RA1980/09/2380 -77
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
September 23, 1980, 1:00 P.M.
Council Chamber
Anaheim City Hall
PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour (entered 1:16 P.M.)
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Susan Schick
Chairman Pro Tem Overholt called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency to order.
MINUTES: On motion by Mrs. Kaywood, seconded by Mr. Bay, minutes of the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency regular meeting held September 2 and September 9, 1980 were
approved. Mr. Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (1:16 P.M.)
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of
$62,485.91, in accordance with the 1980 -81 Budget, were approved.
161: MONTHLY STATUS REPORT - AUGUST 1980: Mrs. Kaywood moved to receive and
file the Monthly Status Report covering Redevelopment Agency activities for the
month of August 1980. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Bay asked to know the kind of penalty clauses
that were being enforced on the contractor for slips in schedule on completion
of the affected streets in Downtown Project Alpha.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated that the
October 10, 1980 date for completion, as indicated in the subject report, was
still holding at this time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
161.157: ACCEPTANCE OF REMODELING WORK AT THE EL CAMINO BANK BUILDING: Mr.
Roth offered Resolution No. ARA80 -31 for adoption, accepting the remodeling work
performed by Home Modernizers for 106 North Claudina Street, third floor, in
accordance with the letter agreement dated August 19, 1980 in the amount of
$800 and directing the Agency Secretary to file a Notice of Completion, as
recommended in memorandum dated September 11, 1980 from the Executive Director
of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -31: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A WORK OF IMPROVE-
MENT. (Contract No. D80 -6)
80 -78
ANAHEI RE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1980, 1:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA80 -31 duly passed and adopted.
161.107: CHANGE ORDER FOR DEM - LUTHER KELLY CO NTRACT D80 -2: On motion
by Mr. Bay, seconded by Mrs. Kaywood, a Change Order was approved to the demo-
lition contract with Luther Kelly Demolition, (D80 -2), deducting $1,400, thereby
amending the contract price to $12,900, for deletion of one residential struc-
ture located at 211 North Claudina Street, as recommended in memorandum dated
September 16, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development.
MOTION CARRIED.
161.177: SETTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MARKS -FORAN BOND ISSUE: Mr. Priest
first briefed the Agency on his report dated September 17, 1980 recommending that
a hearing be set on October 4, 1980 concering the establishment of boundaries of
residential rehabilitation area, adoption of plan for public improvements, adoption
of Rules and Regulations and certain other matters relating to Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency Residential Rehabilitation Program. He also elaborated on the points
contained in the discussion portion of his report which outlined the program
and items that would be discussed and considered at the public hearing, aided =NOW
by a posted map of the entire City showing the age of housing in Anaheim as
designated by a color code. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Priest
explained that those items would be coming back to the Agency for consideration
subsequent to the public hearing. He would not know whether they would be in
that exact form until the matter was discussed with the citizens committee
appointed by the Agency the previous week. The action today would be to set
the time and date for the hearing and since both times were open, it could be
at 1:00 p.m. or in the evening of October 14, 1980.
Mr. Roth stated that in view of the report he had received that morning from
Legal Counsel relative to the Marks -Foran Residential Rehabilitation Bond
Program (_see letter dated September 18, 1980 from the law offices of Jones,
Hall, Hill and White), he was going to abstain from any voting on the issue
and would do so from now on until further notice.
Chairman Seymour stated that he would be doing likewise, as he suggested at the
last meeting (_see minutes September 16, 1980), because the matter continued to
be unclear.
Mr. Overholt offered Resolution No. ARA80 -32 for adoption, designating the date
and time for the subject puJ?lic hearing as Tuesday, October 14, 1980 a: 1:00 p.m.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -32: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SETTING
A HEARING CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF RESIDENTIAL REHABIL-
ITATION AREA(S), ADOPTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS
RELATING TO THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM.
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1980, 1:00 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mrs. Kaywood asked if people were interested in getting
a loan, what would the procedure be.
Mr. Priest explained that a regular application process would be followed which
he explained.
Mr. Overholt then asked the City Attorney what their situation would be if a
third member of the Agency were required to abstain.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that they would then have to advise the
Agency as to the appropriateness of a vote being cast by one of the other persons.
However, it would involve an analysis of that particular issue. The abstention
would only be necessary if it was foreseeable that the action or that particular
vote would increase the financial income of the individual who cast that vote
and thus, it would be on a case -by -case basis. It might end up going to court
if they were at a deadlock.
Mr. Roth recommended that the letter of September 18, 1980 which the City
Attorney shared with him and Chairman Seymour that morning also be given to the
rest of the Agency Members, especially Mr. Overholt, to see how he might interpret
it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
AGENCY
MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Bay
NOES:
AGENCY
MEMBERS:
None
ABSTAINED:
AGENCY
MEMBERS:
Roth and Seymour
ABSENT:
AGENCY
MEMBERS:
None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA80 -32 duly passed and adopted.
161.123: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS
TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER: Mr. Roth offered Resolution No. ARA80 -33 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from the Executive
Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -34: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA80 -33 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mrs. Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session
immediately following the Housing Authority meeting. Mr. Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:35 P.M.)
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1980, 1:00 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Chairman called the meeting to order, all Agency Members
being present. (1:40 P.M.)
161.112: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. PRESSEL: On motion by Mr. Seymour,
seconded by Mr. Overholt, the law firm of Oliver, Stoever & Laskin, special
counsel to the Agency, was authorized to make an all inclusive settlement of the
World Travel Bureau of Anaheim, Inc., claims in the case of Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency vs. Pressel, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 28- 44 -00, in the amount
of $5,000 for alleged loss of goodwill. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Kaywood moved to adourn. Mr. Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 1:41 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECR ARY