HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2000 - STAFF REPORTS MINUTES OF
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
A Regular Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs,
California, was called to order by Chairman Kleindienst, in the Council Chamber, 3200
Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, at 5:30 p.m., at which time,
the Agency Counsel announced items to be discussed in Closed Session, and at 7:00
p.m., the meeting was convened in open session.
ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Jones, Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin,
and Chairman Kleindienst
Absent: None
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in
accordance with Council procedures on September 1, 2000.
REPORT OF AGENCY COUNSEL ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION
(All Entities)- See items on Page 8 of agenda this date.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
Agency Member Oden left Council Chamber at 7:35 P.M.
A. PA1 B15—261-265 NORTH INDIAN CANYON
Recommendation: That the Agency award contract to Environmental Concerns,
Inc., dba Southwest Industries, for asbestos abatement and demolition of the
Rudnick Building located at 261-265 North Indian Canyon, for $31,054, CP00-16.
A406C.
Redevelopment Director reviewed the staff report.
Agency Counsel stated that that the project is ready to move forward; that there
was a protest filed for irregularity in the bid process; that the staff position is that
the irregularity does not affect the price of the contract and therefore the Agency
may approve the contract as presented, to include not sustaining the bid protest.
Resolution 1109 as revised, to include not to sustain bid protest, was presented;
after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Hodges and
unanimously carried, Oden absent, that R1109 be adopted.
Agency Member Oden returned to Council chamber at.7:40 P.M.
B. WESTAR ASSOCIATES-GENE AUTRY TRAIL & RAMON ROAD
Recommendation: That the Agency approve an Exclusive Agreement to
negotiate with Westar Associates, Inc., for Agency owned parcel and a privately
owned parcel in merged Project Area 1 (formerly Ramon-Bogie). A407C.
CRA Minutes
09-06-00,Page 2
Redevelopment Director reviewed the staff report.
Agency Counsel stated that regarding the soil contamination, the agreement
does state that during negotiations for the DDA, the Agency shall apply for
financial assistance from the State or Federal government to assist with the
remediation of the contaminated portion of the site; that the Agency and
Riverside County Environmental Health have determined that a partial clean
closure may be the most practical approach; that the agreement is clear that the
Agency shall not be obligated to clean up the property if it does not obtain
additional resources from the State or Federal government, but Westar
Associates and the Agency agree that a mediation budget be included in the
agreement and to offset the cost against the purchase price.
Agency Member Hodges stated that the agreement should be clear that the
Agency is not responsible for any funding to "clean up" the site.
Agency Member Jones stated that approval of the matter will lead to the demise
of several current business owners.
Agency Member Reller-Spurgin stated that this is the property located on Ramon
Road and Gene Autry; that this is one of the most prime intersections in the
Coachella Valley; that it is in the best interest of all citizens that the Agency does
all it can to make this plot of land generate sales tax for the Community; and that
if the Agency does not take action, then the possible sales tax will move to some
other part of the Valley.
Agency Member Jones stated it is the type of business that he is opposed to.
Chairman stated that the location has a high car count; that the developer is
proposing to mitigate the dumpsite; that the development will bring retail to the
area; that the development may cause competition, but that if it is not built on this
site, the development will just locate somewhere else in the Valley; and that the
development will be a tax base for the City.
Resolution 1110 as recommended was presented; after which, it was moved by
Hodges, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and carried by the following vote that
R1110 be adopted.
AYES: Members Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NO: Member Jones.
C. KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
Recommendation: That the Agency approve agreement with Keyser Marston
Associates for the financial analysis of hotel, retail and entertainment center
development proposals seeking Agency assistance for$20,000. A408C.
Redevelopment Director reviewed the staff report.
Agency Member Jones questioned if the developer usually pays for this type of
cost, such as the Desert Walk.
CRA Minutes
09-06-00,Page 3
Redevelopment Director stated that with the project called Promenade the costs
were shared; that with the Desert Walk, the developer did not pay the costs; that
allowing the Agency to pay for and obtain the information would enhance
negotiations on the part of the Agency.
Agency Member Hodges questioned what the usual costs were for this type of
analysis.
Redevelopment Director stated that the costs vary; that the Desert Walk was
fairly lengthy and cost $5,100.
Agency Counsel stated that each project would be looked at independently; that
the information obtained would allow for evaluation of the deal being brought by
the developer; that there are a number of projects that will not use this type of
analysis; that approval of the agreement will allow the Agency to have a
consultant available and a budget ready to be used when the analysis is needed;
that delays will be cut; that each project will be reviewed on a case by case basis
to see if this type of analysis is needed; and that the Agency will be in a more
proactive position.
Agency Member Hodges stated that the firm has been used in the past and
performed well; that the problem is that if the money is allocated, it will be spent;
and that this is like giving someone $20,000.
Agency Counsel stated that if the analysis was less than $5,000 the Executive
Director could authorize the agreement; that the recommendation was to also
inform the Agency that this type of analysis was needed, and could be provided
for on a case by case basis, whether the cost was more than $5,000 or not.
Agency Member Jones stated that the analysis is needed on larger project, but
that staff should be able to calculate out the pro forma's.
Redevelopment Director stated that in the past the Agency has felt more
comfortable with the analysis being performed by someone that had more
expertise and added that it is felt there is more weight given to an impartial
analysis.
Agency Member Reller-Spurgin questioned that if the Agency performed the
analysis would there be a problem with the liability.
Agency Counsel stated that there would be no liability sustained; that the
concern was on the more complex projects; that there may be need of a
specialist that performs this type of work; that it is a resource that can be used
when the Agency comes back to make the deal with the developer to negotiate
the deal points; that the information provided is invaluable; that the use of the
consultant would be on a limited basis; and that approval allows simplification of
the process and a more efficient time frame.
CRA Minutes
09-06-00,Page 4
Chairman stated that the Agency always asks for this type of analysis on big
scale projects; that the Agency cannot just trust the numbers provided by the
developer; that someone is needed to independently look at the numbers; that
the firm being recommended has been used by the Agency repeatedly in the
past; that this will facilitate getting the project on a expedited path; that if the old
process is used, there is a delay in coming back to the Agency for approval
before the analysis can be started and added that it is a good recommendation
for a modest amount.
Resolution 1111 as recommended was presented; after which, it was moved by
Kleindienst, seconded by Oden and carried by the following vote that R1111 be
adopted.
AYES: Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NOES: Hodges and Jones.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
Assistant Secretary