HomeMy WebLinkAboutR02-Redevelopment Committee
o
o
o
o
o
REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
REGULAR. MEETING
June 22, 1989
4:10 p.m.
The meeting of the Redevelopment Committee was called to order by
Chairman Esther Estrada at 4:10 p.m., in the Redevelopment Agency Conference
Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken with the following being present: Committee Member
Esther Estrada; Committee Member Jess Flores and Committee Member Michael
Maudsley.
STAFF PRESENT:
Steven H. Dukett, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; Arlene S.
Berman, Administrative Deputy, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger, Development
Manager Redevelopment Agency; John Wood, Project Manager, Redevelopment
Agency; Gary Wagoner, Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Nancy Davison,
Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Ezell James, Project Manager,
Redevelopment Agency; Theresa Stack, Accounting Division, Redevelopment
Agency; Barbara Lindseth, Accounting Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Dennis A.
Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to
the Council; W. R. "Bob" Holcomb, Mayor; J. Lorraine Velarde, Chief Executive
Assistant to the Mayor; James Robbins, Deputy City Administrator; Roger
Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Gene R. Klatt, Public
Works; Margie Vance, Recording Secretary.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Jim Rock, Rock Enterprises; Paul Madison, Madison Designs; Cassie
MacDuff, The Sun; Elizabeth C. Green, Stradling Yocca Law Firms, Mark Huebsch,
Stradling Yocca Law Firm; Larry Arceneaux, Katz Hollis; Diane Had1and, Katz
Hollis; Dan Evans, Orange Show Plaza; Patrick Wood, Orange Show Plaza.
Chairman Estrada requested that Agenda Item number 3 be heard out of
order.
1
June 22, 1989
1789R
.!:J /L
o
o
o
o
o
3. Miles House B.estoration
Mr. Dukett addressed the Committee and stated that the Committee had
already reviewed this item in the past and that the Council and Commission
have agreed to hold a public hearing at their first meeting of July, 1989 to
consider the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Rock Enterprises
that calls for the renovation of the Miles House. The Disposition and
Development Agreement has already been signed by Jim Roclt, Rock Enterprises.
Mr. Dukett pointed that in the staff report there is an outline of the basic
points, and calls out the responsibilities of both parties and also an outline
that describes the financial impact of the DDA indicating the financial
contribution of the developer and the contributions that will be required on
the part of the Agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that, subsequent to a public hearing, the
Commission authorize and the Council approve the execution of a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Rock Enterprises
and the Agency and that the Council designate the Miles House as a
qualified historical building of importance.
CONTINUED FROM JUNE 8, 1989
1. Vacation of the A. T. & S. F. B.ailroad Crossing on Main Street and
Broadway Street, Between "I" and -J" Streets.
Roger Hardgrave, indicated that on June 8, 1989 staff was instructed to
to prepare and bring maps to today's meeting which would show the relationship
of the "F" Street Crossing in more detail and to the overall development of
the Central City South study area and assessment district.
A lengthy discussion ensued.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that the crossings of Main and Broadway
between "I" and "J" of the Uptown Redevelopment Project be vacated in
exchange for the negotiations for the at-grade railroad crossing at "F"
street in Central City South Project Area and that the maps presented at
this meeting be forwarded for the Council's review at its meeting of
July 5, 1989.
2
June 22, 1989
l789R
o
o
o
o
o
Chairman EBtrada requeBted that Agenda Item number 4 be heard out of order.
4.
Auto Plaza C_rcial AreaB.
Mr. Dukett addreBBed the Committee and Btated that the Committee had
already reviewed thiB item in the paBt and that the Council and CommisBion
have agreed to hold a public hearing at their firBt meeting of July, 1989 to
conBider the execution of an Amended and ReBtated Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) between Orange Show Plaza ABBociateB (OSPA), Victor Boyd and
Greg McClelland (B&M), and the Agency. ThiB agreement haB to do with the
commercial build out of thoBe parcelB deBignated for that purpose in the Auto
Plaza Area, and aB the Btaff report indicateB, there waB Bome difficulty over
time having thoBe two parcels deBignated for commercial build-out. The Orange
Show Plaza ABBociateB identified a BubBtitute developer and requeBted that the
Agency considered their participation in the development of both BiteB and
they have moved along rather rapidly in that direction. The Btaff reportB
indicateB what the baBic deal pointB are. Mr. Dukett introduced Mr. Dan Stark
a General Partner of Orange Show AsBociateB.
Mr. Dan Stark Btated that B & M iB committed to thiB project to the
point that they haB gone forwarded and Bpent approximately $50,000 to $100,000
dollarB getting to the point of building permits. Once thiB agreement haB
been reBo1ved a week to two weekB later they will pull building permits and
will begin conBtruction, the City will then have a guaranteed project. Agency
Btaff haB B & M'B financia1B and background information on B & M'B prior
completed projectB. He further Btated that Orange Show Plaza ABBociateB iB
unable at thiB time to go forward with thiB project, but that on the other
hand B & M iB qualified and committed to complete it.
A lengthy diBcuBBion enBued.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that, BubBequent to a public hearing, the
CommiBBion authorize and the Council approve the execution of an Amended
and ReBtated Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between Orange Show
Plaza ABBociateB (OSPA), Victor Boyd and Greg McClelland (B&M), and the
Agency.
5. AgreementB with Full Service Real EBtate/Economic Consulting Firms.
Mr. Dukett Btated that approximately 2 monthB ago, Agency Btaff had
recommended a contract amendment to extend Agency' B current agreement with
KeYBer MartBon ABBociateB, to the end of June. The Btaff report BuggeBted'
that the Agency would iBBue a RequeBt for Qua1ificationB (RFQ) review
propoBa1B and make a recommendation to the Committee/CommiBBion in preparation
for the beginning of the next fiBca1 year. Staff haB carried thiB out and aB
a reBu1t of thiB proceBB the Agency received 12 propoBa1B. The 8 mOBt
qualified companieB that Bubmitted propoBa1B were interviewed by a committee
of staff memberB aB well aB Mr. Scott Rodde, ConBu1tant with the National
Development Council. AB a reBu1t of that, they BuggeBted that the Agency
enter into contractB on aB needed baBiB with the top three firmB, they are:
KeYBer
3
June 22, 1989
1789R
o
o
o
o
o
MartBon ABBociateB, Inc.; Nate1Bon-Levander-Whitney; and Kotin Regan &
Mouchly, Inc., and aB the Btaff report indicateB there are good bUBineBB
reaBons for having multiple firmB available to the Agency in a very Bimilar
area of expertiBe. BaBica11y what thiB doeB iB enable the Agency to maintain
flexibility, to be able to custom tailor aSBignmentB to a given conBu1tant
baBed upon hiB area of expertiBe. It will alBo enable the Agency to aBBure
timely performance. Mr. Dukett, Btated that in accordance with the budget
reBo1ution to continue operation, the amount that iB available iB $36,000.00
for the fiBca1 year which iB how thiB requeBt will be guided in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee inBtructed Btaff to include in the Btaff report for the
CommiBBion' B review regarding the amount of money that the Agency haB
previouB1y Bpent on Economic ConBu1tants for fiBca1 year 1988-89. A1Bo,
the Committee recommended that the CommiBBion approve the execution of
agreementB with KeYBer MarBton ABBociateB, Inc., NatelBon, Levander
Whitney, and Kotin Regan & Mouchly, Inc., for full Bervice real
eBtate/economic conBu1ting serviceB.
6. StatuB of AgreementB in Default or Technical Default.
Mr. Dukett Btated that at the laBt Committee meeting, Btaff preBented a
Current Activity StatuB Report that gave a broad view of the kindB of
activitieB that the Agency is currently purBuing. Included within that report
were Bome diBcuBBions on Bome projectB that were in default or technical
default. He Btated that the Committee had recommended that Btaff prepare a
report regarding the appropriate optionB that the Agency might implement
regarding theBe defau1tB.
A lengthy diBcuBBion enBued.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that thiB item be forwarded to the CommiBBion
for itB and information.
CONTINUED PROM JUNE 8, 1989
2. Proposed Katz, HolliB, Coren and ASBociates Contract Amendment.
Mr. Dukett began by Btating that according to the laBt meeting, Btaff
deBcribed the need to extend the agreement with Katz Ho11iB to take into
conBideration the greater level of Btaff work they needed to perform to carry
out their original taBk. During the June 8th meeting there waB Bome
diBcuBBion regarding Bome of the iBBueB that reBulted in the Committee aBking
that the matter be continued to todaY'B meeting and that repreBentativeB of
Katz Ho1liB and Stradling Yocca, Car1Bon and Rauth come to the meeting to be
able to anBwer Bpecific queBtionB the Committee might have on that iBBue.
4
June 22, 1989
1789R
o
c
o
o
o
Chairman Estrada, stated that the Committee had a1Bo requeBted that the
Accounting Manager be invited to the meeting BO that Bhe might have an
opportunity to review the Katz Ho11iB letter and comment.
Mr. Dukett, indicated that there waB attached in the staff report a
responBe letter from the Accounting Manager regarding the Katz HolliB
findingB, and that Bhe iB preBent to answer any queBtionB the Committee might
have.
Chairman EBtrada aBked MB. Barbara LindBeth, Accounting Manager to go
over her reBponBeB to the findingB of Katz Ho11iB, in thoBe areaB where Katz
Ho11iB may want to clarify or add information.
MB. Barbara LindBeth addreBBed the Committee and began to go over her
concernB.
Mr. Larry Arceneaux, addreBBed the Committee and aBked that the
Committee conBider not going over each item one by one. He indicated their
willingneBB to reconcile their and Btaff' B findingB/responBe.
Chairman EBtrada expreBBed some of her concernB regarding receiving the
BtatuB report from Katz Hol1iB.
A lengthy diBcuBBion enBued.
Chairman EBtrada Btated that the Committee needed to find out for their
own department' B credibility how much of what iB in Katz HolliB report iB in
fact true or accurate or not accurate baBed on the information that MrB.
LindBeth can provide Katz Ho11iB' Btaff.
Mayor Holcomb BuggeBted to have Btaff come back with an outline of the
Bpecific recommendationB of taBkB that they feel Bhould be done in the
priority approach getting Barbara'B input in that level and anything that they
Bee iB a priority they can bring it back or aBk for an eBtimate from Katz
HolliB.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that RDA Btaff and Katz Hollis repreBentativeB
get together with Barbara LindBeth and review the information Bhe c1aimB
to have, which could conBiderab1y lower the COBt of the reviBed Katz
Ho11iB propoBa1. Katz Ho11iB Bhou1d then prepare and Bubmit a new
revised propoBa1 on taBks still to be accomp1iBhed by priority.
Closed SesBion.
PurBuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 the Redevelopment Committee
of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino convened in
c10Bed BeBBion to diBcUBB pOBBib1e litigation at 6:30 P.M.
The Committee reconvened from c10Bed BeBBion at 7:00 P.M.
5
June 22, 1989
1789R
o
o
o
o
o
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended this item be forwarded to the Commission at
their meeting of July 5, 1989 for further review.
Adjourtlllent
There being no further business, the meeting of June 8, 1989 was
adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
APPROVED BY:
~~
o sther Estrada, Chai
Redevelopment Committee
~
6
June 22, 1989
1789R
c
o
o
o
o
REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
REGULAR. MEETING
June 29, 1989
1:30 P.M.
The meeting of the Redevelopment Committee was called to order by
Committee Member Jess Flores at 4:10 P.M., in the Redevelopment Agency
Conference Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken with the follOwing being present: Committee Member
Jess Flores and Committee Member Michael Maudsley. Absent: Chairman Esther
Estrada.
STAFF PRESENT:
Steven H. Dukett, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger,
Development Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Barbara Lindseth, Accounting
Manager, Redevelopment Agency; John Wood, Project Manager, Redevelopment
Agency; Theresa Stack, Assistant Accounting Manager, Redevelopment Agency;
Nancy Davison, Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Phil Arvizo, Executive
Assistant to Council; J. Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor;
Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Marshall Julian, City
Administrator; Katbarine Peake, Recording Secretary, Redevelopment Agency.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Dick Seamans, Rockwell International Corporation; Charles Winn, Rockwell
International Corporation; Jeff Brady, Rockwell International Corporation; Ron
Kodimer, Rockwell International Corporation; Mark Huebsch, Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth; Chris Fahey, The Alexander Haagen Company.
1. Proposed Katz Hollis Agreeaent.
Mr. Dultett stated that in general it is his belief that the Committee
wanted staff to better define the proposed contract and define the work
priority program. He further explained the first two priority groups are
things that staff considers necessary. The first three taslts have to do with
the items that have been done and should be completed tomorrow, which is the
identification of tax increment flow and bond indebtedness against that flow.
The second priority is to reconcile the Katz Hollis initial report with
the staff report. After we do that, we can begin working on priorities two
and three.
1
June 29, 1989
1361S
~,b
c
o
o
o
o
Committee Member F10reB inquired aB to how thiB differB from the Miller &
Schroeder contract.
Mr. Dukett reBponded that Miller & Schroeder iB our InveBtment Banker and
aB Buch Bella bondB. Katz HolliB will inBure that the best intereBts of the
Agency are guarded throughout thiB proceBB. Miller & Schroeder are paid on
the basis of bondB Bold, but Katz HolliB haB no veBted intereBt. Group three
are things that are Bubject to the aBBeBBment to reconcile their initial
report and Btaff'B report and mayor may not go forward. Group four iB very
general and provideB a reBource aB needed.
Committee Member MaudBley asked what type of report will they prepare.
Mr. Dukett reBponded that they will be reviewing what portion of tax
increment flow will be going to the Agency and overlaying on that exiBting
bond indebtedneBB. The value in that iB that they will be able to report what
the Agency' B bonding capacity will be. It doeB not talte into account the
AgencY'B indebtedneBB from development agreementB. That aBBeBBment cannot be
made until after July 15. SubBequent to that date, they can come up with the
long-term plan that they were initially hired to carry out.
Committee Member MaudBley inquired if we can find thiB out uBing our own
resources.
Mr. Dukett anBwered that we want to get from the conBultant, who iB a
profeBBional third party, iB an opinion aB to what our condition iB relative
to future financing opportunitieB. We could do it in houBe, but maybe not
quickly enough or aB accurately. We have a window of opportunity to take
advantage of low intereBt rateB for bonding and Katz Ho1liB can do it for UB
now.
Committee Member FloreB aBked why iB it neceBBary to hire Katz HolliB if
we have Miller & Schroeder1
Mr. Dukett explained they do two different thingB. Miller & Schroeder
work on a contingency baBiB. Katz Hol1iB' goal iB to aBBure the beBt
intereBtB are kept in mind during thiB proceBB. ThiB iB a Btandard approach
uBed by almoBt all Redevelopment AgencieB for thiB kind of work.
Committee Member MaudB1ey queried would it be prudent to review all other
applicantB that anBwered the RFP1
Mr. Dukett replied that Katz HolliB now haB knowledge of the City. It
would delay UB if we had a new contract with another firm.
Committee Member MaudBley Btated that he waB not Bure that Katz Hol1iB iB
familiar with the City becauBe they Baid we did not have the data that Btaff
saYB we do have.
2
June 29, 1989
1361S
c
c
o
o
o
Mr. Dukett responded that Katz Hollis had not planned to do the research
that they found they needed to do. The taslt was different than it was
originally conceived. They have come up with preliminary findings. Staff has
suggested that the data are available for Katz Hollis to look at. Katz Hollis
indicated that they would be happy to review this data and assess it if that
would be necesaary to suit their purposes. There is a time frame for them to
do that.
Committee Member Maudsley expressed his opinion that Katz Hollis is
unprofessional and that they should not be awarded an additional contract.
They came in and indicted us and now they want more money before they will say
whether or not we are right. At the last meeting Commission Member Flores
indicated that staff and the group from Katz Hollis should get together.
Mr. Dukett stated that priority group 1 on the proposed contract covers
the current program. The Agency needs to have that reconciliation.
Committee Member Mauds1ey asked if we could bring back our auditors and
have them reconcile the matter. It seems that if there are specifiC items
then our own CPA's can tell us whether or not the concerns are valid.
Mr. Dukett said the plan is that the reconciliation will be done by Katz
Hollis .
Committee Member Mauds1ey inquired if Agency managers attempted to
reconcile the Katz Hollis preliminary letter.
Mr. Dukett adviced that they had not.
Committee Member Mauds1ey suggested that an independent auditor reconcile.
Committee Member Flores stated he has concerns about the issues raised in
the report.
Special Assistant City Attorney Barlow said it was the recommendation at
the last Committee meeting that Katz Hollis look at the reconciliation.
However, they will not reconcile without an additional $2,500.
Committee Member Flores asked Mr. Barlow to help with the wording of the
recommendation.. Committee Member Flores indicated that he would like to
spend the additional $2,500 to get Katz Hollis to perform the reconciliation.
Special Assistant City Attorney Barlow stated that since the two
Committee Members present have different recommendations, the item should be
sent to the Commission without a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the Commission at
their meeting of July 5, 1989 without a recommendation.
3
June 29, 1989
1361S
e
o
o
o
o
2.
Ilequest for Certificate of COIIpliance - Haagen Shopping Center.
Mr. Dukett explained that this item concerns the request of Alexander
Haagen Company for a Certification of Compliance for the Pace Warehouse.
Representing the Alexander Haagen Company is Chris Fahey.
Mr. Fahey provided some background to this item. The original agreement
called for an assessment district to do the site improvements and for the
Agency to pay approximately *1,100,000 over ten years based on the performance
schedule. Haagen has delivered Pace on time per the schedule. Because Sports
Club left it took longer to get Sport Mart in as a tenant and their square
footage requirements were less. The agreement was amended once reducing the
square footage and reduciD$ the payments. Reagen now have an offer to
purchase the property for S14,700,OOO which is higher than the assessed value
in the original agreement. The problem is that the loan is contingent upon
completion of the agreement with the Agency.
The lender is not willing to subordinate his agreement to that with the
Agency. Haagen is asking for the Certificate of Compliance so that the buyer
will be given the loan. The proposed restaurant tenant, The Beef Bowl, is now
in the CUP process. Haagen is offering to place the Certificate of Compliance
in escrow so that it will not be recorded unless the purchase price of the
property is above the assessed value of the site.
Committee Member Flores inquired if the close of sale was contingent upon
a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Fahey responded that the close of sale is contingent upon receiving
the loan. He added that an option would be to ask for the City to execute a
subordination agreement but that process would likely take longer than the
issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The deadline is the middle of July
for funding the loan.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow stated that he had several concerns
such as whether or not we have set the right value which needs to be
determined independently. There are questions about offsite improvements. He
stressed they are questions, not major problems.
Mr. Fahey stated that the purchase price could be independently
appraised. The square footage was an estimate in the beginning.
Committee Member Flores requested the Commission be provided answers to
these concerns/questions for their meeting July 5, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that this item be sent to the Commission at
their meeting of July 5, 1989, with further information to the
concerns/questions posed by the City Attorney's office.
4
June 29, 1989
l361S
c
o
c
o
o
Closed SeBsions.
PurBuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 the Redevelopment Committee
of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino convened in
cloBed BesBion to discusB the purchaBe, Bale, exchange or leaBe of real
property, and give instructionB to its negotiator concerning the price
and termB of payment for the purchaBe, sale, exchange or 1eaBe of real
property at 2:15 P.M.
PurBuant to Government Code Section 54956.9c the Redevelopment Committee
of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino convened in
c10Bed BeBsion to diBcuBB possible litigation at 2:15 P.M.
The Committee reconvened from cloBed BeBBion at 3:20 P.M.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended theBe itemB be forwarded to the CommiBBion at
their meeting of July 5, 1989 for further review.
Adjournment
There being no further bUBineBB, the meeting of June 29, 1989 waB
adjourned at 3:21 P.M.
APPROVED BY:
B F10reB, Committee Member
aevelopment Committee
5
June 29, 1989
l361S
o
o
o
o
o
REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
REGULAR. MEETING
July 6, 1989
4:10 p.m.
The meeting of the Redevelopment Committee was called to order by Chairman
Esther Estrada at 4:10 p.II., in the Redevelopment Agency Conference Room,
Fourth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was talten with the following being present: Committee Member
Esther Estrada; Committee Member Jess Flores. Absent: Committee Member
Michael Maudsley.
STAFF PRESENT:
Steven H. Dukett, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger,
Development Manager Redevelopment Agency; John Wood, Project Manager,
Redevelopment Agency; Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Phil
Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council; James Robbins, Deputy City
Administrator; J. Lorraine Velarde, Chief Executive Assistant to the Mayor;
Margie Vance, Recording Secretary.
1. Wa terll8n/ 1-10 On! Off B.aIIIps
Mr. Steven H. Dukett addressed the Committee and began by stating that the
essence of the item deals with the funding of the off-ramp portion of the
On/Off ramps that would serve the Tri-City Area that is immediately adjacent
to Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Area (SEIP). He explained that it
has come to the point now that the City IIUSt certify the availability of funds
to CaUrans and to be able to do that it is necessary to have funds actually
set aside for this purpose and the essence of the staff report indicates that
because of the status of the Capital Reserves in the Tri-C1ty Area it is
appropriate to seek out alternative funding, specificallr SEIP. This
particular transaction would in effect commit a portion '1.2 million worth of
the capital reserves from SEIP to the purpose of constructing this particular
improvements. He further explained that according to Mr. Roger Hardgrave that
there is some need to move on with this rather rapidly and that Mr. Hardgrave
provided him with some communication relative to this subject. .
Chairman Estrada asked staff to explain the justification for funds coming
out of one project area to pay for another project areas improvement.
Mr. Dukett responded that the Agency has to be able to make a finding of
benefit, that spending funds from one project for an activity outside of its
boundary would benefit the project that it is funding.
1
July 6, 1989
l790R :l # e
c
o
o
o
o
Chairman EBtrada asked why thiB waB being done in thiB manner.
Mr. Dukett, stated that the dividing line between the two projectB waB
Waterman Avenue and that the off ramp in effect iB right immediately adjacent
to it, which would improve the traffic flow that would lead into the
HOBpita1ity Lane area.
Chairman EBtrada asked what the Agency's total contribution to the Off
ramp would be.
Mr. Dukett reBponded that it is h.2 million.
Chairman Estrada aBlted why this contribution iB not coming out of Tri-City
Project Area.
Mr. John Hoeger, reBponded that there are not sufficient Capital ReBerveB
today in the Tri-City Project Area. He further atated that there will be in
the future, but that there were none at the present.
Committee Member FloreB asked if the SEIP would be reimbursed?
Mr. John Hoeger, reBponded that not under the preBent arrangement, that it
would be a Btraight forward tranBfer.
Mr. Dukett Btated that it could be an alternative approach to arrange for
a Loan Agreement and that it would have to go through the City, a three way
agreement.
Mr. Hoeger Baid that at the time the Btaff report was prepared there waB
Bome question aB to how to go about making a loan that would be acceptable
legally, and that the Buggestion waB that it would be a Btraight forward
allowed method for a project area to provide public improvement.
Chairman EBtrada Btated that it waB allowed, but that it toolt away from
that project.
Agency CounBel Dennis Barlow addressed the Committee and Btated that thiB
is allowed if there is a benefit and that if there is no money, this can not
be done.
Chairman EBtrada expreBBed her concerns regarding thiB matter, and further
stated that it should not be a give away from one project to another, but
rather a loan.
Mr. Dukett referred to a letter from Mr. Roger Hardgrave, Public WorkB
regarding this isBUe, wherein he BtateB that Cal TranB requireB a $200,000
depoBit in order to go ahead with this improvement. He further stated that
there iB a need to move on with this, and he Baid that the point is to have
Capital ReBourceB available to meet this demand now, and it appearB that the
appropriate place to locate them iB in the SEIP, however, if it is the
deciBion of the City not to in effect grant it over, but only a portion of it
and expect a re-payment from Tri-City to SEIP in the future, that Itind of
arrangement can be made a1Bo.
2
July 6, 1989
1790R
.
o
o
o
o
o
COIIIIIittee Member Flores said that the reason why he wanted to know if this
money is going to be reimbursed is because he felt that a project area should
be self sustained one way or another. He felt that on the initial stages of
a project area you might lend money from another project area with the
understanding that someday it is going to be reimbursed otherwise he felt that
one does not get the complete picture of the project area.
Mr. Dukett asked if the idea is to split the cost SO/50 between the
projects and the part that would be due to Tri-City would be a loan from SEIP
to be repaid.
Chairman Estrada said that, that would be more acceptable.
Committee Member Flores stated that he did not said anything about
splitting the cost.
Mr. Dukett stated that the whole thing can be a loan, that there are
several ways that this can be done, and that this was just one way. He
further explained that the staff report can reflect a combination of the two.
Committee Member Flores stated that his preference would be to have the
whole thing as a loan.
Chairman Estrada stated that her preference would be to go that way also,
but if it facilitates matters she would also support a SO/50 split, because
she knows that SEIP is going to benefit from it.
Chairman Estrada asked Agency Counsel Dennis Barlow, to see how the City
can insure that legally we find the repayment somehow to the document.
Agency Counsel Dennis Barlow addressed the Committee and stated that the
Agency's Special Counsel Marlt Huebsch, has loolted into that possibility and
has recommended the process whereby, the one project area loans the money to
the City, the City then loans the money to the other project area, because of
the difficulty with the lending process between project areas. He further
aslted that if this was the wish of the Committee, the attorneys could prepare
those documents to make the transfer.
Mr. Dukett, stated that dOing it this way ensures that the Agency can
place the loan on the Statement of Indebtedness with the County and it won't
be challenged.
Chairman Estrada aslted when this item can go to the Commission?
Mr. Dukett responded that it will be ready for the July 17, 1989
Commission meeting. He stated that the prototype of that type of loan
agreement, has already been prepared by Special Counsel, therefore, needing
only a few minor modifications to be ready for that meeting, staff needs to
modify the staff report just a bit, to reflect the loan versus the benefit
resolutions and it will be ready to go.
3
July 6, 1989
l790R
o
o
c
o
o
Mr. Dultett a8lted Agency Counsel DenniB Barlow, if 8taff needed to prepare
re80lutionB and loan agreementB without Bpecific dollar amountB in them and
a8k for the eBtabliBhment of the ratio between the benefit re8olution8 and the
loan documentB to be eBtabli8hed by the Commi8Bion a8 well a8 the revi8ion of
thi8 documentB.
Chairman Estrada, Btated that the Committee concurB that it ought to be a
loan except that the Committee iB not in agreellent aB to what the 8ize of the
loan Bhould be, a8 to whether it ought to be SO/50 or 100% for one project
area.
RECOMMENDATION :
The Committee recommended that the 1I0tion to the Commi8sion Bhould be a
loan from project area to project area and that the CommiBBion determine
whether the loan would be a SO/50 8plit.
2. Shandin Bill Golf Club
Mr. Dukett informed the Committee that Btaff haB been notified that the
partieB involved in Shandin Hil1B, Henry Bickler and repreBentativeB of Jim
Colbert Golf, had Bome immediate need for reaction8 to what iB recommended
today, BO that they can proceed with the 8ale. He Baid that the eBBence of
the Btaff report iB that Jill Colbert Golf, which iB a large private Golf
CourBe operating company, wiBhes to purchaBe all of the stoclt of Shandin HillB
Golf Club, Inc. The way the leaBe currently readB, the CommiBsion needB to
approve any change in management of the Shandin HillB Golf Club, Inc. In
effect thiB will re8ult in change of management becauBe the Btock will be
owned by a different company.
He Btated that in addition there are Beveral other thingB that affect
thi8, for example, there are Bome reciprocal eaBementB that affect the
property. From the tille they were adopted they were in the nalle of the City.
In fact the property that iB affected iB owned by the Agency and not the
City. They have reque8ted that that matter be cleaned up. In addition when
the lea Be waB adopted it did not have a very clear definition of what property
was affected by all of thi8, and in the leaBe there was some language that
indicated that at a particular point in time there would be a Burvey and that,
that would be appended to the agreellent through a later uendment. He Baid
that the Btaff report indicateB that a profeBBional Engineering Firm haB
conducted that Burvey and now iB ready to be appended to the agreement.
Chairman EBtrada aBked if we can legally BtOP Mr. Bickler from Belling?
Agency CounBel Dennis Barlow reBponded that the Agency can Btop Mr.
Bickler frOll Belling, if the intereBted party had no experience in Golf CourBe
Management. The leaBe waB clear that the 1eaBe waB granted becauBe of the
expertiBe of the people involved and to any future a8Bignment the 8ame
criteria applieB. He Baid that other than that, no, the Agency can not Btop
him.
4
July 6, 1989
1790R
o
o
o
o
o
Committee Member Flores asked what kind of agreement does Mr. Bickler have.
Mr. Hoeger responded that he has a lea8e.
Agency Counsel Dennis Barlow, explained that the corporation is 8elling
their 8toclt. When this gets done the 8ame corporation will own it, just the
stock holder8 will be different.
Mr. Dukett stated that he has checked Mr. Colbert's background, and that
he himself personally checked and toured a Golf Cour8e that Mr. Colhert
currently manages in San Dimas. He said that he was impre88ed and that staff
does have a copy of their financial records. He said that 8taff did check out
their references in Las Vegas, Nevada where they started and they certainly
appear to be a reputable company. He further 8tated that Mr. Bickler will be
signing a contract with the new owners to remain as the Manager of the Golf
Course for approximately 2 more years.
Agency Coun8el Denni8 Barlow, 8tated that as it was indicated staff can
look at their financials, whether or not their experience i8 there and to see
if people are satisfied with their performance and apparently staff has
already 100lted at all of that.
RECOMMENDATION :
The Committee recommended that this item be forwarded to the Commission at
its meeting of July 17, 1989 with the recommendation8 noted on the staff
report .
3.
Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG)
Mr. Dukett began by 8tating that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development recently issued a bulletin indicating that they believe that they
will have one final round of Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG) funds
available. He said that this was a program that the City of San Bernardino is
very familiar with, and that over time it has been very successful at
obtaining Urban Development Action Grants more than other Agencies in the
Inland Empire and probably 8econd only to the City of L08 Angele8 in
California. He said that the program is being pha8ed out at the Federal level
but that they do have some re8idual funds that are available and that they
have one last round, and they have indicated that the jurisdictions that wish
apply for funds need to get their applications in by the last day of July,
1989.
He said that at the staff level they have been aS8essing what kind of
projects if any potentially could fall within the eligibility criteria of the
UDAG program and came up with a couple of projects that are in the negotiation
stages or will have DeVelopment Agreements in place with a developer. He said
that there seem to be very strong possibilities. He then a8ked John Hoeger to
discuss what the project opportunitie8 are and what are the options to going
ahead.
5
July 6, 1989
l790R
o
o
o
o
o
Mr. John Hoeger addres8ed the Committee and stated that both projects are
with Simchowitz Corporation and both involve parking structures. He said that
one is an application has been 8ubmitted before, which is the parking
structure in the Sunwest Development for the final three buildings. He 8aid
that the other project 18 the Court and -E" parking. He 8aid that there is a
possibility for i2 million UDAG to help finance Court and -E-. He explained
that the difficulty would be to set a Public Hearing by the end of July and
that it would probably require a apecia1 meeting, thu8, ataff is proposing to
have two public hearing8 and they can be on the 8ame day. It could be on July
24, 1989, one at 11:00 a... and the other one at 1:00 p...
Mr. Dukett informed the Committee that this grant would provide future
program income to the City. UDAG i8 looking for a ratio between private and
public inve8tment, and 8aid that technically it must be at least at the rate
of 2.5 to 1. He informed them that Mr. Scott Rodde, Consultant from the
National Development Council, who has a tremendous amount of expertise in the
UDAG grants indicated to him that in order to be competitive the8e days at
UDAG, you need to have at lea8t a 12 to 1 ratio, (12 private to 1 public) and
if you can reach that ratio then you are very competitive, if you get below
then it gets a little tougher. But if you get down to the bottom line to what
UDAG 8ays i8 actually acceptable they really do not fund projects of that
sort. In terms of how much .oney is available, there is around $50 to $60
IIillion available at the national level. He 8aid that there were not going to
be too many projects funded, and that he felt that if there was a chance of
getting another one in San Bernardino, it might be worth an attempt and he
pointed out that one project is, in effect, on the 8helf, and all that i8 left
to do is to update the documents and get them ready. The other project, he
said, staff needs to put together an application, and that according to Mr.
Rodde, he did not feel that it would be to difficult to do that.
Mr. Hoeger, stated that the Itey element to thi8 would be the ability of
Mr. Merv Simchowitz to provide an adequate financing letter to reflect that he
indeed has the money for the project. Mr. Simchowitz' deadline to prepare the
letter is September 10, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the Commission at
its meeting of July 17, 1989.
Closed Se8sions
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, the Redevelopment Committee
of the Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency of the City
of San Bernardino will convene in c108ed session with its negotiator to
di8cus8 the purchase, 8ale, exchange or lease of real property, and give
instruction8 to its negotiator concerning the price and terms of payment
for the purcha8e, 8a1e, exchange or lea8e of real property.
6
July 6, 1989
l790R
c
o
o
o
o
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9c the Redevelopment Committee
of the B.edevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino convened in
c108ed 8ession to discuss p08sible litigation at 5:10 p.m.
The Committee reconvened from closed se8sion at 5:31 p...
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommended no action be talten at this time.
AdjourDMnt
There being no further busines8, the meeting of July 6, 1989 was adjourned
at 5:32 p.m.
APPROVED BY:
~~
Redevelopment Committee
-
7
July 6, 1989
1790R