Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0826 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California August 26, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on August 26, 1992 in the Council Chambers at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Absent: Councilmember Perez Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney Mr. Kueny requested that before adjourning to Closed Session the Council consider an update on the Minor Modification No. 3 (Cushman) for PD 1066. Mr. Kueny indicated he is requesting a continuation of this matter until the first meeting of September to allow for additional review by the Director of Community Development. In addition, Mr. Kueny said the Director is on vacation and is not present for today's meeting. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council concurred to consider a continuation when this matter is considered later and asked staff to try to contact Mr. Cushman or Mr. Liston to let them know about this possible action. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda. A. Personnel. B. Personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). D. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 August 26, 1992 E. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District Case No. 107569 vs. City of Moorpark. F. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. G. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. H. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. I. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. J. Litigation concerning Moorpark v. Fidelety Corp. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Perez absent for the vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers except Councilmember Perez; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Councilmember Perez joined the Closed Session at 6:17 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that only items 2.A., 2 . E . , and 2.F. had been discussed and there was no action to report out of Closed Session. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared by Mayor Paul Lawrason. The meeting was reconvened at 7:13 p.m. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember John Wozniak led the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 4. ROLL CALL: August 26, 1992 Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk; Mary Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager 5. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Resolution No. 92 -883 Desianatina Certain Streets as Through Streets and Directing the Placement of STOP Signs at the Entrances Thereto (North Isle Royale Street, Peppermill Street and Annette Street). Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -883 to place Stop Signs on North Isle Royale Street, Peppermill Street, Annette Street. (Continued Item 8.H. from 8/19/92) Ken Gilbert gave the staff report. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 82- 883. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, spoke in favor of the stop sign. Mrs. Brown also indicated that when reports come out of Council committees, the members of the respective committee should be identified on the report. B. Consider PD 1066 Minor Modification No. 3 (Cushman Request to Construct a Second Floor Office Addition and Modify Conditions of Approval and the Approved Sign Program. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file the report. (Continued Item 8.M. from 8/19/92) Mr. Kueny indicated that the Council may wish to consider continuing this matter to the first meeting in September due to the fact that more information may be provided by the Director of Community Development. Randall Baker, 263 Sierra Avenue, spoke as a member of the Shiloh Community Church. He urged the Council to protect the peaceful worship of his Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 August 26, 1992 church by adhering to the original agreement between the City of Moorpark and the car wash owned by Mr. Cushman. Thomas Cushman, 75 South Park Lane, spoke as owner of the car wash. He expressed disappointment that this item may be continued to another meeting as he wants the issue resolved as soon as possible. Errol Hale, 4330 Deepwell Lane, spoke as pastor of the Shiloh Community Church. Reverend Hale said he is actually speaking on behalf of the car wash and would like to see the issue resolved to their benefit as he wants to see the business prosper. He said the congregation has two concerns; one is that gas should only be sold in conjunction with car washes because the traffic for gas only sales would be too much for this location; secondly, he does not agree that the car wash should be allowed to operate on Sunday mornings. The original agreement for Sunday operation hours is noon through 7 p.m. and he would like to see that adhered to. Councilmember Montgomery restated that the reason for continuance is that there has been a revision to the sign code since this application was taken and the situation needs to be reevaluated. There may be new information coming forth with regard to that reevaluation. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to continue this item to the first regular meeting in September. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. C. Consider September City Council Meeting Dates. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to reschedule the meeting of September 2 to September 9 and to hold the regularly scheduled meeting on September 16. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 August 26, 1992 AT THIS POINT in the meeting Mayor Lawrason declared a recess. The time was 7:40 p.m. The Council reconvened into joint session with the Moorpark Unified School District at 7:55 p.m. President Tom Baldwin called the Board of Education to order. Councilmember Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Tom Baldwin noted the presence of Board Members Greg Barker, Sam Nainoa, Clint Harper, Superintendent of Schools, Tom Duffy and Board Counsel Mason. Board Member Pam Castro was absent. 6. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Agreement with E1 Concilio and Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) for "Project Pride ". Councilmember Perez left the meeting during the discussion of this item because of a possible Conflict of Interest. Councilmember Montgomery indicated that the contract which El Concilio is considering is for a two year period. The question is if the City would be obligated for the second year funding if the District is not able to provide it. He said the real issue is that the District and the City must agree to the two -year funding. President Baldwin concurred that the agreement should reflect the second year funding commitment. He stated that the third paragraph on the first page of the agreement and in the Compensation section (Section 5) of the agreement should mention the Board of Education's contribution during the second year of the program. Mr. Baldwin also indicated that on page 7 of the agreement, the terminology "Board President" should be used instead of "Board Chairman ". Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 August 26, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the City Council and the Board of Education determined to approve the agreement between El Concilio del Condado, the Moorpark Unified School District and the City of Moorpark with the above changes being made. The attorneys for the Board of Education and the City of Moorpark will make the changes as indicated and bring it back to the respective bodies for finalization. Councilmember Perez returned to the meeting. B. Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Issues. Tom Baldwin introduced three items of concern that need to be resolved. The first is that the pass through money will not be limited to capital improvements; that the District would have control over the money and be able to spend it as they select. Secondly, the City will have a right to use District facilities, consistent with current policy, which are constructed as a result of the pass through funds; and third, the Redevelopment Agency will finance the construction of the new maintenance facility in the amount of $750,000 and the District needs the monies to be available within six months of close of escrow. After discussion regarding how the pass through money will be used, a consensus was reached by the Board of Education and the City Council. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Board of Education and the City Council determined the following: 1) The pass through funds will be limited to a list of uses that are mutually agreeable to both bodies as will be discussed and proposed by the City Manager and the Superintendent; the use of these funds for salaries and routine maintenance will be excluded, the routine maintenance issue will be worked through using the dollar threshold or some other threshold that will put it in one category or another to keep it simple. 2) There will be a waiver provision that if the District determines a need other than what has been agreed to, they will submit an application to the Redevelopment Agency /City Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 and agree 1 Agency /City. request will Agency will criteria for o accept the An approval be forthcoming be allowed responding to August 26, 1992 decision of the or denial of such in 30 days and the to determine the the request. 3) The District will report to the Agency /City on an annual basis to confirm the use of the pass through funds and that they were spent within the allowable standards. The next item to be discussed was the City's use of the facilities funded by pass through. Mr. Duffy stated that the School District follows the Civic Center Act which is in the Education Code that provides that school facilities may be used for other purposes other than educational purposes by the public when school activities and after hours activities are not being held in those facilities. The MUSD has interpreted that statute very liberally per Mr. Duffy. He continued by stating that Moorpark's facilities are heavily used and, if the City is given first right for use, it will preclude other community users and it is not a fair arrangement. Mr. Kueny stated that the existing rules do not allow the City to use certain facilities. For example, the City has been unable to use the new high school gymnasium, but yet other uses that service outside District residents have been able to use it. The City does not wish to preempt an already planned event, but wants to plan in advance to use it. Mr. Kueny said specific language is needed for the use of the facilities if the District is not using it. Councilmember Montgomery said the language should read "to require the City to give the District a minimum of six months' notice for use of the facilities ". Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 August 26, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Board of Education determined to agree that the language could read "to require the City to give the District a minimum of six months' notice for use of the facilities, but after that time (5 months and 29 days), the City would not receive preference for reservation of the facilities." At the request of Mr. Duffy, the Board of Education requested time to meet with Mr. Mason, legal counsel, to discuss this item. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was called to allow the City Council and the Board of Education to adjourn to separate Closed Sessions. The time was 9:40 p.m. Present in Closed Session were Mayor Lawrason, Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley and Wozniak; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The City Council recessed from Closed Session at 9:50 p.m. The Board of Education recessed from Closed Session at 9:55 p.m. The City Council and the Board of Education reconvened the joint meeting at 10:03 p.m. Mr. Harper stated that the Board of Education would accept the City's language with the following changes 111) This particular portion of the agreement would be triggered on a particular facility where the majority of the funding of that facility comes from Redevelopment funds; 2) The City agrees to give the District a minimum of six months' notice on scheduling of events, and to give a minimum of 30 days' cancellation notice if those events are to be cancelled; 3) In the event that the cancellation occurs after the 30 days, all applicable fees would be paid to the District as if the facility had been utilized by the City." In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Duffy clarified that the nonrefund would apply to the out of pocket expenses that would have been incurred had the City used the facility. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 August 26, 1992 Mr. Kueny noted that the terminology "majority of the funding of that facility by RDA funds" completely changes the intent from what was agreed to before the Closed Session. Mr. Kueny provided the example that a million dollars could have been spent in RDA funds toward a facility, it would only be 49% of the cost of the building, then the rules would not apply. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Board of Education and the City Council determined that a Joint Use Agreement will be formed upon the introduction of the use of a facility which was funded by $100,000 or more from the Redevelopment Agency pass through funds. It will state that the School District can require a minimum of six months' notice from the City to use the facilities with a 30 day cancellation notice being required. If the cancellation occurs after 30 days, all applicable fees would be paid to the District as if the facility had been used by the City. After the District schedules their activities, the City can then evaluate and request uses. It was stated that if the City does not provide the six months' notice, they will be treated as other organizations without any preferential treatment being given to their requests. 4) The fourth item discussed was the desire of the School District to have the Redevelopment Agency pass through funds in six months escrow for the construction of the new maintenance facility. Councilmember Montgomery stated that the City's understanding is that the new facility can be inaugurated at the time the old maintenance facility becomes unavailable for the District's use. He said the intent is to provide the funds so the District would have a continuity of use of the facilities. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was called to allow the City Council and the Board of Education to adjourn to separate Closed Sessions. The time was 10:50 p.m. Present in Closed Session were Mayor Lawrason, Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley and Wozniak; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The City Council recessed from Closed Session at 11:15 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 August 26, 1992 p.m. The Board of Education recessed from Closed Session at 11:20 p.m. The City Council and the Board of Education reconvened the joint meeting at 11:25 p.m. There was no action to report out of Closed Session. Mayor Lawrason presented a new proposed second paragraph to Section 6 of the Redevelopment Agency's agreement to include the language as follows: "The Agency shall pay the $750,000 to the School District upon the latter of the following dates: 1) 6 months after the sale of the portion of the Casey Road school site, on which the existing School District maintenance facility is located, to a bona fide third party purchaser as evidenced by close of escrow, or 2) the date upon which the School District issues the notice to proceed with construction pursuant to the construction contract for the new School District maintenance facility." Robert Mason, the District's attorney, asked the following: 1) Is the construction contract something that would be subject to approval by the City or the Redevelopment Agency? CONSENSUS: By consensus, the City Council determined that the response to Mr. Mason's question is no. 2) Mr. Mason then asked "what is the definition of the term "bona fide purchaser "? He said his understanding is that it is a third party who purchases the property for value without notice of competing interest on the property. He questioned the Board if that is how they are using the term bona fide purchaser. Councilmember Montgomery responded by saying Mr. Mason's definition is correct except the condition of noncompeting. A bona fide purchaser may have been a successful bidder or been subject to a noncompetitive bid. Cheryl Kane said Mr. Mason's explanation is the one Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 11 August 26, 1992 being discussed. The City would be excluded because it is a party to this agreement and not a third party. She confirmed that a purchase for value is being discussed here and it does not necessarily have to be on a noncompetitive bid. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the City Council and the Board of Education determined that the language proposed by the Council and stated by the Mayor is acceptable to be placed as the second paragraph of Section 6 in the agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the School District. Mr. Mason volunteered to draft a new version of the agreement based on the version he had submitted to Ms. Kane on July 31. Ms. Kane said Mr. Mason had sent a letter to her dated July 31 that outlined seven different points. She said she has not spoken with Mr. Mason regarding any of the points in his letter. Mr. Mason briefed the seven points in his letter of July 31. 1. Use of the term "capital improvements ". This terminology will be deleted with regard to the use of RDA funds. 2. Section 3, subparts (i) and (ii) - Mr. Mason questioned the City Council's intent by including those two subsections. He continued by saying it is not clear what they were designed to cover. He revised the agreement so the City's first paragraph became paragraph A. The text to this paragraph was not changed. Two new sections were added starting off with capital B., which states that "nothing in the provisions set forth in subsection A. of Section 3 shall affect the school district's right to receive 1) statutory 2% pass through, 2) the 14% tax increment set forth in Section 4 of this agreement, and 3) the $750,000 for the maintenance facility set forth in Section 5 of this agreement." Mr. Mason said a subpart C was added. It reads "distribution of the 2% pass through funds to the School District including any Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 12 August 26, 1992 such monies received by the Agency and any interest earned shall commence immediately upon resolution of the challenges to the Redevelopment Plan identified in Section 13 of this agreement as the lawsuits filed by the Ventura County Community College District vs all interested parties et al, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 107569; County of Ventura et al vs. City of Moorpark et al, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 108128; and Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark et al, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 111351, as evidenced by the filing of a judgment order or other document dismissing said challenges and thereafter shall be distributed to the School District within 30 days of receipt of the Agency." Ms. Kane stated that the School District has adopted a resolution that incorporates subsections Roman numeral i and ii. Subsection Roman numeral ii is almost a paraphrase of the resolution. The resolution has a section B and that section B is in all respects the same as section Roman numeral ii, except rather than referring to the Health and Safety Code which then refers you to Section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, they simply refer to the Revenue and Taxation Code sections. Ms. Kane said she has no problem conceptually with Section C. She will work with Mr. Mason because the 2% pass through terminology used has not been fine tuned and she would like to clarify that in Section B. Under Section C., with respect to the interest earned, she wants to clarify that it is interest that has not only been earned, but has also been received by the Agency. Also, some clarifying language needs to be added that "immediately upon resolution of the challenges" is referring to the thirty days after the challenges are dismissed. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 13 August 26, 1992 In response to Mr. Duffy, Ms. Kane confirmed that all the City is trying to do with regard to the District's resolution is to prevent the School District from shifting their tax base to another agency. 3. This item deals with the deletion of the capital improvements language and with joint use of the facilities funded by RDA funds. Mr. Mason indicated that action was taken earlier to resolve this item. 4. In Section 5, the words "construction costs" have been deleted after the phrase "the maintenance facility ". Ms. Kane and Mr. Mason agreed that it was redundant and was a minor point. 5. "Bona Fide Purchaser" language - Mr. Mason indicated that this item was also agreed to and resolved earlier in the meeting. 6. The City's Section 11, Term and Termination. Mr. Mason said the School District proposes to eliminate everything after the phrase "by operation of law" because the rest of the language is limiting. Ms. Kane said the terminology that was deleted is standard in a contract that prohibits assignment to make the agreement automatically terminate if there is an attempt to assign. 7. Mr. Mason said he suggested a new section, Section 12, that says "notwithstanding any other section of this agreement, neither party shall have the right to assign rights and obligations under this agreement without prior written consent of the other party." He continued by saying that it eliminates the specter of someone trying to make unilateral the rights and assignment. The attempt to make the assignment will not be valid because it cannot be done without the written consent of both parties. Mr. Kueny said if there is a unilateral assignment, it would be a violation of the agreement. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 14 August 26, 1992 In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Mason said there is a provision for the other party to sue and to enforce the agreement. Ms. Kane suggested that the agreement would be terminable by the nonassigning party. She said if there was an assignment that violated the terms and conditions of the new Section 12, then under Section 11, the nondefaulting party could at its own discretion decide to terminate. She said the language could be placed in Section 11 or 12. Ms. Kane suggested Section 11 of the City's draft be modified to state that in the event of an illegal assignment, the nonassigning party would have the option to terminate the agreement. Presently, Section 11 provides that it can be terminated by mutual agreement, by operation of law, or because there is an assignment. As modified, it would be "by mutual agreement, by operation of law ", or "by a nonassigning party when an assignment took place in violation of the agreement ". CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Board of Education and the City Council determined that Mr. Mason will redraft the agreement per the direction of both bodies this evening. It was agreed that a tentative agreement has been reached by both bodies with respect to the agreement as modified. Mr. Kueny indicated that the attorneys need to work on the agreement and he and Mr. Duffy will proceed with the fine tuning of the accepted use of the funds. MOTION: Board Member Clint Harper moved and Chairman Baldwin seconded a motion that the board members present execute the agreement subject to the final review of the attorney for the School District. The motion carried by 4 -0 voice; Board Member Castro absent for the vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to approve the agreement as modified this evening, to direct staff to prepare the agreement consistent with the direction provided this evening, authorize the Mayor to sign that agreement pending the City Attorney and City Manager's review. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 15 August 26, 1992 Mr. Kueny clarified that the agreement is actually with the City and the Agency and it will have to be addressed at the Agency level as well. Chairman Baldwin adjourned the Board of Education. The time was 12:08 a.m. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, the Mayor declared a recess of the City Council. The time was 12:10 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:15 a.m. All Councilmembers were present. 5. ACTION /DISCUSSION: D. Agreement with E1 Concilio and Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) for "Project Pride ". MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve the agreement consistent with the action taken earlier in the evening during the joint meeting with the School District to include the changes taken at that time. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Paul W. Lawrason Jr., ayor Attest: