Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 - MINUTES - 6/29/1994 n ,i r CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 29, 1994 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, was called to order by Mayor Maryanov, in the Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday,June 29, 1994, at 6:30 p.m., at which time, the City Attorney announced items to be discussed in Closed Session, and at 7:30 p.m., the meeting was convened in open session. ' ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Hodges, Lyons, Reller-Spurgin, Schlendorf and Mayor Maryanov Absent: None The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag, and a moment of silence. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted in accordance with Council procedures on June 24, 1994. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION(All Entities)-See items on Page 2 of agenda this date. PUBLIC COMMENTS: a) Darrell Meeks thanked members of the Council, especially Ms. Schlendorf for her time on the Council, and respected her decision making process; and commented concerning a recent letter to the editor. b) Comments concerning Item 2: Tex Regans, Afro-American Chamber of Commerce, stated that regarding an over-sight committee for the CDBG Incubator Program, which he previously supported, he talked with the Director of Economic Development and that he did not have a problem with a more external working relationship to the department, and has been assured that they will be included in the development of the program; that he sees such action as positive, and supports the program and will help a third party agency in the recruitment and development of the program. LEGISLATIVE ACTION: 1. UTILITY USER TAX CONTINUANCE - 2ND READING City Clerk read title of Ordinance 1476; after which, it was moved by Lyons, seconded by Reller- (140- Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that further reading be waived, and 01476 be adopted. 007) 2. CDBG PROGRAM - 94-95 BUDGET ALLOCATION Consideration of resolution to allocate 1994-95 CDBG funds. Director of Economic Development reviewed his memorandum, noting that two resolutions were provided, to either include or not include the incubator program; that the resolution reflects changes designated by the Council at its original hearing on the block grant funds; that the incubator start up is recommended at $35,000 and $20,000 for pre-assistance for small business type loans to get started; that intent was to supplement the funds and the San Bernardino Development Corporation is still being looked to for no less than$50,000; that the full program (085- cannot be developed without those funds; that the Council options are to allocate the funds, with 001) understanding that a full budget would be brought back before proceeding; or to allocate the funds for another purpose, and reconsider the program in the following year's CDBG allocation. In answer to questions by Council, he stated that the success criteria was established by the National Organization of Incubators in Washington, D.C., and that there are no funds that would be expended unless approved by the Council. Councilmember Schlendorf stated she had no problem setting the funds aside, and reiterated her concerns about the funds being available for the economically disadvantaged, and not just small business, and that there be a careful monitoring of that. She added that the City should be supporting the homeless shelter, which is the only one in the valley, whether it submitted a timely application, i.e., since the incubator was also not submitted via an application. Council Minutes 6-29-94, Page 2 2. CDBG (Continued) Rev. Greene stated that the program was denied the prior year, and be felt it would have been denied again, as the organization leader was unable to provide any statistics as to how many Palm Springs people were served by it. He suggested that the citizens committee be invited to a study session so it can hear the Council's priorities and thereby expedite the, review process and bring those to bear. ' Resolution 18419 authorizing allocations, including the incubator program with understanding that any expenditure of funds is to be approved by the Council, was presented; after which, it was moved by Lyons, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, and unanimously carried, that R18419 be adopted. 3. DESERT RAIL AUTHORITY Council discussion, and action, if any. City Attorney reported that he has had discussion concerning a proposal to have au exclusive right to have a monorail on Talquitz; that financial statements were asked for and a description of the organization and information has been provided that Don Prank is the principle and articles of incorporation provided; (hat it is recognized that DRA does not have the finances to construct it, but it will find money when it gets the necessary agreement; that$2,:500 has been deposited for the negotiation process to put an agreement together; that DRA formed a joint venture with A.E.G., who has built such projects; that project proforma was provided; that there are a number of questions about the data provided; that DRA recognizes that Council is negotiating on the Prairie Schooner site and asks that if those negotiations are not concluded, that the Council then talk with the DRA; that any agreement should contain that there is uo financial commitment on the part of the City, without the DRA's capacity to perform; and that the issue is whether the Council is interested in having a monorail on Tahquitz,and if negotiations are to proceed, whether the DRA is to pay for the City cost of negotiation. Councilmember Lyons stated that he was a member of the Council subcommittee which met with ' Mr. Prank and the AEG representative, and he was satisfied on the points that laced to be negotiated; that AEG is not a financier, rather a builder; that he questioned the ridership and economics of air investment of this size going for a distance of 1/2 mile; and that he made more sense to have it go from the heavy rail station into downtown. Note: All Councilmembers indicated concerns with Tahquitz Canyon Drive as a location for a monorail, and were explicit that it needed to be elsewhere. Mr. Prank stated that DRA's single focus is to have the project privately funded, to offer free or discounted ridership, and to be self-and energy-efficient, and that the routes may change; and that (14 3- there would be no city bonds or financing. 007) Councilmember Hodges stated that she had concerns about the viability of the project, but as long as the City was not participating financially, she did not have a problem entering an agreement to explore the possibility of what could be done. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated site was also on the Council subcommittee, and commended Mr. Frank for his tenacity; that she did not want to see it on Talquitz, i.e., if it is not successful, she did not want to have it there; and that she would not have a problem if it were elsewhere. Councilmember Schlendorf stated that the monorail may be amusement, but it must also be a transportation purpose, and be able to tap into serious transportation funds; that its location must be determined; that she considered a better service between hotel am'[ the convention center and casino. She noted that DRA must also negotiate with the Tribal Council, and the City Council cannot make a commitment for it. ' Mayor expressed concern as to dealing with a shell corporation which has no shareholder or assets; that he questioned the $1.6 million spent to date, and asked if there was substantiation of such items as $60,000 for travel and $40,000 for supplies; that he favored a monorail, but not on Tahquitz; that he was concerned about "damages" and that the City should be protected from that point of view, that the route must be decided, and studies undertaken; that the public's response is unknown, as well as other factors concerning Indian Avenue. Council Minutes 6-29-94, Page 3 3. DRA (Continued) Don Marcussi, A.E.G., slated that it does not have to be on Tahquitz Canyon, rather the downtown is recognized as the need; that there is a lot that must be done to pull this together; that private funding allows the project to move faster; that AEG has put up money as has Mr. Frank, and each entered a joint venture to help provide the backing as one who would build the monorail; that AEG has not taken a financial interest in DRA, because it has not been offered, but events also have not progressed that far. In response to question by Council, he commented on the monorail in Miami and its success, and stated that in the beginning, the Palm Springs monorail might not be a viable project, but can be built on and start out small; and that there would be a restoration bond posted, in the event it is defunct and must be removed; that there is no ridership currently to justify a line from the railway station to downtown; and that he felt the Council was not aware of the beneficial aesthetics. City Attorney stated that the route should be determined before getting into negotiations, or leave routes open and determine later, in which case documentation could be prepared with understanding that regardless of the route, if it is not acceptable, the agreement would be null and void; that the proponent is saying that Taliquitz Canyon Drive is the most feasible; that the right to negotiate something within a certain amount of time could be given; that the Council could specify that there would not be any city funds involved; that if right-of-way is needed, the proponents would pay for it; that no long term legal liabilities would be agreed to; and that it should be recognized that any city attorney time spent, regardless of fact that the City recovers the cost from the proponent, is lost opportunity time to spend on other pressing issues. Following discussion, it was moved by Hodges, seconded by Lyons, and carried by the following vote, that the City Attorney be instructed to negotiate with Desert Rail Authority to see if an agreement can be forthcoming; that Desert Rail pay City Attorney costs associated therewith, via depositing a total of$15,000 in advance of said negotiations; and that the conclusions be brought back to the Council in 90 days: AYES: Hodges, Lyons, Schlendorf& Mayor Maryanov NO: Reller-Spurgin ABSENT: None 4. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: (Satisfies agenda posting requirements; materials at meeting) - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 5, 1994, Council Chamber, to swear in new Councilmembers. ��„(i1 _�UDITH SUMICH City Clerk