Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 2001-06-25 6-25-01 Seal Beach, California June 25, 2001 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:46 p.m. with Chairman Yost calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: I Chairman Yost Agencymembers Boyd, Doane Absent: Agencymembers Campbell, Larson Agencymembers Campbell and Larson remained in the conference room for the Closed Session. Also present: Mr. Bahorski, Executive Director Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk At the request of the Agency, the City Attorney advised that the Closed Session could be moved forward until immediately after Public Comments. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to move the Closed Session forward. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Doane, Yost None Campbell, Larson Motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were presented. I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Agency would meet in Closed Session to discuss the item identified on the agenda, a conference with the real property negotiator relating to 257 Seal Beach Boulevard pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Agency, to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:49 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 7:03 p.m. with Chairman Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Agency had discussed the item identified on the agenda, gave direction to the Executive Director, no other reportable action was taken. . REVIEW - TRAILER PARK COOPERATION AGREEMENT - RESIDENT CONCERNS With regard to the concerns previously raised by a resident of the Trailer Park, the City Attorney noted that the agenda packet contains two opinions, one from Attorney Bruce Stanton dated March, 2001, and a recent letter from Mr. Gerald Gibbs, the attorney who represented the Trailer Park residents, which concurs with the original opinion. He explained that there is a Cooperative Agreement between LINC and the Trailer Park Resident Association, a product of extensive negotiations, this item relates to a request to make certain modifications to that Agreement, from the perspective of the Agency it is believed that is an agreement between two private parties, actually not an Agency issue, however any request to make changes to the Agreement would be of concern. The recommendation to the Agency was that if there is an intent to explore the possibility of revising the Agreement the Agency should obtain an independent opinion from a I 6-25-01 I qualified bond counsel prior to making any changes that might jeopardize the tax exempt status of the bonds, and although the Agency has the discretion, it is felt the Agency should not bear the cost of such opinion, the opinion of their firm is that the transaction should remain as it currently exists. The City Attorney recalled that the goal from the beginning has been to preserve affordable housing, the Agency has spent considerable money toward that goal, and in response to a question from the Chair if it is felt the Agreement adequately protects the Agency and the Park residents, he cQnfirmed that his firm does not necessarily disagree with either of the opinions, however there is discussion of jeopardizing the tax exempt bonds status therefore in his view he did not feel they are qualified to render an opinion, and even though his firm does bond work it is felt in this case the Agency should retain an independent qualified bond counsel, that could even be the tax counsel for the bond issue, this is a complicated issue, upon review it appears that the two opinions are correct, yet before the Agency would facilitate any changes to the Agreement an independent opinion should be sought. Agencymember Campbell also mentioned that this issue could threaten the tax exempt status of the bonds, in that case the bonds would be payable immediately, the residents would need to seek outside financing which would require down payments, which they do not have, their payments would then be considerably higher, beyond that the Agency would need to pay substantial penalties therefore it too does not want to jeopardize the tax exempt status, all of this is the result of certain individuals having been told that they would need to sell certain property because of the use of public funds, as one can not have more than one property, one individual does not want to abide by that. Agencymember Campbell stated that she has a problem with jeopardizing the homes of all of the Park residents for one individual, the tax exempt status can not be jeopardized nor can the Agency be subject to payment of penalties, in her opinion the Agreement should be left as it is. I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to receive and file this item. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried AGENCY MINUTES Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the minutes of the regular Agency meeting of May 29th, 2001. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried J AGENCY COMMENTS No comments from the members of the Agency were presented. Upon request, the Agency allowed members of the audience having interest in the Trailer Park matter to make comments. Mr. Bob Latta, Welcome Lane, said he would like to comment on the petition that the Agency was presented bearing signatures of people who supposedly objected to the previously mentioned agreement, stating that the only reason he signed the petition was to obtain clarification of certain ambiguous terms as to the payoff date, he has since learned from Mr. Gibbs that that was part of the tax status which could be jeopardized, therefore he wished to withdraw his name from said petition. Mr. Frank Boychuck, Trailer Park resident, 6-25-01 noted that the individual mentioned in an Agencymember comment was not present, that is somewhat frustrating in that it was hoped the issues could be addressed and be as fair as possible with all members of the Park, a lot of people have spent considerable time and energy addressing this issue yet the person who brought forth the issue is not present, that speaks for itself as to the seriousness that the individual takes with the whole issue. Mr. Boychuck mentioned too that the referenced petition was addressed to the Park Board of Directors however the Board has not as yet seen it thus uncertainty as to the actual number of names on the document, noted that he has had informal interviews with some members of the Park and has found that they have been mislead, a number of people thought that the issue was the lease where in fact it is the Cooperation Agreement, some of the signers have indicated they would like to rescind their vote, a meeting has been held on this issue with Attorney Gibbs, councilmembers Yost and Campbell present as well, where Attorney Gibbs emphatically stated, as the City Attorney has, that the revisions requested would jeopardize the bonds and the homes of everyone, which in his opinion would seem to be an open and shut case. Mr. Boychuck reported having called MPROP and the firm that did the bond issue and was informed that Seal Beach is the only Trailer Park in the State of California that has been allowed the opportunity to own the Park after the bonds are paid. He asked that the Agreement be left as it is written, there are priviliges with this that should not be disrupted. Mr. Boychuck said when the Park resident that brought this issue up is asked why he is doing this, he states that the Board has done a great job but he just wants to make things better, one persons definition of making it better is another persons definition of destruction. Mr. Boychuck expressed appreciation again for the efforts of the City and risks taken for the Park residents, this is an even better opportunity for low income people to make their rent than under the Dawson or Hall ownerships, and reported that as of this date it has been learned that there are three people who have been qualified to buy homes that are for sale in the Park, of which there are ten such homes, that is something that Mr. Hall never would have allowed because he told the residents that the cabanas were on his land therefore part of his property, that an issue that the residents fought for. Mr. Boychuck said he hoped this issue can be put to rest thus have the knowledge that the Park is stabilized for the next thirty-five years. Mr. Ken williams, Trailer Park resident, stated simply that they would do nothing to jeopardize anything, their intent was to communicate, to research the possibility of making sure there are no holes, they asked the Board to do that, the petition does have seventy-five signatures, only one person has asked that their name be taken off, that person then called back and asked that their name be put back on, every person was advised that if they did not want their name on the petition it would be removed upon request, this is like the prior Covenant that had holes and needed to be fixed. Mr. Williams said again they would merely like to open communication between the attorneys to see if something can be done, Mr. Johnson is believed to have made an offer a few days ago, the request is that that be researched, again, they would do nothing to hurt anything but they do not want to be on the edge of what is or is not legal, if that is the fear then it should be addressed now and not later, let the attorneys review this to see if it can be done, if it can not be done then that is it. Chairman Yost advised that this issue has already been voted on, that Mr. Williams could I I I 6-25-01 / 7-23-01 I obtain a copy of the minutes. Mr. Williams thanked the City for its help as well as the committee. Agencymember Campbell mentioned to Mr. Williams that Mr. Stanton and Mr. Gibbs have rendered their opinions, expressed concern with any loss of the tax exempt status which would go beyond the residents losing their homes, it would also impose severe penalties on the City, any changes would need to come before the Agency and the Agency is not going to jeopardize the status, in her opinion the City's attorneys are going to have the final say. She mentioned too that Mr. Latta had just requested that his name be removed from the petition, stated her concern with the attempt to undermine the Agreement, the City can not afford to allow this, this is not going to be changed just because there are some that do not understand, the City has to deal in reality, the IRS Code, bond counsel, and opinion of the City Attorney, the City/Agency is not going to incur penalties. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Agency, to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Chairman~ I Seal Beach, California July 23, 2001 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:47 p.m. with Chairman Yost calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Yost Agencymembers Boyd, Doane, Larson Absent: Agencymember Campbell Boyd moved, second by Yost, to excuse the absence of Agencymember Campbell from this meeting. J AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost None Campbell Motion carried APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve agenda as presented. the order of the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost None Campbell Motion carried