Loading...
RA1976/03/2376 -28 ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1976 (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Dan D'Urso HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario Mattessich Chairman Thom called the Regular Meeting of the Anaheim Community Development Commission to order at 1 :00 P.M. for the purpose of sitting as the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority. MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Thom, minutes of the Regular Meeting held March 16, 1976, were approved. Commissioner Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority, in the amounts of $3,358.79 and $182.17 respectively, in accordance �* with the 1975 -76 Budget, were approved. I. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: The following matter was considered by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADVISORY POWERS: At the regular meeting held March 16, 1976, discussion was held pertaining to a new provision of the State Health and Safety Code requiring that two members of a Housing Commission, who are receiving housing assistance through the H.U.D. Section 8 Housing Assistance Program, be tenants of the Housing Authority. Memorandum from the City Attorney's Office dated March 11, 1976, listing avail- able alternatives for the formation of a Housing Commission, was submitted at that time. Commissioner Seymour stated he was in favor of the alternative which would suspend the Community Development Commission in favor of the dual entities of Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority, and appoint an advisory Housing Commission, to include two tenant - commissioners. Chairman Thom indicated this seemed the most logical option. In response to question by Commissioner Kaywood, City Attorney Alan Watts advised that to suspend the Community Development Commis- sion would require an ordinance to repeal the previous ordinance which established that Commission. If the alternative were selected that the current Community Redevelopment Commission was vested' with the powers of a Housing Commission, then two tenant commissioners would have to be added for Housing Commission matters. The number of commissioners is limited to seven, and with seven members already on the Redevelopment Commission, two of the existing members would have to give way to the tenant commissioners on Housing Commission matters. 76 -29 Community Development Commission Minutes - March 23, 1976, 1:00 P.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continued: Commissioner Sneegas noted that the required appointment of two tenant commissioners would seem to result in these members having a conflict of interest, since they would be deriving bene- fit from actions of the Housing Commission. Mr. Watts pointed out that the commission would be an advisory body and the final decision - making agency would be the Housing Authority (City Council). Commissioner Seymour moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the appropriate documents to suspend the Community Devel- opment Commission and create a Housing Commission, to be an advisory body including two tenant commissioners. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. Commissioner Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Executive Director Keith Murdoch advised that in the near future, the City Council would have to determine whether the Redevelopment Commission should be assigned the additional responsibility of advising on community development activities under the Housing and Community Development Act. II, ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY: The following matter was considered by the Anaheim Housing Authority: H.U.D. S ECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - PROPOSED UNIT NUMBE INCREASE Community Development Director Knowlton Fernald reported that the - H.U,D. soon would be advertising for additional Section 8 residential . units, and there is a need for some additional units in Anaheim. To apply for the additional units, the City would need to effect a change in its Housing Assistance Program in order for H.U.D. to approve the application. Public hearings before the City Council would be required to modify the Housing Assistance Program. Housing Director Rosario Mattessich briefly explained the scheduling of time periods for H.U.D. acceptance of applications for community development units under Section 8. He advised that approximately 1,600 existing units are proposed to be available for Orange County during the coming fiscal year, and if the City of Anaheim wants to amend its Housing Assistance Program application, two public hearings must be scheduled by the City Council. He thereupon requested an indication by members of the Housing Author- ity whether an increase in the application is desired. The four Authority members present indicated their desire to increase the application. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: The following issue was taken up by the Community Development Commission: COMMISSIONER SNEEGAS - PROPOSED VOTING ABSTENTION ON REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Commissioner Seymour advised that it had been brought to his attention by a number of citizens that they felt if Commis- sioner Sneegas continued to vote on Redevelopment Agency matters during the period of waiting for findings of the judicial system pertaining to a possible conflict of interest, and if the findings are that there has, in fact, been a violation of the law, it could be found that all actions of the Redevelopment Agency taken during this period were invalid as a result of Commissioner Sneegas' con- tinuing to vote. Further, Commissioner Seymour advised that because he felt it to be in the best interests of the City and the 76 -30 Community Development Commission Minutes - March 23, 1976,1:00 P.M, Community Development Comm ission, Continued: redevelopment program, he had brought to the attention of.the City Attorney and of Commissioner Sneegas that, in his opinion, if this possibility exists, Commissioner Sneegas should abstain from vot- ing on any redevelopment issue, or step down, until the matter is settled. The City Attorney had advised him that there was a pos- sibility, depending on the outcome of the conflict of interest issue, that actions taken by the Redevelopment Agency could be found invalid. Subject to the confirmation of this position by the. City Attorney, Commissioner Seymour requested that Commissioner Sneegas publicly state he would abstain from voting on redevelop- ment issues until such time as the conflict of interest matter is settled. If not, then he requested advice from the City Attorney as to what action could be taken by the Commission to insure that the potential liability is mitigated as quickly as possible. City Attorney Alan Watts advised that the question had arisen at the Community Development Commission meeting held March 16, 1976, and his opinion at that time was that while he felt there was a possibility that the actions of the Redevelopment Agency could be challenged, in his view, weighing all of the issues, they could withstand such a challenge. However, there is an argument that could be made which would challenge the Agency's actions, and he could not eliminate that possibility. As to the second portion of Commissioner Seymour's question, Mr. Watts stated it was his view that to the extent that the action of all five Agency members is unanimous on an issue, the possi- bilities of challenging that action because of any situation in which Commissioner Sneegas may be involved are very remote; however in situations such as where votes are three to two, the possibility is increased. Commissioner Sneegas questioned whether it was not true that anything coming before the City Council or Community Development Commission, any decision whatsoever, was subject to conflict and review by any citizen, and could be appealed and contested. He noted that the Council /Commission could be sued on any action taken and it would be up to the Court to determine the validity thereof. Further, he questioned whether there was any difference between that existing situation and the issue currently in question, in view of the fact there has never been any charge filed; and would it not at this point mean that every action taken since June, 1975 would be subject to challenge. Mr. Watts replied in the affirmative to both questions. Commissioner Sneegas was of the opinion that if he removed himself from Redevelopment Agency activities, the political ramifications might be interpreted to mean that he was wrong. He stated that he had every intention of qualifying every vote he makes to insure that the Agency is not placed in any situation that could backfire on the citizens, and he did not intend to put the City nor his fellow Commission members in a position of having actions deemed invalid. Commissioner Seymour again asked whether Commissioner Sneegas would agree to refrain or abstain from voting on redevelopment matters until the issue is settled. 76 -31 Community Development Commission Minutes - March 23, 1976, 1-00 p.m. Community Development Commission, Continued: Commissioner Sneegas referred to his telephone conversation with Commissioner Seymour just before the meeting, at which time he had stated he would seek counsel from his attorney, and consider all the possibilities which might possibly be conflictive. Commissioner Seymour stated that it was never his intent to politicize this matter, and never would be his intent to do so; it was his sole concern that if there is a liability to the redevel- opment - program outstanding which can be mitigated by the Community Development Commission /City Council, he could not allow the situa- tion to continue. If the Redevelopment Agency actions are challenged at some future date and found to be invalid, he did not want to be in the position of telling constituents that the possibility had not been considered. Commissioner Sneegas pointed out that this issue had been discussed, questioned, redetermined and reaffirmed on three different occasions by the City Attorney's office, and the City Attorney on March 16, 1976, stated that some judicial authority must make the determination. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that if the.determina- tion finds a violation of the most minute detail and as a result, Agency actions are found invalid, then Commissioner Sneegas has done the City a great disservice. In response to question by Chairman Thom, Mr. Watts reiterated that the possibilities of challenging actions of the Agency are remote except where there is a close vote on a particular issue. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that there was no way of knowing ahead of time whether a vote would be unanimous and questioned what alternative there was if the Commissioner refused to state he would abstain from voting on redevelopment issues. Mr. Watts stated he had some difficulty with the position that a majority of the Commission, for instance, could prohibit another Commissioner from exercising his right to vote on any issue, and suggested an action be filed in Superior Court raising these kinds of issues and seeking injunctive relief. Commissioner Seymour asked Mr. Watts when the conflict of interest issue might be resolved in Court. Mr. Watts replied that if the matter were resolved by the District Attorney in his office by determining there was no vio- lation, then it could be resolved very quickly, possibly two weeks to one month. If the matter goes to the Grand Jury, with subse- quent trial, it may not be resolved for as long as six months. Due to the possible time element involved, Commissioner Sey- mour requested a report from the.City Attorney within one week as to what course of action could specifically be taken by the Community Development Commission /City Council to stop Commissioner Sneegas from voting on Agency matters until such time as the judicial courts or the District Attorney's Office makes a deter- mination. Chairman Thom stated he felt this direction was appropriate. 76 -32 Community Development Commission Minutes - March 23, 1976, P.M. There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelop- ment Agency or the Anaheim Housing Authority, Chairman Thom enter- tained a motion to adjourn the Community Development Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaywood moved to adjourn. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. Commissioner Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1:42 P.M. ALONA M. HOUGARD, SECRETARY, ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SIGNED: 3e DEPUTY ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 30, 1976, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter Sneegas and Thom "'" Fernald Chairman Thom called the Regular Meeting of the Anaheim Community Development Commission to order at 1:00 P.M, for the purpose of sitting as the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held March 23, 1976, was deferred one week. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority, in the amounts of $1,198.84 and $10,892.57, respectively, in accordance with the 1975 -76 Budget, were approved. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: The following matter was considered by the Anaheim Community Development Commission: COMMISSIONER SNEEGAS - PROPOSED VOTING ABSTENTION. REDEVELOPMENT MATTERS: In accordance with the direction given by the Community Development Commission at the regular meeting held March 23, 1976, City Attorney Alan Watts reported on available measures to restrain Commissioner Sneegas from voting on Redevelopment Agency matters. He submitted and briefly summarized a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office dated March 30, 1976, noting suggested remedies for possible infirmities which might affect the validity of past and future Commission actions. For past actions, it was suggested that in the near future, the Community Development Commission