on various civic functions attended. Oden requested report on employee practices of APCOA parking contract. F. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – None G. STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF CRA, AIRPORT & CAPITAL 2002/03 BUDGET Director of Finance & Treasurer reviewed a handout and requested guidance regarding the recommendations. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The following comments may not be Council specific, but were consensus of various budget items, Reller-Spurgin: on Item 9, not intent of Council to redo SCR; perhaps only chairs; that further is unnecessary. City Manager: Need $50,000 for ADA doors between the two City Hall buildings. Executive Director – Airports stated that there was $65,000 budgeted to update and upgrade the SCR; that a sink was to be put in, new chairs, new table, the window expanded. Hodges concurred with Reller-Spurgin and added the $65,000 could go to purchase an additional elevator for the parking structure. Oden: Chairs are 12 years old and needed. Mills: Will agree to wait an additional year for consideration of new chairs. Consensus: Delete budget request of $65,000 for remodel of SCR. Hodges: Any skate park fundraising efforts? City Manager: yes, once all is in final form of drawings will get more heavily involved; also have new architect on project. Hodges: been saying for 2 years getting ready to start fundraising; that a match was done by the City; that the funds have not been matched; and questioned how much General Fund money has been given to the skate park. Director of Parks, Rec and Facilities: Meeting scheduled May 22, there are many fundraisers planned, selling of bricks, cards and the like; a booth will be set up at Village fest; that the general fund is approximately $50,000 in a challenge grant; that the Prop Y funds equal $200,000; that the balance comes from grants; that there is $5550,000 currently in grants and in Tribal gifts that have come in for project; that the total cost is about $1.4 million; that basically the skate park portion of the project is funded; but that the full plan is also renovation of the swim center; that the project is long overdue for the City. Director of Finance stated that should the Council decide to proceed with the Animal Shelter in a Bond Issue, the debt service would be $100,00 per year. Oden questioned 14 & 15 on Page one and what is meant by avoided costs. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the trench is actually being opened and paid for by SCE, that the City is taking advantage of the situation by laying conduit in the trench for the cameras downtown and for fiber optics. Oden questioned if the $70,000 was from the general fund. Director of Finance & Treasurer stated that the funding would be from grants or the asset forfeiture account, or possibly a combination of both. AIRPORT BUDGET Executive Director – Airports reviewed budget material, see attached copy, and added that it is anticipated that the surplus will get better. CRA BUDGET Redevelopment Director stated that prevailing wage requirements will not play a larger role in projects funded by the Agency; that according to the Agency Counsel projects that entail Agency funding will be subject to the prevailing wage schedule; that the bond issue on the parking deck the Agency is moving forward with possible bond issues; that the improvements to Palm Canyon and Indian Avenue going to one way should happen over the summer; that the uptown association is supportive of the decorative lighting and is requesting Agency consideration of funding of the project; that the focus of the Agency staff will be to try of complete one or two significant projects during the year as opposed to several mini projects; that on the housing side, the Garden Springs Apartment project has applied for tax credits; that the Agency will be awarding an additional $500,000 to that project; that a budget amendment will need to come forward if any other housing projects surface for the Agency. Hodges: Questioned what the special administration charges were and where the income paid to the Agency Members was indicated. Director of Finance stated that the Administrative costs were reflect in service fees that are charged by the General Fund for the other departments support; that Members of the Agency are under personnel costs in each project area. Mills: Questioned if the prevailing wage is equal to the assistance e by the Agency or if the requirement covers the entire project. Redevelopment Director stated that there are a couple of exclusions, such as housing, but typically it will be the amount of subsidy to the project that will be subject to the prevailing wage. Agency Counsel stated that to include the costs of prevailing wage, the construction costs of a project will rise 20 – 30%; that in most cases the contractor will just break even; that Counsel is investigating possible exemptions; and t hat it may be that some projects will not be able to afford Agency assistance due to the requirement of prevailing wage. Oden: questioned if any specific changes in revenue have been indicated to significantly impact the budget. Redevelopment Director stated that overall Agency revenue is increasing; that depending on the TOT from the Spa agreement with its rebate, there could be additional income; that the rebate is an impact to project areas; that it will be an impact to the Canyon Project Area; that resources are needed; that with the Spa TOT there are several options the Tribe may select, such as renewal of the agreement, agree to give all the TOT to the City without rebate; or not give any TOT to the City; that it is their discretion. Agency Counsel stated that the TOT was a general fund issue; that when the Tribe worked out the agreement, it was folded by legal mechanism into the Agency; that it is the City that will actually lose if the agreement is not forthcoming. Hodges questioned is the reservoir land would be sold. Redevelopment Director stated that it is the land near the casino; that if the agreement is reached on the sale it will probably net around $214,000 to the general fund and $162,000 to the Agency. Hodges questioned how long the Palm Mountain TOT agreement is. Agency Council stated 6 years. AIRPORT SECURITY ISSUES Executive Director – Airports reviewed the TSA agreement and added that addition Officers will be needed at the boarding gates, Marshals will be used and that the airport must have a explosive detection system; that there are several discussions on the detection system, technology of Cat Scanning or trace detection; that the equipment will be large, expensive, not sure of the location or who will pay for the equipment; that there is a 300 foot rule that does affect the rental car lots and the parking lot and gate 7; that the blast analysis did find that a blast wall must be constructed on the north end of the terminal; that large vehicles will be restricted for 300 feet zone in the parking lot; that large vehicles will be restricted in front of there terminal unless inspected; that the distance between the roadway and the center of the terminal must be expanded; that there is no flexibility on the Federal side; that the road on the MVP to El Cielo must be closed; that the MVP is a safety issue for the airport that the best recommendation is to close the road to any through traffic. Hodges questioned if Measure A funds were used on the airport portion of the MVP; what impact on traffic on Ramon Road; what is the cost of a checkpoint; and added that in her opinion the roadway does need to be kept open. Oden stated that there are many changes that will be made regarding the airport; that there are safety concerns; that the 1st priority must be the airport and that if there is a way to keep the MVP open that would be good, but that the airport must remain 1st. Executive Director – Airports stated that there are no obligations due to Measure A funds; that a security checkpoint would cost about $400,000; that during the regular season about 35 – 40 vehicles would use this entry a day; and that the recommendation is the best to offer. Mills: Stated that the scheme basically works; that there may be some traffic problems that will need to be worked out; that it is good to keep the checkpoint down to just one; that it is a substantial cost savings; that there is the potential to keep the west to east side of the MVP open; that a subcommittee should be formed of all concerned parties, including a rep of the Council to review the issue. ADJOURNMENT