HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 - MINUTES - 12/28/1994 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 28, 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 Council Chamber, 3200 Taliquitz Carryon Way, on Wednesday,
December 28, 1994, at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Hodges, IDeindienst, Lyons, Reller-Spurgin, 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 December 22, 1994.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a) Darrell Meeks stated he supported privatizing the golf course, and asked that the
Council consider the fees in doing so, i.e., if they will be raised in the next two
years, the Council could do the same without privatizing;
Allen Hendricks, golf course employee, thanked various golf course employees for
years of service, and stated he did not agree with the Council decision to privatize,
and asked the Council to remind the Palm er group that it wants city employees given
consideration for hiring.
Gentleman representing the PS.Mens Club applauded the selection of the Palmer
group.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
' 1. GOLF COURSE LEASE/CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
On December 21, 1994, the Council continued consideration of agreements with Palmer Golf
for lease and contactual management services of existing and new city-owned golf courses.
Arnold Palmer representatives Messrs. Nanula and Huncher joined the City Manager, Director
of Public Works and Purchasing Manager in presenting, and/or agreeing to modifications, of
the following documents, which were reviewed in details,page-by-page, and which are on file
with the City Clerk:
Copy of FAX Transmittal from Pat McCalla, Assistant City Attorney, dated (0
92-
December 28, 1994, reviewing both the lease and management contract documents
012)
Contract Overview Lease Agreement (Old Course)
Lease Agreement (092-
Contract Overview Management Agreement (New Course) 013
City Manager also noted letter from Eric Langman, also on file.
After detailed review, comment, and clarification, the following areas retrain to be refined
in terms of language regarding the lease:
a. Right of first refusal/right of first offer.
b. Local business, hotel marketing efforts.
C. Specifying minimum number of rounds of play, and increase percentage from 70%
to 80%.
d. Splitting concessionaire contract income 50-50%.
e. No cap on Possessory tax increase applicable to all properties.
f. Re: Cross default, an irrevocable license to share common facilities.
Council Minutes
12-28-94, Page 2
1. GOLF COURSE LEASEXONTRACTUAL SERVICES (Continued)
and regarding the management contract:
a. Budget approval required by Council.
b. Above Item c. '
C. Regarding concessions, requires Council approval.
d. Re: marketing plan and local business preference.
It was moved by Lyons, and seconded by Reller-Spurgin to enter into contracts with
understanding that there will be refined business terms, in form approve by the City Attorney,
and to be ratified by the City Council on January 4, 1995.
In response to questions by Councilmember Kleindienst Mr. Nanula and Mr. Huncher
responded that they would work with the City in terms of recycling materials to meet city
goals.
Councilmember Hodges stated that she did not know if this was a good contract or not; that
she has not had the opportunity to read it; that she picked it up at 4:50 p.m. this date, and it
is in excess of 40 pages; that she found it difficult in working with such a contract, to not have
the City Attorney present; that she realized he was on vacation, but he was willing; to have
someone else at the meting and was told by the City Manager that it was unnecessary; that she
felt the City Attorney is to protect the city and council's interest, and when he is not present,
and the council has not been involved as it usually is, she has a problem with that approach;
that she has a problem with the agreement being produced by the contractor; that she realized
it was in conjunction with staff effort, but her past experience is that in those instances where
the contract is put together by the developer's attorney, and not the City Attorney, the City
has had problems; that she did not know who has the advantage in the:documents; that she was
disappointed in it being so rushed, and did not consider it fair to those on the council who '
were not involved in the negotiation; that at no time, except the letter she go last week, has
she been involved, and there has been no request for her opinions;that she has never seen any
negotiation take place such as this, where the Council has not been involved in making many
of the decisions that went into the contract; that the sub committee is not the council; that she
felt left out of the process; that for those reasons and the fact that she did not support a 30
year term, she could not support the motion; that she would not vote:in favor because site was
not prepared to vote for it; and that she may support it on January 4 after reviewing the
complete documents.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that she the same concerns, and got a copy of the
information at 4 p.m., and has gone through it; and that she also had the letter from Mr.
McCalla, and the Council has spent the past several hours reviewing it in cletail, so the
community will also understand it.
Councilmember Hodges stated that one side of the argument is heard, when the City Attorney
is not present to defend his view.
Councilmember Lyons stated that Mr. McCalla was involved in the process all along; that
staff and others were in his office and via conference telephone calls, the attorney's concerns
were noted and discussed at length, and compromises were reached; that the documents are
not same as were initially submitted by the contractor; that the City Attorney's input has been
gotten, and there were modification according to his and staff recommendations.
City Manager stated that it was not accurate that he said the City Attorney was not necessary; '
that he discussed with him and made a commitment that Mr. McCadla's comments would be
included, so the Council would have those before it; that one assistarit attorney was in the city,
but had no familiarity with the documents, and Mr. McCalla could not be presented.
Councilmember Hodges stated that she read the City Attorney's comments at 5 p.m, and spoke
with Mr. McCalla for twenty minutes, and was told by him that he was not asked to be here;
that he had fax'd a letter and was working on additional changes which had been fax'd to him;
that she realized the on-going nature of the process, but felt this was "jumping the gun."
Council Minutes
12-28-94, Page 3
1. GOLF COURSE LEASE/CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (Continued)
Mayor stated that the process began last May, and he felt it was time for the people in
California to realize what they have done in attempting to have full disclosure and
accountability ,uid making it difficult to get anything done; that he would like more meetings,
but the 72 hour notice curtails that from happening; that he felt he had given input and was
' a part of the process; that any contract, and any long-term contract, is a risk; that he was
satisfied with the way the negotiations were undertaken; that staff deserved credit for doing
so; and that he reviewed the agreements this date before coming into [he meeting.
Councilmember Kleindienst stated that the attorneys were definitely involved, noting that the
agreement started at 18 pages, and increased to 42.
The motion by Lyons, seconded by Reller-Spurgin, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Kleindienst, Lyons, Reller-Spurgin, and Maryanov
NO: Hodges
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned.
�JUDITH SUMICH
City Clerk