Loading...
2006 10 03 RDA Minutes LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 A regular meeting of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Osborne. PRESENT: ABSENT: Board Members Henderson, Kirk, Sniff, Chairman Osborne Board Member Adolph MOTION: It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Kirk to excuse Board Member Adolph. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Agency's real property negotiator, Thomas P. Genovese, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning potential terms and conditions of acquisition and/or disposition of a portion of 525:f: acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Property Owner/Negotiator: DOC Desert Development, Inc., Theodore Lennon. The Redevelopment Agency recessed to Closed Session to and until the hour of 4:30 p.m. 4:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Chairman Osborne requested Consent Item No.3 be moved to Business Item No.1. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 2 October 3, 2006 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the Redevelopment Agency Minutes of September 19, 2006 as submitted. Motion carried with Board Member Adolph ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED OCTOBER 3, 2006. 2. APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 200 LINEAR-FOOT SAMPLE SECTION OF GREY RECYCLED PLASTIC FENCE AT SilverRock RESORT ADJACENT TO AVENUE 54. 3. SEE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO.1. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Kirk to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and amended with the exception of Item No.3. Motion carried with Board Member Adolph ABSENT. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IRFPI TO OBTAIN PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PHASE II SilverRock RESORT IMPROVEMENTS. Executive Director Genovese presented the staff report. Chairman Osborne commented. on the RFP not being brought up in the Silver Rock Subcommittee meetings, and asked if the intent was for the subcommittee to be involved with Phase I and operation items only. Board Member Henderson stated she isn't sure where the subcommittee would fit it with Phase II. Chairman Osborne noted Phase I had challenges with the budget and with being completed as designed. He feels the subcommittee's involvement would be mainly a matter of disclosure of issues to avoid repeating the same challenges in Phase II. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3 October 3, 2006 Board Member Henderson stated she appreciates how he feels, but she feels the Board had all of the information. She noted the Board didn't approve staff's recommendation on a project manager last time. Although there may have been challenges in Phase I, she doesn't believe the Board will make the same mistakes again. Chairman Osborne cited an example in Phase I when staff and the project manager decided to take decomposed granite out of the original course design and then it had to be done later. He wants to make sure the Board is aware of that type of information. Public Work.s Director Jonasson noted the decomposed granite was taken out for budgetary reasons but if it had been left in, it probably would have had to be done again because of the drainage damage that occurred. Board Member Sniff noted the committee was appointed because some members didn't feel they were being well informed, and he feels the intent of the subcommittee is getting somewhat circumvented. He believes the subcommittee should have a comprehensive view of what is happening so they can relate it to the Board. Board Member Kirk commented that he tends to agree with Board Member Sniff, and doesn't recall any distinction being made between the two phases. He is supportive of having the subcommittee included on all components of SilverRock. He noted the subcommittee is not empowered to make decisions but rather to receive information and relay it to the Board. He feels if research of the minutes shows that the subcommittee was limited to Phase I that it should be brought back for possible modification. He referred to the organization chart in the staff report, and voiced concern about the number of people involved with meetings and decision making and less accountability. He commented on Phase I having consultants managing other consultants with a lot of input being provided but a loss of accountability. He doesn't want to make the mistake of being too cautious. Executive Director Genovese voiced concern about being able to make decisions under a subcommittee forum. He noted the contract for engineering services considered about a month ago was not run by the subcommittee, and yet is similar to an RFP for a project manager. He stated that probably should be revisited, and parameters set as to what should be run by the subcommittee, as it relates to project schedules, before it's before the City Council or Agency. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 4 October 3, 2006 Board Member Sniff stated he believes the subcommittee is there to receive information and relay it back to the Council. He believes they are entitled to a disclosure of what is going on, and are not there to say what they like or don't like. Board Member Henderson stated she is prepared to support the RFP on the agenda. As for the subcommittee, she is troubled if it means staff has to bring things before the subcommittee and the subcommittee has to report it back to the Agency before staff can put it on an agenda for consideration. She pointed out that would delay the project, and she doesn't think that is anyone's intent. Chairman Osborne stated staff can let the subcommittee know when preparation of something, such as an RFP, is in process, and then the subcommittee could ask questions. He doesn't want to slow down the process. Board Member Henderson stated she doesn't have a problem with the subcommittee being notified of the work schedule. Board Member Sniff stated he doesn't see anything here that would delay staff moving forward or impeding their decisions. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Henderson/Sniff to authorize staff to distribute a Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain professional project management services for the Phase II SilverRock Resort Improvements, and appoint a Selection Committee as follows: Tim Jonasson (Public Works Director), Doug Evans (Community Development Director), Tom Hartung (Building & Safety Director), Frank Spevacek (RSGI. Nick Nickerson (NAI Consulting), and Debbie Powell (Management Analyst). Motion carried with Board Member Adolph ABSENT. MOTION - It was moved by Board Member Kirk that the scope of the subcommittee include Phase II. Board Member Sniff stated he believes that has already been authorized in the original motion. He noted the subcommittee will sunset at the end of December, and the Council can decide then if they want it to continue and/or modify it. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 5 October 3, 2006 Board Member Kirk suggested if staff's review of the original motion indicates the authorization was limited to Phase I, then staff can bring it back at the next meeting for consideration. Agency Counsel Jenson noted the Agency is in charge of capital improvements, and the City is in charge of the operations. The subcommittee was appointed by the Council, but can be set up as a committee of the Agency. She noted the Phase II improvements will ultimately belong to the City. The motion failed due to lack of a second. There was concurrence to have it brought back at the next meeting. STUDY SESSION - None CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None The Redevelopment Agency recessed to Closed Session as delineated on Page 1. The Redevelopment Agency meeting was reconvened with no decisions being made in Closed Session which require reporting pursuant to Section 54957.1 of the Government Code (Brown Act). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, \ . DEBORAH H. POWELL. Interim Secretary City of La Quinta, California