city council staff report...rowan hotel. the effective rate of the tot rebate is 69.3%, leaving a...

City Council Staff Report DATE: June 19, 2019 DISCUSSION ITEM

SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CITY'S POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1090 CLAIMS AGAINST PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC, INCLUSIVE OF GRIT DEVELOPMENT LLC, (SUCCESSOR TO JOHN WESSMAN/WESSMAN HOLDINGS), IN CONNECTION WITH REDEVELOPMENT OF THE DESERT FASHION PLAZA (THE DOWNTOWN PALM SPRINGS PROJECT), AND AGAINST DAKOTA PS, LLC, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DAKOTA PROJECT

FROM: Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney

BY: Gary W. Schons, Special Counsel

SUMMARY

For the past several months, the City's representatives and legal counsel have engaged with Grit Development, LLC ("Gritn) and its affiliate, Palm Springs Promenade, LLC. and their legal counsel to identify the areas and values of the Government Code section 1090 civil liability resulting from allegations occurring between 2012 and 2014 involving former Mayor Pougnet, John Wessman and Richard Meaney. as charged by the District Attorney, and to resolve those claims by the City without litigation (and in advance of the resolution by trial or plea of the criminal charges). The City has identified approximately $12.6 million of Government Code section 1090 "disgorgementn or "clawback" liability, including approximately $1.2 million in past transient occupancy tax (or "TOT") reimbursements, and an estimated $36.2 million in future TOT reimbursements to Grit in connection with the operation of the Rowan Hotel.

As Grit has continued with its development of the Downtown Palm Springs Project, and on subsequent actions taken by the City, the City has reserved all of its rights and remedies, inclusive of any section 1090 claims. This reservation has created a "cloud" of uncertainty for Grit securing financial lending, preventing it from proceeding with any future work associated with the project. This fact lead Grit to propose a global settlement of section 1090 claims acceptable to the City, such that the City's reservation of rights could be eliminated, and Grit could obtain financial lending.

The c1ty•s representatives and Grit have reached a proposed resolution of those Government Code section 1090 claims to include the transfer of three properties from Grit to the City, reimbursement of $5.3 million paid for purchase of the Downtown Park

ITEM NO., 25 .. A-

2

City Council Staff Report June 19, 2019 -- Government Code Section 1090 Claims Settlement

site to be credited to Grit's construction of a City Library at cost. The value of the proposed settlement is estimated at approximately $30 million. The proposal also retains the validity of the Operations Covenant for the Rowan Hotel TOT rebate, allowing for continued rebate of 75% of the TOT collected for the remainder of the 30-year term, estimated at $36.2 million 1.

Additionally, Grit has proposed the City enter into a Project Labor Agreement ("PLA") with the Southern California District Council of Laborers as a means of resolving a potential dispute with the California Department of Industrial Relations relating to payment of prevailing wages associated with the Downtown Palm Springs Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff as appropriate.

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

Palm Springs Promenade, LLC A Public Integrity Disclosure form for Palm Springs Promenade, LLC, a California limited liability company, is included as Attachment 1.

According to the disclosure form, Palm Springs Promenade has three members: Grit Development, LLC, Michael & Wendy Braun, and PS Promenade, Inc.; Michael Braun is the sole manager. Grit Development, LLC, (formerly Wessman Holdings, LLC,) owns 91 % of Palm Springs Promenade with the remaining interest held 8% by Michael Braun, and 1% held by PS Promenade, Inc., (owned by the Wessman Family Trust with Sandra Wessman and Michal Braun serving as co-trustees).

As reported on prior actions involving Palm Springs Promenade and its related business entities: a search of records available through the Secretary of State of California shows that as of August 28, 2017, Grit Development, LLC, was a company managed by a single manager, Michael Braun. The company name is new, with the prior name having been "Wessman Holdings, LLC." Mr. Braun was a manager or member of Wessman Holdings as reflected in a Statement of Information filed with the Secretary of State on April 28, 2017. As of November 3, 2016, Wessman Holdings, LLC had more than one manager, and Mr. Braun was engaged as such at that time. Previously, as of October 25, 2015, Mr. Braun and John Wessman were both managers of Wessman Holdings, LLC. John Wessman filed the articles of organization of Wessman Holdings, LLC on January 24, 2002.

1 The City's new hotel TOT rebate incentive program (which has closed to new applications) rebates 75% of the "Adjusted Tax Rate" which is 12.1 %, and not 75% of the entire TOT rate of 13.5% paid by the Rowan Hotel. The effective rate of the TOT rebate is 69.3%, leaving a net of 30. 7% of the TOT paid by the Rowan Hotel retained by the City. As explained further in this staff report, the City estimates receipt of $18.2 million in net TOT revenue through the 30-year term of the Rowan Hotel TOT rebate incentive program.

3


Dakota PS, LLC A search of records available through the Secretary of State of California shows that Articles of Incorporation for Dakota PS, LLC, a California limited liability company, were filed on June 17, 2013, with more than one manager. According to a Statement of Information for Dakota PS, LLC, filed on December 6, 2016, its managers or members were John Wessman, Michael Braun, and Octavio Fernandez. According to a Statement of Information for Dakota PS, LLC, filed on May 23, 2017, its managers or members were Michael Braun and Octavio Fernandez. According to the Operating Agreement for Dakota PS, LLC, dated June 1, 2014, the members of Dakota PS, LLC, consisted of Wessman Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company, Rich Meaney, Michael Braun, and Octavio Fernandez. According to a statement from Michael Braun, Dakota PS, LLC's ownership consists of the following: Grit Development LLC - 55%; Michael Braun - 10%; Octavio Fernandez - 10%; and Rich Meaney - 25%.

BACKGROUND:

On September 29, 2011, the City and Palm Springs Promenade entered into a Project Financing Agreement ("PFA") that relates to the financing, development, redevelopment, creation and refurbishing of Public and Private Improvements in the Desert Fash ion Plaza area of downtown Palm Springs. Thereafter the PFA was amended on at least four occasions. Additional agreements were subsequently reached modifying and expanding the project in the period 2012-2014.

On a separate matter, on February 19, 2014, the City Council voted to approve multiple entitlement applications (Case 5.1310, Planned Development District 365, Tentative Tract Map 36548) related to a proposed residential subdivision called the "Dakota" Project, a gated development along Belardo Road, initially proposed by Wessman Holdings, LLC, and ultimately developed by Dakota PS LLC, a partnership between John Wessman and Richard Meaney. At a later action on November 5, 2014, the City Council approved Final Map 36548 allowing for the subdivision of the property and commencement of construction of the Dakota project, which eventually produced 39 single-family residences.

On November 19, 2014, the City Council approved a Hotel Operations Covenant for the Rowan Hotel; it was anticipated at that time that Palm Springs Promenade would receive $600,000 annually through the 30-year term of the Covenant as 75% TOT rebate pursuant to the City's Hotel Incentive Program, with the City retaining $200,000 annually, based on projections for room-night revenue subject to the City's TOT tax rate.

On December 17, 2014, the City Council approved a Purchase Agreement and Escrow Instructions with Palm Springs Promenade for the acquisition of the "Event Center" (now identified as the Downtown Park site), and related actions. At that time, the City agreed to purchase the property from Palm Springs Promenade for $5.3 million with the condition that these funds were reinvested into Palm Springs Promenade's construction

4


of new private underground parking within the Downtown Palm Springs Project. (These funds were used in part to fund Palm Springs Promenade's construction of the underground parking located under the commercial retail building [Tommy Bahama's and adjacent stores] and the vacant parcel identified for the future Virgin Hotel).

In September 2015, FBI agents and investigators from the Riverside County District Attorney's Office served search warrants at City Hall and the residence of then outgoing Mayor Stephen Pougnet in connection with what was reported to be a public corruption investigation. In February 2017, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a 30 count felony complaint against Pougnet, John Wessman and Richard Meaney charging conspiracy, along with numerous counts of bribery, perjury and felony violations of Government Code section 1090. The District Attorney obtained and executed arrest warrants for the three defendants. In May 2017 the District Attorney filed a slightly Amended Felony Complaint with 31 charges and the three defendants have been arraigned on that complaint, which remains pending without any significant proceedings, including a preliminary examination, in the Superior Court.

In May 2017, Grit Development, LLC, managed by Wessman's son-in-law, Michael Braun, succeeded Wessman Development, as to the Downtown Palm Springs Project and Dakota Project, among others. The City has coordinated with Grit over the past two years to complete the Downtown Palm Springs Project while preserving its rights to seek civil recovery under Government Code section 1090 against Palm Springs Promenade and Grit, as the successor to Wessman Holdings. 2

STAFF ANALYSIS:

Government Code Section 1090 Civil Liability & Possible Recoveries

A contract made in violation of Government Code section 1090 is void, not merely voidable. Thomson v. Call (1985) 38 Cal.3d 633. It is as if the contract never existed. Thus, the Operations Covenant City would not be obligated to make future TOT rebates in connection with the operation of the Rowan Hotel, estimated to be $36.2 million over the remainder of the 30-year term

Every such contract may be "avoided" by any party except the officer with the conflict of interest. Gov't Code§ 1092.5 (a). However, an action or suit under section 1092.5 must be brought within 4 years after the plaintiff has discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered a violation of section 1090. Gov't Code § 1092.5 (b).

2 The City, under a previously constituted City Council, re-affirmed the Virgin Hotel for the downtown project, which removed it from the 1090 reservation.

5


In a suit under Government Code section 1092.5 to "avoid" a contract, the City may seek to recover any sums it paid under the contract. This is the remedy known as "clawback."

"A contract void under sections 1090 and 1092 and against public policy provides "'no ground for any equitable considerations, presumptions, or estoppels ... and court will not entertain any rights growing out of such a contract, or permit a recovery upon a quantum meruit or quantum valebat."' (Thomson, at p. 647.) Thus 'where a contract is made in violation of section 1090, the public entity involved is entitled to recover any compensation that it has paid under the contract without restoring any of the benefits it has received.' (Finnegan v. Schrader (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 572, 583.) This remedy of disgorgement of benefits received under a void contract is automatic. ( Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1336.) Section 1092 thus extends to a private party who is paid money by a public entity pursuant to a contract that is void because it violates section 1090. Such a party must disgorge those public funds. (Carson, at p. 1337.) (Klistoff v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 469, 481,emphasis added.)

According to the City's expert outside counsel on 1090 matters, the City could seek to recover or "clawback" (1) the $30,000 increased reimbursement to Wessman in the first amendment to the reimbursement agreement approved on September 5, 2012; (2) the $5.3 million the City paid for the Downtown Park site pursuant to actions occurring on September 17, 2014, and December 17, 2014; (3) the $1.2 million paid to date in TOT rebate in connection with the operation of the Rowan Hotel; (4) the $3 million for the Downtown Palm Springs Project Change Order Improvements related to the "Event Center" (now the Downtown Park) and Parking Garage Demolition, Construction and Rehabilitation outside the scope of the PFA pursuant to actions occurring on November 19, 2014, and December 17, 2014. The total maximum "clawback" value is estimated at $9,530,000.

Additionally, courts have held that in addition to the "disgorgement remedy" of returning public funds to the agency which the counter party to the contract derived from the void contract, the public entity may recover the net profits made by the counter party to the contract. This is the remedy known as "disgorgement."

"The issue on appeal is whether the violation of section 1090 entitled plaintiffs to void the rental agreements under Government Code section 1092 and to compel [defendants] to disgorge the profits that they earned on events held under the rental agreements. [P]laintiffs contend that sections 1090 and 1092 are not limited in scope to transactions in which a private party defendant received public funds directly from a plaintiff that is a public entity. Based on these authorities, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to recover from [defendants] any and all benefits those defendants

6


derived from the rental agreements because the agreements were made by .. . a public employee, in his official capacity while he had a financial interest in them, i.e., the agreements were tainted with corruption in violation of section 1090. As our analysis of plaintiffs' authorities demonstrates, plaintiffs' construction of sections 1090 and 1092 is correct.

'These authorities suggest that the equitable remedy for a violation of section 1090 is not limited to cases in which the defendant receives public funds directly from the plaintiff public entity. As the Supreme Court in Thomson, supra , 38 Cal.3d 633, emphasized, the policy goals underlying section 1090 mandate strict enforcement of the conflict of interest statutes and justify harsh remedies, such as the result in that case-forfeiture to the city of the title to the city council member's parcel of land and disgorgement of the purchase price. (Thomson, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 652.) (Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 824-825.)

This "disgorgement" remedy would permit the City to seek disgorgement of the profits made by Dakota PS, LLC, related to the Dakota Project, estimated at $3.1 million (equivalent to 10% of the sales price of the 39 units; a 2015 National Association of Home Builders' cost of doing business study demonstrated the average profit on new residential construction averaged in the range of 6%-7%. Reference is made to the following reports:

http://eyeonhousing.org/2016/03/whats-the-average-profit-margin-of-single-familybui lders/

https://www.uexpress.com/housing-scene/2016/6/24/how-much-do-they-earn

The total estimated "clawback" and "disgorgement" value is $12,630,000.

The proposed settlement resolution is identified on the following pages.

7

City Council Staff Report June 19, 201 9 -- Government Code Section 1090 Claims Settlement

Proposed Resolution

In discussions with Grit, the City understands that Grit is unable to secure financing for subsequent phases of its downtown project, while the 1090 issues are unresolved. This impacts both Grit and the City, which anticipates associated revenues from such development. In addition, as with all litigation, there are costs associated with such litigation, the diversion of City staff and legal resources, as well as the possibility that a court could rule against the City, resulting in nothing for the City.

Negotiations between Grit and its legal counsel, and the City's representatives and legal counsel have yielded a proposed resolution of Palm Springs Promenade's potential Government Code section 1090 civil liability. The proposal is represented as follows:

1. Grit will donate to the City the 41.6 acre property located on Tram Way and W. Racquet Club Road (identified by APN 504-040-046) previously proposed for development as the "Crescendo" residential project, generally shown here:

Estimated Value: $6,000,000

8

City Counci l Staff Report June 19, 201 9 -- Government Code Section 1090 Claims Settlement

2. Grit will donate to the City the 31.4 acre property subdivided into 45 single family residential lots and private streets located on W . Via Escuela (identified by Tract Map 31095) previously proposed for development as the "Boulders" residential project, generally shown here:


9


3. Palm Springs Promenade will reimburse the City its purchase price for the 1.16 acre parcel identified as Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 36446 (APN 51 3-560-047) acquired by the City for development of the Downtown Park, generally shown here:

Value is $5,300,000, to be credited against Grit's construction of a new City Library

10


4. Palm Springs Promenade will donate to the City the 0.45 acre parcel identified as Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 36446 (identified by APN 51 3-560-048) and known as "Block G" of the Downtown Palm Springs Project, generally shown here:


5. Grit to construct a new City Library on Block G of the Downtown Palm Springs Project (or an equivalent public project) at "builder's cost" (waiving any contractor's overhead and profit) . The cost of construction will be credited with the City's $5.3 million reimbursement for the Downtown Park site acquisition (Item 3, above)

Estimated Value:

Total Proposed Settlement Value:

Varies depending on total construction value, up to $1,200,000

$30,160,000

11


Rowan Hotel TOT Rebate

The proposed resolution of potential section 1090 civil liabilities exceeds the present value of the "clawback" and "disgorgement" of approximately $12.6 million, which includes $1.2 million representing the 75% TOT rebates paid to date associated with the Operations Covenant approved for the Rowan Hotel. In discussions with Grit, the City understands the revenue from the 30-year TOT rebate secures the financing for the Rowan Hotel, and in the absence of that revenue stream, the financial viability of the Rowan Hotel is jeopardized risking the closure of the hotel. Grit has also advised the City that the Rowan Hotel's continued operation is a contingency incorporated into Palm Springs Promenade's lease agreements with its retailers, and closure of the Rowan Hotel would potentially cause a cascading effect of lease termination by Palm Springs Promenade's tenants, risking the entire success of the Downtown Palm Springs Project.

As a major component of the Downtown Palm Springs Project, the Rowan Hotel also generates indirect beneficial financial impacts to the City through increased sales tax revenue (retail and food/beverage sales) in the greater Downtown area. While a hypothetical closure of the Rowan Hotel would potentially allow another hotel operator to succeed it, there is no guarantee the quality or type of hotel would match the caliber of the current Rowan Hotel, and is a risk to be considered avoiding.

On the basis of the continued success of the Downtown Palm Springs Project and the benefits it provides to the community, it would be in the City's long-term tourism economic interest not to terminate and declare void the Operations Covenant allowing for 75% TOT rebates associated with the Rowan Hotel. This would allow Palm Springs Promenade to continue receiving a 75% TOT rebate for an additional 28 years, with an estimated value of approximately $36.2 million dependent upon actual room-night sales extending through the term of the Covenant. The City would continue to receive net TOT revenue estimated at $18.2 million over the 30-year term of the 75% TOT rebate program.

Proiect Labor Agreement

Under the California Constitution, Palm Springs, as a charter city, enjoys broad authority to regulate "municipal affairs." One such "municipal affair" is the ability to contract for public works. This constitutional grant of authority supersedes state law and as a general rule, a charter city is exempt from the general laws of the state to require the payment of prevailing wages when the source of funds are local, and not state or federal funds.

In 2012, the California Supreme Court confirmed that the wage levels of contract workers constructing locally-funded public works constitute a municipal affair, exempt from state regulation. State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-C/O v. City of Vista (2012) 2012 WL 2508036.

12


Accordingly, the City's Municipal Code § 7.06.030 had previously exempted contracts for locally funded public works projects from the payment of prevailing wages, as otherwise required by Labor Code § 1770 et seq .. Historically, all of the City's locally funded public works projects, including those funded by the former Redevelopment Agency, exempted payment of prevailing wages.

In October 2013 the Governor signed Senate Bill 7 ("SB 7") which amended the Labor Code to block state funding for charter cities that did not pay prevailing wages even on locally funded public works projects. In 2014 SB 7 was legally challenged in San Diego Superior Court by multiple charter cities, arguing that SB 7 unlawfully interfered with their constitutional right to control municipal affairs. The court ultimately upheld the state's right to impose the prevailing wage rate obligation on charter cities. As a result, charter cities were forced to apply prevailing wages on locally funded public works projects after January 1, 2015, or risk losing state funds.

As a result, on November 19, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1863 amending Municipal Code § 7.06.030 to require payment of prevailing wage rates on locally funded projects. This requirement has been imposed on all subsequent public works projects in accordance with Labor Code § 1770 et seq.

Last year, the Southern California District Council of Laborers (the "Laborers") filed an action with the California Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") regarding Grit's failure to pay prevailing wage rates on its construction of the Rowan Hotel. The DIR opened an investigation, and ultimately issued a determination agreeing with the Laborers that Grit's receipt of TOT rebate from the City constituted a public works project subject to Labor Code § 1770 et seq.

It should be understood that the PFA approved in 2011, and the Operations Covenant for the Rowan Hotel approved on December 17, 2014, predate the effectiveness of SB 7 and the requirement to apply prevailing wage rates on locally funded public works project. However, in the interests of arriving at a global settlement related to the Downtown Palm Springs Project, a proposal is suggested whereby the Laborers will rescind their action with the DIR, provided that the City enter into a PLA with the Laborers agreeing to utilize local union laborers on future public works projects having a value of at least $250,000 for a four year term.

Staff consulted with some of its major contractors and determined that they are currently signatories to the Laborers, and the PLA would not have an impact on their bidding on future projects. However, some smaller contractors who are not signatory to the Laborers would be imposed with obligations to utilize both their employees and union workers provided through the Laborers as a condition of the PLA. This fact may drive down competition on smaller sized public works projects, resulting in potentially higher bids.

13


However, the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works has entered into a 5-year PLA and notes that it has not seen any difference in its bidding as a result of their PLA; refer to their webpage document:

https://bca.lacity.org/Uploads/hiring/PLA%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20% 28FAQ%29.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The requested City Council action is not a "Project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed section 1090 civil liability settlement will resolve a potential liability estimated at $12.6 million with a value estimated at $30.16 million.

Validating and not declaring void the Rowan Hotel Operations Covenant will allow 75% TOT rebates to continue through the 30-year term of the Covenant (17 months of TOT rebate payments in the cumulative total of approximately $1.26 million has occurred to date). Staff has estimated the future value of 75% TOT rebates anticipated over the term of the Operations Covenant based on current data and projected at 2.5% annual increases, for a total 75% TOT rebate of $37.4 million of which $1.2 million has been paid to date, leaving $36.2 million of future 75% TOT rebates to be paid to Palm Springs Promenade. During this period , the City will receive net TOT revenue of approximately $18.2 million plus indirect sales tax revenue associated with patrons of the hotel.

A Table showing staff's estimate of the 75% TOT rebate program for the Rowan Hotel is shown on the following page.

14


Room TOT

Year Revenues

Payment (13.5%)

2018 $ 8,393,000 $ 1,133,100 2019 $ 9,651,950 $ 1,303,000 2020 $ 9,893,249 $ 1,335,600 2021 $ 10,140,580 $ 1,369,000 2022 $ 10,394,094 $ 1,403,200 2023 $ 10,653,947 $ 1,438,300 2024 $ 10,920,296 $ 1,474,200 2025 $ 11,193,303 $ 1,511,100 2026 $ 11,473,135 $ 1,548,900 2027 $ 11,759,964 $ 1,587,600 2028 $ 12,053,963 $ 1,627,300 2029 $ 12,355,312 $ 1,668,000 2030 $ 12,664,195 $ 1,709,700 2031 $ 12,980,800 $ 1,752,400 2032 $ 13,305,320 $ 1,796,200 2033 $ 13,637,953 $ 1,841,100 2034 $ 13,978,901 $ 1,887,200 2035 $ 14,328,374 $ 1,934,300 2036 $ 14,686,583 $ 1,982,700 2037 $ 15,053,748 $ 2,032,300 2038 $ 15,430,092 $ 2,083,100 2039 $ 15,815,844 $ 2,135,100 2040 $ 16,211,240 $ 2,188,500 2041 $ 16,616,521 $ 2,243,200 2042 $ 17,031,934 $ 2,299,300 2043 $ 17,457,732 $ 2,356,800 2044 $ 17,894,176 $ 2,415,700 2045 $ 18,341,530 $ 2,476,100 2046 $ 18,800,068 $ 2,538,000 2047 $ 19,270,070 $ 2,601,500

$412,387,874 $ 55,672,500

TOT Rebate Net TOT to

(75% of City

12.1%) $ 761,700 $ 371,400 $ 875,900 $ 427,100 $ 897,800 $ 437,800 $ 920,300 $ 448,700 $ 943,300 $ 459,900 $ 966,800 $ 471,500 $ 991,000 $ 483,200 $ 1,015,800 $ 495,300 $ 1,041,200 $ 507,700 $ 1,067,200 $ 520,400 $ 1,093,900 $ 533,400 $ 1,121,200 $ 546,800 $ 1,149,300 $ 560,400 $ 1,178,000 $ 574,400 $ 1,207,500 $ 588,700 $ 1,237,600 $ 603,500 $ 1,268,600 $ 618,600 $ 1,300,300 $ 634,000 $ 1,332,800 $ 649,900 $ 1,366,100 $ 666,200 $ 1,400,300 $ 682,800 $ 1,435,300 $ 699,800 $ 1,471,200 $ 717,300 $ 1,507,900 $ 735,300 $ 1,545,600 $ 753,700 $ 1,584,300 $ 772,500 $ 1,623,900 $ 791,800 $ 1,664,500 $ 811,600 $ 1,706,100 $ 831,900 $ 1,748,800 $ 852,700

$37,424,200 $ 18,248,300

15


SUBMITTED:

ey S. Ballinger(CityAttorney

-M-a-rc-~-s-L-. F-u-11-er-, _p¥d_E_~_L_S_1

_M...;...P_A---~ ::. ~~ Assistant City Manager City Manager

Attachments: 1. Public Integrity Disclosures

16

/ "' \ '

r-- -.-.··- ..... - ... , ----- ..

'"''--\it . . . . .. ·•···

/

•• 7:.

~.-. ft).•-:.:'

•, t:jr~ (:·;~i~;~~j\ ·····

~-· \:i~~.:· •:" ·: •~? r,:,, .. . -:: .... ~~ ~l ... S :.: ,.) -- ·~? ~ t°t' . ·~ ,-. :::.,, . {

~::t;~, ·•' ••.,1~'~t ~~t:.,-;;.•~~~ .l! 4, t

•.• ~. i.

...... •:

17

Attachment 1

18

1 .

2.

3.

4.

5.

Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

-Pttl M 6pYli f\1 s PRomer1.tUfe,1 L.lC . Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)

201 "1. Po..lm eattyon 1)R._6u.ift 200,Po.Jrn~rf cA.~221P2

Local or California Address (if different than #2)

.s~me State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State

Co. I i -Po I'<. fl I 0

vl

If other than Califomia. is the Entitv also reaistered in California? n Yes n No Type of Entity

0 Corporation .('3-Limited Liability Company O Partnership O Trust O Other (please specify)

6 . Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity

G 1< i t D.t V t,/o f2tr1. ~,J- L-ll O Officer O Director ~ Member O Manager [name]

{ ./ krA W'lSSMt.lfl Dtv.uopM~ llC) • General Partner • Limited Partner

q Io/; ()W J1 lk. 6 fo.Jp • Other

/1ll ie, h(}. e I ~ We,,rtd. y__ BR.a un 0 Officer O Director S Member ~ Manager [name]

rVl I 'e, ho.. e, I BRO. lU1. - WI M1 ~~ D General Partner D Limited Partner

Bi {!)WJ1.l~hi p D Other

P 5 . P~rvtencul.e Tue D Officer D Director ~ Member D Manager

J °' [name]

{) tA) ff.~ 7:JJJ, p D General Partner D Limited Partner

• Other _

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2

(Rev ised 09 J 3 J 8 )

19

- - - - -7 7. Owners/I nvestors w ith a 5% beneficia l interes t in t he Applicant Ent ity or a rela ted ent ity

EXAMPLE

JANE DOE 5 0%, ABC COMPA NY, Inc.

[name of owner/investor] [percentage of benef icial interest in ent ity and name of entity]

A. GR.if 0R--Vi-0pMtrt+ lll 100% Otvn1.,d by fAt, We.5sm~rt Fawti Jy 77<.u.sf. M<'c.had Bl<a.t»1

a.ng -5 ()..,y1dte(). VJe.ssmavt Co -r,ey..s [nam e of owner/ invest or ] [percentage of benefi cial interest in entity

and name of entity]

B.

[nam e of owner/invest or] [percentage of beneficial interest in entit y and name of entity]

C.

[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficia l interest in entity and name of entit y]

D.

[name of ow ner/ investor] [percentage of beneficia l int erest in entity and name of ent ity]

E.

(name of owner/ invest or] (percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA T AT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signatur):!"61 Disclos1'.;8 a Date

~7_ - ~: I

c..,., /

rvt 1 · e,~ e l Jz.r<a.VJA - Wl<t-11 ~~re

(Revised 09 13.18)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSU RE FORM

APPLI CANT DISCLOSURE FO RM Page 2 of 2

I I

te s

city council staff report...rowan hotel. the effective rate of the tot rebate is 69.3%, leaving a...

Documents