Loading...
1991 06 10 CC Minutes) LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 10 AND 11, 1991 MINUTES JUNE 10, 1991 Adjourned meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 7:00 P.M., Mayor Pena presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Bohnenberger, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: Council Member Franklin MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that Council Member Franklin be excused. Motion carried. At this time, Council Member Sniff quoted from the Council Minutes of May 7, 1991 relative to Business Item No. 1 in which a Resolution of Intention was adopted regarding Assessment District No. 91-1. The City Attorney advised that because his Council Member Sniff?s) residence will be affected by the assessment district and would have a potential conflict of interest in voting on this matter, he would be abstaining from that issue. Therefore, he stated that he shall abstain and not participate in this matter this evening. Council Member Bohnenberger noted that he has the same potential conflict as he resides in Area B. He asked for a ruling from the City Attorney, because if he too, abstains that will result in only two members eligible to vote. He suggested that Council Member Sniff step down only on the deliberation of Area A and that he step down on deliberation of Area B. WARREN DIVEN, City Attorney, with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, referred to a letter of June 10, 1991 from Attorney, Dawn Honeywell, regarding this issue. The law on this issue is not black and white at this time, but as Ms. Honeywell points out, there appears to be a distinction in the opinions by FPPC between zoning actions and actions on the formation of an Assessment District. There is only one FPPC opinion to provide us with guidance. In that opinion, they did determine that it would be a conflict of interest for Council Members owning property within an assessment district comprised of only commercial property from participating in that decision-making process. If we werent involved in issuing bonds in these proceedings and if we weren?t establishing fixed liens for 15 years, a reviewing Court could find that there was no conflict of interest. Therefore, he recommended that Council Members Bohnenberger and Sniff abstain from the proceedings this evening. He understood that another Council Member owns property within 150' of the proposed assessment district and finds it factually difficult to reach a conclusion that the Council Member would benefit from those improvements. Therefore, he finds that the Council Member has no conflict of interest. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 2 June 10 and June 11, 1991 He pointed out that two Council Members may vote to either approve the assessment district and confirm the assessment or to abandon the proceedings. Under common law in the State of California, if two members should vote one way or another, the abstentions would be counted towards that majority. SAUNDRA JUHOLA,City Clerk, advised that the Council has received certification of compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 for posting and mailing notices in connection with Assessment District No. 91-1. WARREN DIVEN, City Attorney/Bond Counsel with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, advised that the proceeding being undertaken constitute Part 1 of a two-day public hearing regarding Assessment District No. 91-1. It is a combined hearing under the Majority Protest Act of 1931 and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. Following all reports, members of the public will be able to testify to express their opinion either in favor or in opposition to the formation of the Assessment District. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council will take action to consider whether or not to form the Assessment District to include any or all of the four areas. If the District goes forward, each property owner will receive a notice from the City advising them of their final confirmed assessment and will then be given an Opportunity to pre-pay all or any portion of it within a thirty day period. If it is pre-paid, then a savings of 12% will be realized. After the 30- day period, the Council will then be asked to authorize the issuance of 1915 Act Bonds to represent all of the unpaid assessments, which will then be used to finance the improvements. BILL FIELDMAN, Financial Consultant with Fieldman Rolapp, advised that if the assessments are confirmed, every property owner has the right to prepay in advance with a 12% discount with thirty days. He recommended that the bonds be amortized over a fifteen year period. JOE KICAK, Assessment Engineer with Kicak and Associates, explained the boundaries of the District noting that there are four areas involved as follows: AREA A is bounded by Calle Nogales; Calle Durango; Avenida Bermudas; and Avenida Montezuma and consists of streets, curbs, gutters, connecting pavement, storm drain; water line replacement and installation of sewers. AREA B is bounded by Washington; Calle Rondo; Avenida Ultimo and Calle Nuestra and includes street improvements, curbs, gutters, connecting pavement, water line replacement and installation of sewers; storm water facilities and installation of a block wall along Washington. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 3 June 10 and June 11, 1991 AREA C is bounded by Washington; Highland Palms Drive; and Singing Palms; generally the area on the west side of Washington between St. Francis of Assisi Church and Point Happy, and consists of AREA D is bounded by Westward Ho; Hummingbird Land; Jefferson and Roudel Lane and includes Vista Grande and includes streets, curbs, gutters, connecting pavement, water line replacement and sewer installation. Mr. Kicak advised that the assessment only pertains to the sanitary sewer for all areas except for Area D, in which the block wall will be included in the assessment. The water system will be paid for by the Coachella Valley Water District and the remainder of the work will be paid for by the City's Redevelopment Agency. The Engineer's Estimate, prior to receiving bids, was $10.3 million. There were five bids received as follows: Yeager $9,407,073.40 Simon $9,259,489.80 Kenko $9,233,874.00 Matich $9,444,754.45 Tarmac $8,701,521.90 Mr. Kicak noted that the Engineer's Estimate for Area A was $6,645,111.10; whereas, the low bidder came in at $5,346,938.85; or between 22%-24% below the Engineer's Estimate. This will result in an amount of assessment to the property owner of between $1,400- $1,500 depending on the individual lot configuration. SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk, advised that three written protests have been received, which constitutes less than 1% of the total properties. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DONNA MCCUNE, 52-050 Avenida Obregon, questioned the amount of assessment and Mr. Kicak advised that the 12% discount will be taken from the total assessment of between $1,400-$l,500. LOUIS CAMPAGNA, 55-203 Avenida Martinez, advised that he has no objection to Area A, but does object to Area B; he found a problem with jumping Washington Street and not continuing down the Cove into the commercial area. Mr. Reynolds, Public Works Director, advised that Phase 5 will be the Village area, but because of petitions for a block wall and other factors involved with the area east of Washington St., it was determined by the Council to proceed with those areas prior to the development of the remainder of the Cove. We also have a major BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 4 June 10 and June 11, 1991 sewer problem in the fact that the lower end of the Cove must be sewered by a major line that has to be installed in Tampico and will be installed as part of the Civic Center. Therefore, to be able to go down to the lower end of the Cove is premature. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that Tampico needs the sewer and water lines and will carry the storm water from in front of Mr. Campagna's business and that storm water must go through Area B, which must be built. He then explained the plans for carrying the storm water from the lower end of the Cove around the Civic Center area and out. Regarding financing, he believed that there will be adequate money to continue with Phases V and VI. FRED WOLFF, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, asked if the 12% discount is the savings and interest and Mr. Kicak advised that is correct, adding that if $500 of a $1,000 assessment is paid, then a 12% discount would be received on the $500. Regarding starting and completion dates, Mr. Reynolds advised that until a pre-construction conference is held, he cannot be specific, but Areas A, B & C are estimated to be complete in 210 days, but 300 to 310 days have been the norm for the Cove. JOE KICAK, Assessment Engineer, advised that the improvements in Area A include an 8" sanitary sewer line; various man holes and appurtenances along that line; and laterals to each property. He suggested that the benefit to each property is very special and the assessment is based specifically on that benefit. AREA B 8:30 P.M. MAYOR PENA advised the audience of the conflict of interests that exist on the City Council as noted during the deliberations on Area A. JOE KICAK, Assessment Engineer, described the boundaries of Area B and the proposed improvements as described earlier. He noted that there is sewer in Tampico and a few of the homes are connected to it. Those homes connected are not being assessed for the sewer, only for the block wall. The method of assessment spread for the sewer was based on three components frontage, lateral and unit of benefit to each of the properties. The only variable in all of the Assessment Districts was the frontage of the parcels. With respect to the wall, it will provide for noise attenuation from Washington Street and will give the community a unique privacy that does not exist now. That assessment was spread on a basis of area to all of the parcels. MR. KICAK then reviewed the total project costs and bids received as related earlier in Area A. The Engineer's Estimate for Area B was $1,959,119.85 and the low bidder came in at $1,943,765.60. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 7 June 10 and June 11, 1991 Mayor Pena suggested that Mr. Seay write a letter to the City asking that this matter be re-considered by the Technical Traffic Committee. In response to Mr. Garza, Mr. Warren Divan advised that the interest portion of the assessment would be tax deductible. Mr. Divan advised that he has reviewed the petitions submitted relating to the block wall and finds that they do not constitute a protest against the entire assessment district, but do protest against the levy of an assessment for the block wall. MICHAEL HUDSON asked how this wall is going to benefit the properties. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that it will have an aesthetic purpose and will provide some sound attenuation and will have a landscaped buffer. Mr. Hudson believed that this constitutes a taking of his property. At this time, Mr. Kicak asked for clarification as to who opposes the assessment for the block wall as follows: Moreno yes; Garza no; Seay no; Rodholm no; Etinger no; Hooper no; Morris no; Yessayian yes; Hudson yes. JUNE 11 7:30 P.M. AREA C WARREN DIVEN, City Attorney, explained the conflict of interests that exist on the City as noted during the deliberations on Area A. JOE KICAK, Assessment Engineer, described the boundaries and work to be done in Area C as related during the meeting of June 10th. He added that Area C will be purchasing capacity in an existing sewer system. He then reviewed the bids that were received and advised that the Engineer's estimate for Area C was $594,423.50 and the low bid came in at $501,630.45. The total amount to go to assessment is $295,202.32, which represents about 60% of the total cost of the project. The balance of $330,000 will be paid for by Coachella Valley Water District and the City's Redevelopment Agency. BILL FIELDMAN, Financial Consultant with Fieldman Rolapp proceeded to explain the proposed financing as described in Area A. WARREN DIVEN, Bond Counsel with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth, proceeded to explain the nature of the proceedings as described in Area A. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 6 June 10 and June 11, 1991 SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk, advised that as of last evening, there were three written protests, which constitutes less than 1% of the properties, but that does not take into account the protests that were submitted last evening, which Mr. Kicak is tabulating. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN There were no persons wishing to speak either in favor of or in opposition to Area C. AREA D 8:00 P.M. WARREN DIVEN, City Attorney with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth explained the conflict of interests that exist on the City Council as noted at the beginning of this issue on June 10th. JOE KICAK, Assessment Engineer, explained the proposed boundaries of Area D and the work that was proposed. However, he noted that the Engineer's Estimate for the work ended up being less than the low bid that was received. Therefore, under Assessment District law, the project cannot proceed with confirming the assessments and installing the improvements. WALLY REYNOLDS, Fiesta Drive, asked what happens if the bid doesn't come in lower next time and how long will this project be delayed. WARREN DIVEN, Bond Counsel, advised that according to law, the City cannot confirm the assessments as they cannot increase the assessment from that which was mailed to the property owners without having the unanimous written consent of every property owner; or by re-noticing the public hearing and scheduling it for another date. JOE KICAK advised that there isn't time to re-notice and re-bid as we're looking at the County Auditor's deadline for getting an assessment on the tax rolls. If we were to proceed with at this time without making the tax rolls, then the property owners would be facing one year's interest that would further escalate the assessment. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KEITH CHRISTIANSEN, 79-820 Horseshoe Rd., asked if there is any possibility of going ahead with streets and curbs and gutters. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that we can agendize this matter for the next meeting and discuss how we can proceed to get the street work done. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 5 June 10 and June 11, 1991 WARREN DIVEN, Bond Counsel, proceeded to explain the nature of the proceedings as related earlier in Area A. BILL FIELDMAN, Financial Consultant with Fieldman Rolapp, proceeded to explain the proposed financing as related earlier in Area A. SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk, described the protests received to date, as related in Area A. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD MORENO, 50-825 Calle Rondo, asked why the City is assessing the property owners of Desert Club Estates for a block wall that they neither requested or wish to have. Mayor pena advised that the City did receive a petition of some of the property owners sometime ago requesting a block wall. Mr. Moreno advised that they are submitting petitions this evening stating that they do not wish to have the wall if they have to pay that amount of money for it. It seemed that the developers spec building and the shopping center developer at Washington and Tampico stand to profit from this wall so they are the ones who should be assessed. JOE GARZA, 50-550 Calle Quinto, stated that he is in favor of a wall, but doesn?t feel that he can afford to build it. He also asked if Ultimo, between Quito and Rondo will be lowered and Mr. Kicak advised that it will be lowered to the extent possible. WALTER SEAY, 50-980 Obispo, questioned the extent of the wall and Mr. Kicak advised that it is proposed to Start approximately 75' north of Ultimo and runs southerly, opening at Tampico and then southerly and turns easterly into Nuestra and terminates. There will be a number of planters in which landscaping and irrigation will be provided. Mr. seay asked how he can go about getting traffic control on Tampico to slow the traffic down. Mayor Pena advised that the City is aware of that concern and will be doing a traffic study, which must be done before traffic control devices can be installed. PETER RODHOLM, advised that he lives in Palm Desert, but he recently purchased a lot at Desert Club Estates and plans to build a home for his family there. He felt that the commercial developments on Washington including the Civic Center should share in a portion of the construction of the wall, due to the fact that this is a residential area, and they are not going to impact the commercial area with sound, dust, lights and traffic to the extent that they will impact the residents. Therefore, he felt that it's reasonable that they should participate in the financing of that BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 6 June 10 and June 11, 1991 wall. He asked what the time-frame is for the improvements and Mayor Pena advised that it is estimated at 210 days and will begin this summer. Regarding natural gas, Mayor Pena advised that the Gas Company has not been willing to serve this area. In regards to Mr. Rodholm?s question about street widths, Mr. Reynolds advised that the streets are currently 24' and will be 36' between curbs when completed. SETH ETINGER, 78-720 La Fonda, asked for clarification of the financing and Mr. Fieldman proceeded to review assessments, advising that it amounts to approximately $116 per thousand per year. He then asked about the lights in the shopping center parking lot and Mayor Pena advised that we do have an ordinance requiring that all lights be oriented downwards. DANE HOOPER, advised that he was one of the original supporters of the block wall for noise and site attenuation and for traffic control. He was not adverse to paying his fair share. RICK MORRIS, 51-525 Juarez, property owner in the area, spoke in favor of the assessment for the wall. RUPERT YESSAYIAN, P.O. Box 251, stated that of all the people he has talked to in Area B has said that they don't want streets, curbs, gutters or sewers or the wall. But, many believe that the wall should be paid for by others. He presented 53 petitions signed by the homeowners stating that they want the wall, but want it paid for by others. He believed that the commercial development across the street should share in the cost of the wall. MICHAEL HUDSON, 51-044 Washington, advised that he is the only improved property on Washington Street adversely affected by this project. He opposed the cul-de-sacs and lack of access to his property from Washington that will result from these improvements. He felt that the City is taking value from his property. PETER RODHOLM, advised that he is in favor of the wall if others will participate in the cost. He also asked that something be done about the speed of the traffic on Tampico. WALTER SEAY, once again spoke to the traffic on Tampico and asked what the time frame will be for studying the possibility of a traffic control device. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the matter will be referred to the City's Technical Traffic Committee. Mr. Reynolds advised that this matter has been before the Technical Traffic Committee and they determined that it does not meet warrants for a stop sign. They believed that the dip served to slow the traffic sufficiently enough. BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 9 June 10 and June 11, 1991 Mr. Reynolds pointed out that the streets in Indian Springs are all private streets, so the City needs quitclaim deeds from all of the property owners. Most all property owners seem willing to do that with the exception of one person. Therefore, during this next year, we need to be getting all of the streets dedicated, so this area can be included with Phase V. ANDY SFINGI, 79-951 Horseshoe, asked how much time was allowed for the bidding process and Mr. Reynolds advised that it was short, but heard no complaints from the contractors. He added that the difference between the low and high bidder was about 10%. BEVERLY SFINGI, 79-951 Horseshoe, commented that she served two terms on the Desert Sands Unified School District Board and is therefore, familiar with these kinds of activities and asked if certain items in the bid documents couldn?t be cut in order to bring it down to the Engineer?s Estimate. Mr. Kiedrowski responded by explaining the difference between bidding a normal public works project and an assessment district. DAVE MILLER, Fiesta Or., asked about renegotiating certain parts of the bid and Mr. Diven, Bond Counsel explained why that cannot be done under assessment district law. ThERE BEING NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. MR. KICAK, Assessment Engineer, advised that based on the protests that were received from all four Areas that were noticed, the actual protests were less than 1%. In Area B, the petitions submitted regarding the wall represents 24% of the property area within that Area. RESOLUTION NO. 91-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING DETERMINATIONS, CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS, AND ORDERING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1. It was moved by Council Member Rushworth, seconded by Mayor Pena that Resolution No. 91-44 be adopted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Member Rushworth, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council Members Bohnenberger, Sniff ABSENT: Council Member Franklin BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02 )City Council Minutes 10 June 10 & June 11, 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 91-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, DESIGNATING THE CITY TREASURER TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE ASSESSMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY TREASURER TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL FUND FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1. It was moved by Council Member Rushworth, seconded by Mayor Pena that Resolution No. 91-45 be adopted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Member Rushworth, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council Members Bohnenberger, Sniff ABSENT: Council Member Franklin RESOLUTION NO. 91-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1 THEREOF IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,614,400.73. It was moved by Council Member Rushworth, seconded by Mayor Pena that Resolution No. 91-46 be adopted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Member Rushworth, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council Members Bohnenberger, Sniff ABSENT: Council Member Franklin There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. submitted, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 02-08-96-U01 10:03:01AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 06-U02 10&11-U02 91-U02