Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1992 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPECIAL MEETING 12:00 P.M. - FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of San Bernardino have called a Special Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council for 12:00 p.m. , Friday, April 17, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The purpose for which this meeting has been called is to consider possible action concerning the "Arrow Vista Project/Dukes-Dukes & Associates" . The Special Meeting of the Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada at 12 :06 p.m. , Friday, April 17, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, Assistant City Administrator Wilson. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member Reilly. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Rev. Elijah Singletary of New Life Missionary Baptist Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Pope- Ludlam. SECOND AMENDMENT TO JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DUKES-DUKES AND ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (R-1) In a memorandum dated April 17, 1992, Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director, Development Department, stated that a draft agreement has been prepared by staff and Sabo and Green pursuant to the action taken by the Community Development Commission at its April 6, 1992 meeting. The agreement represents the culmination of negotiations between staff and Leon Jordan of Dukes-Dukes and Associates. With the approval of the Commission and Agency Counsel and the submission of appropriate documentation by Dukes, the net loan proceeds can be disbursed. 1 4/17/92 Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director of the Development Department, read for the record a memorandum dated April 17, 1992 from Mayor Holcomb which stated . "I have not received personal notice of this meeting within the prescribed twenty-four hour notice. I will therefore not be attending this meeting and protest any actions being taken. Furthermore, fc-. your information and for the record, no one in my office has euar been authorized to accept service on my behalf, for special council or commission meetings" . Mr. Henderson clarified that the Mayor was properly served in a timely manner as Mayor of the City, presiding over the Council; however, although, the secretary from the Development Department Office, arrived at the Mayor' s office prior to 12:00 p.m. , the Mayor had already left for a prior engagemerc. Therefore, notice was served to the Mayor's assistant. City Attorney Penman explained that the Ralph M. Brown Act Government Code Section 54956 provides specific requirements for the Notice of Special Meetings. City Attorney Penman read pertinent parts of the Government Code Section into the record. . . "The notice shall be delivered personally or by mail and shall be received at least twenty-four hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. . . the written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes" . City Attorney Penman stated that if in fact, the Mayor was not served twenty-four hours in advance, his absence from today' s meeting would make it legally impossible for the meeting to proceed. He explained that the Special Meeting Notice had to be served personally or by mail. According to Mr. Henderson ' s comments, the notice from the Commission was not served personally, nor by mail, in a timely manner. Mr. Henderson answered questions regarding attempts to resolve the issues concerning the Dukes project prior to the calling of a special meeting. City Attorney Penman explained that the Community Development Commission is a separate legal entity from the Mayor and Council and the law expressly requires that a written notice be served personally or by mail. City Attorney Penman answered questions and stated that if the Commission were to convene and hold the meeting of the Commission, it would be a violation of the Brown Act. If the Special Meeting Notice was served properly to the Mayor, and the Mayor does not attend the Council meeting, the Council may proceed to meet with the Mayor Pro Tempore presiding. However, in this situation, the action to be transacted concerns a Commission matter. 2 4/17/92 City Clerk Krasney clarified that Mayor Holcomb was personally served as Mayor prior to 12:00 p.m. , Thursday, April 16, 1992 by a member of the City Clerk' s staff. City Attorney Penman stated that based on that information, the meeting can be convened as the Mayor and Common Council, but reiterated that any action would be limited under the authority of the Council. Ken Henderson answered questions and stated that the funds to be appropriated are from the 20% set aside tax increment funds. He explained that if the City appropriated funds from another source, specifically, Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) , the terms of eligibility determination for the Dukes project must accomplish one of three national Community Development objectives: 1) the elimination of slum and blight; 2) the provision of decent safe and sanitary housing; and 3) the provision of a suitable living environment for persons of low and moderate income households. Ken Henderson agreed that the Dukes project qualifies under the prescribed eligibility determination, but warned that there is a specific prohibition against the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for new housing construction activities. He stated that Community Development Block Grant funds are used for housing rehabilitation, architectural engineering services, and land acquisition for housing; however, funds cannot be used to actually finance new housing construction. City Attorney Penman answered questions and stated that the Mayor Pro Tempore could not convene the Commission meeting. Mr. Penman warned that if action is taken to circumvent the Brown Act, by allowing the Mayor Pro Tempore to call the Commission meeting to order, it would clearly be a violation of the Brown Act. COUNCIL MEMBER MINOR EXCUSED Council Member Minor requested that he be excused from the meeting due to the technicalities regarding the Brown Act. COUNCIL MEMBER MAUDSLEY EXCUSED Council Member Maudsley requested that he be excused from the meeting due to the conflict with the Brown Act and pointed out that this matter requires Commission action. City Attorney Penman advised that legally there is nothing that can be accomplished by the Mayor and Council regarding the Dukes project. He pointed out that a public hearing must be scheduled in considering the disbursement of CDBG funds . 3 4/17/92 Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada requested a legal ruling regarding whether or not the Council can discuss the topic listed on the Notice of Special Meeting. City Attorney Penman stated that discussions can be held regarding the topic matter, but advised that the matter relative to the Dukes project be placed on the agenda for the next meeting or call another special meeting when everyone can be properly noticed. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada requested a review by the City Attorney' s Office of the actions of the Executive Office in prolonging the approval of funds for the Dukes project. She pointed out that the Mayor and Council/Commission approved certain actions and those actions have not been executed by the Executive Office. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to direct the City Attorney to make inquiry into actions of Mayor Holcomb relative to the Dukes project. City Attorney Penman advised that it would be more appropriate to instruct the City Attorney' s Office to conduct an investigation under the authority of the Commission. Council Member Estrada withdrew her motion, and Council Member Pope-Ludlam withdrew her second, based on the advise given by the City Attorney. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that the Mayor and Council have taken action regarding the Dukes project and have directed staff to proceed and prepare the necessary documents, but that direction has not been followed nor executed by the Executive Office. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller requested that she be excused from the meeting due to the conflict with the Brown Act. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate method of bringing the Dukes matter before the Council for further consideration. City Attorney Penman stated that the Council could consider the matter at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20, 1992, with a 2/3 vote that the need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the Council agenda. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada inquired of any opinions in the City Attorney' s Office making findings in support of the Council to consider the Dukes matter as an item that arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. 4 4/17/92 City Attorney Penman advised that the Council could legally make the finding that the need to take action arose after the posting of the Council agenda. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT At 12:45 p.m. , the Special Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council adjourned to 8:30 a.m. , Monday, April 20, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RACHEL KRASNEY City Clerk By ,4 L Diane J es, Deputy City Clerk No. of`Items: 1 No. of Hours: 45 minutes 5 4/17/92