HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 - MINUTES - 9/29/1993 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1993
An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, was called to order
in the Large Conference Room, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Hodges,Lyons,Reller-Spurgin,Schlendorf,
and Mayor Maryanov
Absent: None
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: Assistant City Clerk reported that the a.prala was posted in
accordance with Council procedures on September 24, 1993.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY REPORTS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
LEGISLATIVE ITEMS:
2. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES - COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On September 22, 1993, Council discussed community participation in City funding alternatives,
and City government structuring; and Council requested additional information and
recommendations concerning these subjects.
City Manager reviewed staff report and added that the projected budget deficit for next year is$5
million; that to fill the gap expenditures must be reduced, revenues must be raised, or a
combination of both must be utilized; that this fiscal year the Council has cut 69 positions; and
the Utility User Tax on an interim basis was enacted; that the Council did direct staff to research
various types of alternative funding,such as the Street Lighting&Park Assessment District;Fire
Consolidation;implementation of new fees, etc.; that staff is recommending that a survey be done
to establish priorities for the budget; that a threshold level of the Community needs to be
determined; that a citizens' steering committee could be formed to help the City establish
priorities, and to restructure government; that the Committee could be made up of chairpersons
of existing commissions,civic organizations,Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors,and other
already established organizations; that the City could conduct three workshops, in the north, (140-
central and south areas in addition to the required public hearing; that the Landscape and Lighting 00.0
District could raise as much as $2 - $4 million, covering such items as the swim center, park
maintenance, graffiti, and Senior Center; that the funds freed-up via the district would be used to
supplement the general fund; and that staff would further recommend an Assessment District
engineer be hired to develop the actual formula for the equivalent dwelling neit costs.
Mayor stated that suggestions for the composition of the Committee could come from staff; and
that a chairman should be suggested.
Council Member Reller-Spurgin stated that the suggestions should be limited to persons that live
in Palm Springs; and that someone from the banking industry should be appointed.
City Manager reviewed suggestions for category appointments i.e.,City Council appointees, City
Commissions or Boards, Parks for People, Service Club Presidents, League of Women Voters,
Agua Caliente Tribal Council,Chamber of Commerce, School Board,Board of Realtors,Building
Industry Association, Convention and Visitors Board, Main Street, Senior & Disabled Citizens
Coalition of Riverside County, Desert Highland Gateway Estates Community Association, Desert
Clergy, Banking System, and City Organization Bargaining Units.
Council Member Hodges stated that the City Bargaining Unit representatives should not be
included due to the fact, that the issues may effect jobs and revenues.
Mayor stated that this is a complicated issue dealing with how the City should spend money; that
the Council is seeking direction from the public; that the next fiscal year there will be hard
decisions to be made affecting 15-20% of the budget; that letters will appear to the editor
regarding some of the upcoming decisions.
City Manager clarified that a recent letter to the editor addressed the issue of the deficit and
bikepaths being constructed; and added that the funding is acquired through grants and
redevelopment funds.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that if the grants were not applied for, some other City would
be granted the monies.
! Council Minutes
9-29-93, Page 2
2. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES (Cont'd)
City Manager suggested that the Council direct staff to start the process for the survey, and
allocate funding in an amount not to exceed $25,000.
It was moved by Schlendorf, seconded by Lyons, and unanimously carried, that staff initiate the
process for the survey, and that funding be designated at the October 6„ 1993 meeting.
Finance Director stated that an engineer for the assessment district will cost $25,000 450,000;
that the cost for the engineer is refundable from the district; and that tbo effect of passage of the
district will not go to the tax rolls until December, 1994.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned if the district was enacted in April, 1994, would the date
of December 1994 still be applicable for the tax rolls.
Finance Director stated that if the assessment district was a measure on the April, 1994 ballot,that
the process of forming the district would still have to take place.
City Manager stated that staff :is recommending authorization to hire an assessment district
engineer to determine the equivalent dwelling unit costs; and to formulate the assessment district
process.
Council Member Lyons stated that the process does need to start now, in order to meet the
deadlines to form the assessment process.
Mayor stated that if the process does not start now, the parks and pool will have to close in
November, that there is some concern regarding the study for equivalent[dwelling units, i.e.,will
a residential unit of 500 square test be valued the same as a residential unit having 5,0Cb square
feet; that the criteria for hotels will need to be clarified; and that the guidelines will need to be
clear and concise.
City Manager stated that residential units,regardless of size are normally considered one unit;and
that hotels are computed generally by acreage.
Finance Director stated that the assessment engineer will determine the spread of assessments; that
the costs spread will be determined from the level of service desired; that the exact assessment
formula will be determined by the engineer; and that when the formula is developed, it will be
presented to the Council.
Mayor questioned how much the Hilton Hotel would be charged.
Finance Director stated that the formula to figure the assessment will be determined according to
the criteria given to the assessment engineer; and that the information the Mayor is requesting at
this time is not available; that the process will start when the Council passes a resolution initiating
the proceedings; that the resolution is required to contain a general description of the area included
and the type of improvements .and or the maintenance to be provided, and an order for the
assessment engineer's report; that the report will detail the eligible costs to be assessed, the
formula for assessing the charges, and the amount charged per parcel; and that the engineer's
report submitted to the Council for approval may be modified at the C ouncil's discretion.
City Manager clarified that the matter before the Council is to obtain direction for authorization
to seek an engineer for the assessment process.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned whether the assessments could be a fixed amount of
money per parcel.
Director of Finance stated that the Council can make a distinction bussed on size of parcel, if
desired; and that the protest amount is based on overall assessed values.
Council Member Schlendorf requested if a larger square foot, representing a larger assessment
would represent a higher protest vote.
Finance Director stated that the protest is based on a dollar amount.
Contractor Administrator stated that the benefit assessment is based on property; that a property
owner that owns a home, whether one person lives in the home or more, the benefit derived from
the assessment stays the same.
Mayor stated that a home owner with a larger property gets more benefit than a smaller property
owner; and that it is difficult to determine what is fair.
Council Minutes
9-29-93, Page 3
2. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES (Cont'd)
Contract Administrator stated that there are many entities in the Valley that have assessments; that
the various assessments have a medium cost of$118 per year; and that the range of assessments
run from a low of$20 per year to $1,700 per year.
Mayor questioned if the protest equalled 49% would the benefit assessment district have to
proceed.
Contract Administrator stated that the process could stop at any time the Council desired.
Mayor stated that with the current economics of the City,that the protest vote should be relatively
small; but that the Council does need to be aware of all the alternatives.
It was moved by Lyons, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, that an assessment engineer be contracted
with to determine the equivalent dwelling unit amount and the total amount of the assessment
district.
Council Member Hodges stated that the City is banking alot on the Assessment District process;
that it is uncertain whether the community is in agreement; that the City does need to determine
the priorities of the City; that since the survey must be completed first, the assessment engineer
process could be deferred until the results of the survey are compiled; that the assessment district
is an easy way to get a tax; that it will be difficult to obtain a 50%a protest vote; that she is
uncomfortable with the process; that the community has to want the district; that with the survey
the Council will have the priorities of the community; that instead of spending money for an
assessment engineer now, it may be that the survey will provide the answer for the Council; that
the money generated from the District will not fund the parks or pool this year; and that the
funding allocated to the parks and pool will be gone at the end of November, 1993.
Council Member Lyons questioned the time line of the survey.
City Manager stated that once the process is started, it will take appro,;imately 5 weeks to
complete.
Council Member Reller-Spurgin stated the motion on the table is to see is the Council if agreeable
to finding an engineer; then a motion will be required to acquire the finding; and that she
seconded the motion on the table to start the process.
Council Member Lyons stated that the RFP process is a slow one; and t hat if the assessment
engineer is sought now, by the time the survey is complete, an engineer will be ready to start.
Finance Director stated that the October 6, 1993 agenda could have Council consideration to get
an engineer.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned whether or not the services for an assessment engineer
would go through the bid process.
City Manager stated that this is for professional services; and that£mat authorization could come
back to the Council in mid-October, 1993.
Finance Director stated that a public report could be given on October 20, 1993; and that the
engineer could be ordered at that time to develop the formula for the district.
Mayor stated that the status of the parks needs to be reviewed; that there is a benefit of waiting
to hire the engineer until the survey is done; that the parks and pool is funded to the end of
November, 1993; that the results of the survey will not be available until the end of November,
1993; that something must be determined about what to do with the parks and pool issue; and that
if the assessment district fails, an alternative needs to be found.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned whether the matter should be placed on an agenda for
discussion.
Council Member Hodges stated that the Council never took a vote regarding the assessment
district process; that the suggestion that the assessment funds be spent to operate the parks and
pool is being determined without the full input of the Council.
Mayor questioned what the Council desired regarding continuation of funding for the parks and
pool.
Council Minutes
5I-29-93, Page 4
2. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES (Cont'd)
Council Member Lyons questioned the status of the fmndraising; and when Motorola would be
taking over the upkeep of the Baristo Park.
City Manager stated that the matter should be scheduled for a future agenda.
Mayor requested the Parks & Recreation Department determine the status of the fundraising
efforts.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that the Utility User Fee was agreed on by the Council, with
the understanding that Victoria and Baristo Parks and the Swim Center would be closed; that the
entire focus was to impact the citizens with the awareness of the budget problem the City is
experiencing; that at the first sign of political pressure, the members that support the idea,
reversed their stand, and allocated interim funding for the parks and pool; that the perception of
those meetings is that the Council is closing every park in the City; and ghat it does need to clarify
that there are only two parks being closed; that the remaining 5 regional type parks throughout
tine City will remain open.
Mayor questioned the membership of the proposed steering committee for community
participation.
City Manager read listing of various proposed members, as on file in Office of the City Clerk.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that requesting staff to be on the Committee, will be placing
those individuals in a difficult position; that staff should be requested to be used as support; that
the employees may be asked to make decisions affecting other employees; and requested.Council
to reconsider those appointments.
Council Member Reller-Spurgni requested City Manager to distribute a copy of the listing to each
member; and requested that members of the Council submit suggestions to the Council.
Council Member Hodges questioned when the Utility User Tax will go to a vote of the people.
Council Member Lyons stated that it is his understanding that the Utility User Fee will sunset in
June, 1994.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that her understanding is that the Utility User Tax will go to
a vote of the people in April, 1994.
Mayor stated that in his opinion, he is unwilling to reinstate the Utility User Fee without a vote;
that the Fee does sunset in June, 1994; that if the matter is placed on the ballol, it will confuse
the public with so many other issues.
Council Member]Hodges stated that the public may prefer a Utility User Fee, as opposed to an
assessment district; and that the citizens should be given a choice.
Mayor stated that the results of the survey will enlighten the Council in the choices and preference
of the citizens.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that when the Utility User Fee was discussed she understood
that it was to go to vote in April, 1994.
Council Member Lyons stated that the Utility User Fee is not listed on the agenda for discussion.
Mayor stated that when the Utility User Fee was discussed, that his pledge was to place the fee
to go in effect in October, 1993, and to sunset in June, 1994; that future Council's may need to
make a decision concerning the Utility User Fee; and should not be bound by the present Council.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned if future Council's could reinstate the Utility User Fee,
if they desired.
City Attorney stated that the way the current Ordinance reads, the Fee does sunset in June, 1994;
that a future Council could reinstate the Fee without a vote of the people.
Council Member Reller-Spurgin stated that it is not the Council's right to make decisions for
future Council's on whether they should have the vehicle of the Utility User Fee.
Council Minutes /
9-29-93, Page 5
2. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES (Cont'd)
Council Member Schlendorf stated that every decision that the Council makes binds future
Councii's; and that this Council is bound by decisions made by previous Councils.
Council Member Reller-Spurgin stated that the current Council has been cautious about decisions
binding any future Council's.
Council Member Hodges stated that an example of binding could be the communication system
approved by this Council for$1 million.
Mayor stated that any Council has to make some decisions; and that appreciation is given to staff
for the work done on the financing alternative suggestions.
Motion to fund the survey in an amount not to exceed$25,000 was presenter, after which;it was
moved by Schlendorf, seconded by Lyons, and unanimously carried that the motion be approved;
and
motion to start the process for request for proposal for the assessment engineer was presented,
after which; it was moved by Lyons, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that
the motion be approved.
3. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE -PUBLIC WORKS PLAN CIWiCK SERVICES
Recommendation: That the Council amend the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to add a Public
Works Plan Check Services fee, consistent with the 1993-94 budget adoptiou, in order to recover
cost of providing those services, and approve agreement with ASL Consulting Service, The Holt (114-
Group, KWL Associates, Mainiero, Smith&Associates, Inc., and Sanbonr/Webb, Inc., for plan 008
check services, A3273-3277.
City Manager reviewed the staff report.
Mayor stated abstention due to client financial interest.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned charges regarding additional per cheer of plans.
Bob Mainiero, Mainiero, Smith and Associates, stated that the intent of the charges is to address
sets of plans that have to be rechecked due to revisions; that the committee agreed that three
rechecks are reasonable; and that the charge for up to three would be $1,800.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned if the $1,800., is more or less currently charged.
Mainiero stated that the charges are in line with current costs.
Mayor questioned the review of grading plans and whether the costs are rising for the consumer.
Mainiero stated that he could not recall the past charge for each individual charge; but that the
costs were agreed upon by staff and the various engineering firms involved.
Council Member Lyons questioned if the Building Industry Association has ra✓i.ewed the proposed
changes.
City Manager stated that it is unclear if the Building Industry Association was involved and
requested that the matter be continued until October 6, 1993.
It was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Lyons,and unanimously carrier that the matter be
continued to October 6, 1993.
4. PROPOSITION 172-EXTENSION OF 1/2% SALES TAX
On September 22, 1993, Council requested this matter be placed on this agenda to discuss whether
or not to support the passage of Proposition 172, the extension of the 1/2% sales tax, which is on
the November ballot. The additional tax money raised by the measure would be used for Public
Safety augmented by the Counties and Cities. (140-
Director of Finance & Treasurer requested the Council support 009
eq pport the Proposition [o support the
1/2% sales tax.
� Council Minutes
9-29-93, Page 6
4. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCI IEDULE (Cont'd)
Council Member Schlendorf questioned what the City would receive.
Director of Finance &Treasurer stated that the maximum would be $283,000; that the funding
amount is set by law; and that the Council could designate those funds in any manner.
Resolution 18184 as recommended was presented, after which; it was moved by Reller-Spurgin,
seconded by Schlendorf, and unanimously carried that R18184 be adopted.
On September 22, 1993, Council requested this matter be placed on this agenda to discuss and
review status of Commission.
5. CONVENTION CENTER COIUMISSION
Director of Convention Center stated the Convention Center has moved to private management;
that the Convention Center would be better served by an advisory board; that the board could
include of members of retail establishment, and convention planners; and that the, current
Commission does agree to the change.
Council Member Schlendorf questioned who would be evaluating the: performance of Leisure
Management International. (060-
Director of Convention Center stated that Leisure Management is under contract with the City; 025)
that there are performa standards that must be met; and that the City Manager and the Director
of Finance are sent financial statements; that the Chairman of the Advisory Committee could
report to the Council on a periodic basis; that the current members of the Convention Center
Commission would be asked to remain on the Advisory Board; tha.lt the members would be
appointed by Leisure Management International; that the Board would assist in promoting the
Convention Center; and that the structure of the Board i.e., terms, membership categories,would
be provided to the Council.
City Attorney stated that the Board will not have an advisory role to the Council; and that the
Council would have to funnel any requests through the Director of the Convention Center rather
than the Advisory Board.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that basically the role of the Commission would not be
changing; that the role of any Commission is advisory in nature; and that Commissions are the
eyes and ears for the Council.
Director of Convention Center stated that the records of Leisure Management International are
open; and that any information requested is available.
Mayor stated that there are vehicles that exist for the Convention Center Commission to access;
that contact can be made with the,Tourism Board; that the Hotel Association does keep in contact
with the Convention Center.
Convention Center Director stated that the Advisory Board does need more representation from
industries that rely on the Convention Center.
Mayor stated that a citizens lash: force could be set up for the express purpose of evaluation of
Leisure Management International.
Council Member Reller-Spurgin stated that the Director of the Convention Center does, supply a
weekly report; that the report is always informative; and that in her opinion keeps the, Council
informed of any issues the Convention Center is facing.
City Manager stated even though the management of the Convention Center is private., that the
staff does participate with the City staff, and is considered a vital pail.of the staff.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that there is great pride in the Convention Center by the
Community.
Council Member Lyons questioned the procedure to disband the Commission.
City Attorney stated that there are Ordinances that will need to be repealed.
It was moved by Lyons, seconded by Reller-Spurgin to direct staff to prepare Ordinances to
disband the Convention Center Commission and proceed with necessary actions with the,intent to
form the Advisory Board.
Council Minutes
9-29-93, Page 7
6. COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE-PUBLIC WORKS PLAN CHECK SERVICE
At this point City Manager requested that Item 3 be reconsidered for action.
It was moved by Schlendorf, seconded by Lyons and unanimously carded that item 3 be
reconsidered.
Director of Public Works stated that the Building Industry Association representative,Ed Kibbey,
was aware of the proposed changes, and that agreement has been reached; that the amount of the
fees is slightly higher; that due to staff cuts, City personnel is not available to do the job; that (114-
the last three weeks, the work has been contracted out; and that the Council is being requested to 008
approve the matter in order to justify payment.
Mayor questioned why the awarding of contracts was not by competitive hid.
Director of Public Works stated that all the City engineering firms are included on a rotation
basis.
City Manager clarified the question as to why the awarding of contracts c✓us not by competitive
bid.
Director of Public Works stated that the process can be done; that however, with the reduced
staff, time is of the essence.
Mayor questioned if the proper fees are being charged.
Council Member Schlendorf stated that the Building Industry Association is not protesting the
charges.
Resolution 18183 as recommended was presented, after which; it was moved by Schlendorf,
seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that R18183 be adopted;
and
Minute Order 5256 as recommended was presented, after which; it was moved by Schlendorf,
seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and tamed by the following vote, that MO5256 be adopted.
AYES: Hodges, Lyons, Reller-Spurgin, and Schlendorf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Maryanov
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned.
JUDITH SUMICH
City Clerk
By: PATRICIA A. SANDERS
Assistant City Clerk