1994/07/07 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
Budget Session
July 7, 1994
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in a special
work session for the 1994 -95 budget. The meeting commenced at
7:30 a.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park,
CA with Vice Mayor Eck presiding.
Call to Order -Vice Mayor Eck called the special budget work session to order at
approximately 7:30 a.m.
Roll Call Present: (4) Councilmembers Gallagher, Hollingsworth, Spiro,
and Vice Mayor Eck
Absent: (1) Mayor Reilly
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager
Netter and Assistant City Manager Leivo.
Unscheduled Vice Mayor Eck stated that in compliance with State Law (Brown
Public Act) citizens wishing to make any comments may do so at this time.
Appearances
Linda Branscomb, 6585 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, indicated she would discuss
a budget matter later on.
Vice Mayor Eck briefly commented on the agenda and turned the
meeting over to City Manager Netter. City Manager Netter briefly
outlined the proposed 1994 -95 budget and explained that this
meeting's purpose was to hear presentations on funding requests by
agencies /non - profit groups. City Manager Netter indicated that
Item #1, Volunteer Center of Sonoma County, was not available as
Karen Johnson was on vacation; and that Item #4, Thorvex
Productions /T's Academy, did not respond to the invitation as he
may be out of town; and for Item #7, Youth Alliance of Rohnert
Park and Cotati (Ann Messerer), was contacted and she said she
could not make it and, as staff was not recommending an amount,
she felt it was not worth her while to attend.
Youths of Vice Mayor Eck then called in Lew Kuehm, representing the Youth of
the Year the Year of Rohnert Park program. Lewe Kuehm made a brief
presentation and indicated that they are holding fundraisers to
collect monies. He indicated the request has been reduced to
$500. There was discussion among the Councilmembers on the
procedures in selecting the Youths of the Year and what criteria
is used. Mr. Kuehm indicated that they look at leadership in the
selection process and that academics are important but not the
driving characteristic.
1
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes July 7, 1994 Budget Session
It was the consensus of the Council to recommend $500 for the
Youth of the Year Program for this year.
SCAYD Vice Mayor Eck called in representatives of Sonoma County
Associates for Youth Development ( SCAYD). Barbara Welch and B.J.
Brown made a brief presentation and discussed SCAYD's services in
Rohnert Park. They discussed the Free Friday Night Program, the
Healthy Cities Quarterly, the 24 Hour Relay Race and support by
the Department of Public Safety and the City, and their interest
in the Sonoma County Community Partnership Grant Program. They
also informed the Council of a certain reduction in grant funds.
It was the consensus of the Council to provide $15,000 in funding
with a review at a later date after all fundraisers are complete
and SCAYD is finalized with its County funding.
Convention & Vice Mayor Eck called in the Sonoma County Convention and Visitors
Visitors Bureau representatives. Joe Topper, Jamie Douglas, and Kirk Lok
Bureau were introduced. Kirk Lok handed out the parity formula, which
showed a request from Rohnert Park of $35,000. The Council had
some general discussion on the parity formula and thanked the
representatives for their presentation.
It was the consensus of the Council to recommend $35,000 in
funding to the Sonoma County Convention and Visitors Bureau in
accordance with the parity formula.
Boys & Girls Vice Mayor Eck invited the Boys & Girls Club to give its
Club presentation. Mr. Bob Butler, Executive Director of the Boys &
Girls Club of Rohnert Park, made a brief presentation and answered
Council's questions. The Council's questions included the number
of youths served in the community, which amount to 88% from
Rohnert Park, 8% from Cotati, 3% from Santa Rosa, and 1% from
Petaluma or other areas. Mr. Butler also indicated that 50% of
the families were from low income categnries. He indicated the
goals were to provide for after school work and educational
activities.
It was the consensus of the Council to recommend for $10,000
funding to the Boys & Girls Club of Rohnert Park since the Sonoma
County Convention and Visitors Bureau request was reduced.
Vice Mayor Eck briefly discussed the long range plan for the City
to fund organizations but all the non - profit groups, including
the Boys & Girls Club, should be looking at a program to reach a
self- sustaining level. Councilman Hollingsworth agreed that all
organizations should have an overall goal to be self- sufficient.
2
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
July 7, 1994 Budget Session
City Manager Netter indicated again that the Volunteer Center of
Sonoma County was not present because Karen Johnson is on vacation
and Thorvex Productions /T's Academy did not respond, and that Ann
Messerer of the Youth Alliance of Rohnert Park and Cotati was
contacted but did not make it since staff did not allocate funds
and she did not see it was necessary to attend this meeting.
Linda Branscomb, 6585 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, spoke up at this point in
support of the Youth Alliance for Rohnert Park and Cotati. City
Manager Netter indicated that this item was discussed at a prior
City Council meeting regarding the County's Partnership Grant
Program. All information has been submitted to Ann Messerer and
the City Manager believes she attended one of the information
meetings at the Department of Public Safety.
There was a brief discussion by Councilmembers regarding the
Volunteer Center and the $5,000 invoice submitted for the 1993 -94
fiscal year. City Manager Netter indicated that he would be
discussing this invoice further with Karen Johnson, and
Councilwoman Spiro volunteered to meet regarding this matter.
The Council decided to hold another budget hearing on July 18,
1994 at 5:00 p.m., just prior to the scheduled Golf Course
Committee meeting to be held at 6:30 p.m. The Council also
designated the City Manager to publish a notice of public hearing
on the proposed 1994 -95 City Budget for the July 26, 1994
regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
There being no other items to be discussed at this time, Vice
Mayor Eck adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. to the
regularly scheduled City Council meeting of July 12, 1994.
'"
City Man RA, ger /Clerk
JDN:lr
3
Mayor Pro Tempore
r► Li1111�M
MEMORANDUM
co"16 917
Copy to
TO: City Council
RE: Report from Status Conference Hillsboro Properties v.
City of Rohnert Park (Capital improvements pass- through
litigation)
DATE: July 7, 1994
FROM: City Attorney
A status conference was held in federal court before Judge Fern
M. Smith on Friday, July 1, 1994. The purpose of the status
conference as announced by the court was to consider the question
of damages to the plaintiff. Previously the court had ruled on
summary judgment motions filed by the city and Hillsboro. The
city had moved the court to dismiss the action on the grounds
that Ordinance No. 494 adequately provided for the recovery of
capital improvements. On the basis of the Sierra Lake decision,
Hillsboro had moved the court to allow the capital improvement
pass- through automatically since the city had refused to do so.
The reason the city refused to do so was Ordinance No. 494 does
not provide for the automatic granting of pass- through increases.
In its ruling the court felt that Sierra Lake controlled the case
and, since Ordinance No. 494 did not allow for pass- throughs, was
an unconstitutional deprivation of due process to Hillsboro. As
indicated, the next issue was whether Hillsboro was damaged and
if so, how much.
At the status conference, counsel for Hillsboro announced that he
would be filing a motion to have Ordinance No. 494 voided from
its inception because it did not provide for the pass- through of
capital improvements mandated by Sierra Lake and there was no way
the city could "fix" Ordinance No. 494 since it had been adopted
by the electorate and had to be amended by them. That assertion
overlooks the possibility that the electorate will give the
Council the right to amend the ordinance, however, that
possibility is sometime in the future. In addition the passage
of a ballot measure giving the City Council the power to amend
Ordinance No. 494 is not a certainty.
Section 13 of Ordinance No. 494 contains a severability clause.
A severability clause is a provision which states that if any
portion of the ordinance is declared unconstitutional then only
that portion declared unconstitutional will be invalidated and
the remainder of the ordinance will remain valid and in force.
The problem with this remedy is that Ordinance No. 494 contains
no provision regarding capital improvements. Consequently the
(OVER)
question will arise as to how the court treats the invalidation
of an ordinance which does not provide for the subject matter
being invalidated. Does the court invalidate the whole
ordinance? Does the court conditionally invalidate the ordinance
thus giving the city the opportunity to amend? Those and other
possible approaches are the source of extended legal argument to
which no one at the status conference (nor anyone at this time,
to my knowledge) had (has) a definite answer.
Coupled with the Hillsboro case is the activity of the Court of
Appeal on the Green Book case (Sime I). When the city appeared
and argued Sime II (the case involving park improvements, i.e.,
the road, the gas lines and the swimming pool improvements) and
whether they should be capitalized or expensed, thus having a
different impact on rates that could be charged, counsel for Sime
mentioned Judge Smith's ruling in the Hillsboro case. The Court
of Appeal has sent two (2) separate inquires to all counsel in
Sime I asking whether they thought Judge Smith's ruling in
Hillsboro affected Sime I and, if so, how. As indicated, counsel
for Hillsboro argues that Judge Smith's ruling in Hillsboro is
controlling and, if sustained, would invalidate Ordinance No.
494.
In essence, through the ruling in Hillsboro, counsel for the
parks seeks to invalidate Ordinance No. 494.
The court has not ruled in Sime I and it is possible Hillsboro
could be reversed, either on a motion to reconsider or on appeal.
The right of appeal exists in both cases if adverse rulings are
received.
Against that background, Judge Smith stayed proceedings in the
matter for 30 days and recommended that the parties sit down and
include tenant representatives that could speak for the tenants
involved and see if there isn't a way to resolve the matter.
Judge Smith suggested that the parties include the tenants and,
if necessary, engage in discussions before a judge or other
decision maker to see if an acceptable and reasonable compromise
could be reached.
Mr. Spangenberg advises me that the parks have noticed but not
assessed or collected Green Book increases as follows:
Rancho Grande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $101.00
Las Casitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.30
Rancho Feliz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176.00
Rancho Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567.74
Valley Village (not available at the time this memo is written
2
but believed to exceed $100 per month) .
If the Green Book were reinstated, counsel for the parks advises
me that the parks would seek to impose the Green Book increases
that they have noticed but not collected, retroactive to the date
each increase was noticed.
Counsel for the parks has indicated that if Ordinance No. 494 is
invalidated in lieu of prevailing Green Book rentals the parks
would agree to the following in settlement and compromise of all
litigation against the city.
1. An increase in the monthly rental of $50 per month for
tenants under rent control, effective as of the day the
settlement is made. Rancho Verde has indicated that it would
like the city to consider allowing it to add spaces to its park.
Whether this request is in lieu of a $50 monthly increase or in
addition to such an increase is not known at this time. In
addition, I told Mr. Spangenberg that I had no control over the
city's land use policies, decisions of the Planning Commission
and related matters, however, Rancho Verde wants it included as
its request.
2. As to long -term tenants, their rent would remain the
same. Their rent base for purposes of rent control would be the
rent as of the date they went off the long -term lease.
3. If Ordinance No. 494 is invalidated the mobilehome park
owners will not object to the reinstatement of the ordinance,
i.e., the mobilehome park owners understand that they will be, or
may be, subject to a rent control ordinance similar to Ordinance
No. 494 if it is invalidated. They will not object to the
reinstatement of such an ordinance being contrary to the Green
Book agreement, i.e., all controversy regarding the Green Book or
Ordinance No. 494 or its replacement will be ended. If the
ordinance lacks a capital improvement pass- through or is
deficient constitutionally in other areas, the owners reserve
their right to attack the ordinance on those grounds.
4. The owners would seek no additional rental increase in
the second year other than cost of living increases. Thereafter
park owners could seek net operating income increases or other
increases as allowed by the new ordinance under the formula
contained in the ordinance.
5. The owners would release all past claims for damages
against the city or the tenants under the Green Book formula.
6. The parks would consider a low income rental program
similar to the LIRA (low income rental assistance) program
utilized by P.G. &E.
3 (OVER)
This is the basic offer by the owners. Possibly it can be
negotiated somewhat. The thirty day extension by Judge Smith was
for the purpose of allowing the city, the owners and the tenants
to determine whether this matter could be resolved.
Respectfully submitt d,
n D. Flitne_r_
City Attorney
4