MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON COUNCIL MEETING
January 10, 2012
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held January 10, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Clarkson presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hudson, Livingstone, O’Loane, and Mayor Clarkson.
ABSENT: Councilmember Perkins
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Greg Rogers, City Attorney City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner, Police Chief Scott Holder, Administrative Services Director Eva Phelps, Economic Development Director Marc Fontes, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.
At 6:02 p.m., the Council convened to Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(a): Calif. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (Cal. Supreme Ct., No. 194861). At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Clarkson reconvened the meeting. All Councilmembers except Cm. Perkins were present. Mayor Clarkson reported that no action was taken.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Walt Trembley led those present in the pledge of allegiance.
* * * *
The City Clerk stated that there were no changes or additions to the agenda and that there were no changes or corrections to the meetings listed on the agenda.
* * * *
(#4.1) Presentation on the Installation of the Glass House Windmill at Forest Home Farms by Claudia Nemir, San Ramon Historic Foundation member.
Claudia Nemir, the great great granddaughter of David and Eliza Glass, told the Council about the Glass-Elissondo Family Reunion which was held at Forest home Farms on September 25, 2011. She thanked the Council and the San Ramon Historic Foundation for their support of the Glass House restoration and Forest Home Farms. She presented the Council with a pictorial memory book and genealogy of the family reunion.
* * * *
Carol Lopez, secretary of the San Ramon Historic Foundation, invited residents to attend the Foundation’s Crab Feed on January 28, 2012.
Isabel Lau, resident, invited the Council and residents to establish teams for the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life event which will be held on June 23-24, 2012 at California High School. She also encouraged local businesses to organize a team. A Kick-Off Birthday Event will be held on January 30, 2012 at Toshiba Business Solutions (12667 Alcosta Blvd. #100) at 6:30 p.m. Funds from this event will be used to increase cancer awareness and research. Information is available at email@example.com. She presented a team packet to Mayor Clarkson.
Roz Rogoff, resident, provided information on the California Pet Lovers license plate program. A minimum of 7,500 pre-orders must be received by June 30, 2012 in order for this project to succeed. A portion of the sale of these license plates will be used to fund low cost spay and neutering clinics in an effort to reduce pet over populations. Additional information is available at www.caspayplate.com.
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(#7.1) Minutes of the December 13, 2011 special meeting.
Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt the December 5, 2011 special City Council minutes was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0. Cm. Perkins was absent.
(#7.2) Minutes of the December 13, 2011 regular meeting.
Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt the December 5, 2011 regular City Council minutes was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0. Cm. Perkins was absent.
* * * *
Mayor Clarkson requested that item 8.2 be pulled.
(#8.1A) Resolution No. 2012-001 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Ace Auto Repair for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $94,073 and a Three Year Initial Term Amount Not to Exceed $287,900.
(#8.1A) Resolution No. 2012-002 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Valley Import Center for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $83,269 and a Three Year Initial Term Amount Not to Exceed $254,919.
Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt item 8.1 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0. Cm. Perkins was absent. Vice Mayor Livingstone complimented staff on the preparation of an outstanding Request for Proposal on a very complicated item.
(#8.2) Resolution No. 2012-003 – Repealing Resolution No. 2011-097 and Amending the Parking Restrictions Master Street List Establishing Restricted Parking Zones in the City of San Ramon as per Title B, Division B-8, Chapter I, Article 1, Section B8-1, Stopping, Standing or Parking – Curb Marking Designations.
Mayor Clarkson recused himself from item 8.2. Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt item 8.2 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 3-0. Cm. Perkins was absent.
* * * *
(#10.1) Annual Audit Report for the City of San Ramon and San Ramon Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011.
Administrative Services Director Eva Phelps reported that the City received a clean audit. She introduced Jim Babcock, shareholder, and Tricia Dittmar, senior manager, with Burr, Pilger, Mayer Accountants and Consultants who provided the report. Their presentation included: the audit’s purpose and scope; audit standards; new audit requirements; and audit phases. Ms. Dittmar explained the new requirements of Government Standards Accounting Board (GASB) Statement 54. Burr, Pilger, Mayer audited the comprehensive annual financial report of the City of San Ramon and the component unit financial statements of the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency. The audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the United States Comptroller General. They noted that last year’s audit recommendations were put in place and concluded that there were no major findings.
Their review of the General Fund noted that revenue available for expenditures was $1.2 million more than the final budget reflecting better than anticipated property tax and intergovernmental revenues partially offset by other categories. The General Fund ending balance of $7.3 million was $2.6 million larger than projected in the final budget.
Cm. O’Loane asked for a definition of a ‘single audit’. Ms. Dittmar explained that when a government entity receives more than $500,000 in federal funds, a check for compliance is conducted to verify that the funds were spent properly. Cm. O’Loane asked if the auditors do tests of pension estimates. Ms. Dittmar stated that their analysis of the pension estimate is to review the actuarial report for accuracy and to check the internal controls. Mayor Clarkson asked if the auditors received the full cooperation of staff and access to all records. Mr. Babcock responded affirmatively.
Mayor Clarkson noted that no Council action is needed for this item.
(#10.2) Consideration of Adopting Resolution No. 2012-(next in line) for the City of San Ramon to Elect to Be or Not to Be the Successor Entity to the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency and Selecting the San Ramon Housing Authority to Assume the Housing Assets and Functions of the Agency.
Economic Development Director Marc Fontes provided the report. He reviewed the impact of AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27 and the subsequent lawsuit by the California Redevelopment Association. On December 29, 2011, the State Supreme Court released its decision regarding the legislation. The Court declared that AB 1X 26 is constitutional and valid and that AB 1X 27, which would have required a payment for redevelopment agencies to continue, is unconstitutional and invalid. All redevelopment agencies will be dissolved as of February 1, 2012. Redevelopment funding for affordable housing and other redevelopment projects will no longer exist. Mr. Fontes presented the pros and cons for whether or not the City should become the successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency. He discussed the bond financing and debt service. If the City becomes the successor agency, the City is eligible for annual administration costs for the wind-down of redevelopment activities. The transfer of the affordable housing assets to the San Ramon Housing Authority will keep these assets under local control. All actions of the successor agency are subject to approval by a newly established oversight board. If the City declines to be the successor agency, other local jurisdictions, including other cities, the county, or the fire district, could then become the successor agency for the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency. The new statute limits the liability of the successor agency in acting under AB 1X 26 to the total sum of property taxes it receives and the value of assets transferred to it as a successor agency for the Redevelopment Agency.
Cm. Hudson questioned the
working wording on the Resolution which stated “WHEREAS, the City will not elect to retain, and desires to select the San Ramon Housing Authority as the local housing authority to assume all rights, powers, assets, duties and obligations associated with the housing activities of the Agency.” He recommended that it be revised to read “WHEREAS, the City selects the San Ramon Housing Authority as the local housing authority to assume all rights, powers, assets, duties and obligations associated with the housing activities of the Agency.” Cm. O’Loane thanked Mr. Fontes for his
assistance and professionalism in this difficult time with the Redevelopment Agency.
Mayor Clarkson opened the public comment.
Roz Rogoff, resident, stated that the changes in redevelopment law are very confusing. She did not realize that the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency actually owns property, for example Mudd’s. She asked if the City will own Mudd’s and what will happen to it should the City becomes the successor agency. City Manager Rogers stated that the state legislation is complicated. He explained that the successor agency will operate within a fixed set of rules. It will function like a liquidator which can sell assets to pay debt service. The sale of assets must be approved by an oversight board. The Mudd’s property is subject to the terms of its current contract until the contract is completed or terminated.
Jim Gibbon, representing San Ramon for Open Government, expressed concern about the Mudd’s property. He asked if the contracts regarding Mudd’s which the City enacted in March 2011 was an effort to usurp the state legislation. He stated that Mudd’s was purchased with bond funds. He believes that the state legislation eliminates all redevelopment contracts and leases. Mudd’s is a Redevelopment Agency asset with bond debt. He does not want the Mudd’s property to be liquidated. He suggested that a nonprofit or the School District might be available to take over the property.
Vice Mayor Livingstone asked if proceeds from the sale of the three redevelopment properties must be given to the state under the current legislation. Mr. Fontes replied that the two affordable housing properties would be transferred to the City’s Housing Authority. The City’s successor agency would be able to develop the properties as affordable housing. This action would be subject to approval by the oversight board. The Mudd’s property is subject to the conditions of its Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). If the conditions are not met, the property can be sold by the successor agency with approval from the oversight board.
Cm. O’Loane noted that the auditors specifically referenced concern about the ownership of the two Agency owned properties in the Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Fontes clarified that these properties are the two affordable housing properties. The current state legislation would make these agreements null and void. Cm. O’Loane asked if the Mudd’s property agreement pre-dates January 2011. Mr. Fontes responded that the Mudd’s DDA is not affected by the state legislation. He noted that Mr. LeBlanc has a February 2012 deadline to provide proof of financing for the project. Cm. O’Loane asked about the powers of the oversight board. City Attorney Schaffner stated that many details remain to be clarified regarding the powers of the oversight board and the dissolution process. She noted that the oversight board has a fiduciary responsibility to the bond holders and creditors of the organization and not to the community. The membership of the oversight board will be an important factor. Cm. Hudson added that it is not known what the state will do but that the City should prepare for the worst.
Mayor Clarkson asked the City Manager about additional legislation. Mr. Rogers stated that there are two additional pieces of legislation. The first one would extend the deadline to dissolve the Redevelopment Agency from February 1, 2012 to April 15, 2012. The second piece of legislation is being promoted by housing advocates who are concerned about the elimination of redevelopment funding for affordable housing. They want successor housing authorities to get funding to provide more affordable housing development. He added that the San Ramon Housing Authority would be the repository for the two affordable housing properties. The proposed City Resolution anticipates the option to postpone the action and revisit it if there is future state legislation. Mayor Clarkson asked what would happen if the City did not become the successor agency. Mr. Rogers stated that the concern is that this legislation gives the state Controller new auditing authority and direction to audit cities and their agencies retroactively. A city which decides not to become a successor agency may be placed high on an audit list.
Mayor Clarkson closed the public comment. Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2012-(next in line) to become the successor agency as amended was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0. Cm. Perkins was absent. Cm. O’Loane asked if the City becomes the successor agency by default if it takes no action. City Attorney Schaffner clarified that, if the City does not designate the San Ramon Housing Authority as the local housing authority, that the housing function could be assumed by the county housing authority.
* * * *
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
* * * *
Donna Kerger, resident, stated that City staff is doing an outstanding job keeping residents informed on the redevelopment dissolution issue. She noted that it is important for Californians to be aware that the state is taking money away from the cities.
* * * *
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS
Cm. O’Loane reported that he attended the Open Space Task Force meeting on January 9, 2012. He added that the Task Force is getting up to speed on this complex issue and making progress. He reported that he and mayor Clarkson will be attending the League of California Cities’ “New Mayor and Council Members Academy” on January 18-20, 2012 in Sacramento.
Cm. Hudson stated that the Mudd’s property was purchased at a foreclosure sale by the Redevelopment Agency. He provided information from “Projections 2009” regarding land use, emissions, green house gases, etc. He stated that
97% 70% of future development is expected to be done on 3% of the land and asked if the state would be able to make cities rezone their land in order to meet their housing numbers. Vice Mayor Livingstone asked about the frequency of the Spare the Air days. Cm. Hudson provided an explanation. Cm. Hudson stated that, prior to obtaining its own monitoring station, San Ramon relied on data from the Livermore monitoring station. Residents can receive notification of Spare the Air days by registering at www.sparetheair.org.
Mayor Clarkson thanked the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the State of the City address.
(#14.1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(a):
Lian Ying Shen v. City of San Ramon (1st Dist. Ct. App., No. 130561).
Mark Manning v. City of San Ramon (Contra Costa Co. Superior Ct., No. CIVMSC 11-02392).
Jordan Branscum v. City of San Ramon (N. Dist. Fed Ct. (Oakland), No. C11-04137).
United States, et al v. J-M Manufacturing Co. (U.S. Dist. Ct., Central Dist., No. ED CK-06-0055-GW).
City of Alameda et al. v. Calif. State Bd. Of Equalization (S.F. Superior Court, Nos. CPF 09-509231, 509232, 509234).
City of San Ramon v. Nettles (re: 14 Molina Court) (Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. N10-0142).
City of Brentwood, et al v. Robert Campbell (as Auditor-Controller for Contra Costa County) (Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. N11-1029).
(#14.2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – THREATENED LITIGATION - Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(b): one case.
At 8:35 p.m., the Council convened to Closed Session for items 14.1 and 14.2. At 9:23 p.m., Mayor Clarkson reconvened the meeting. All Councilmembers except Cm. Perkins were present. Mayor Clarkson reported that no action was taken on items 14.1 and 14.2.
* * * *
At 9:24 p.m., there being no further business, Mayor Clarkson adjourned the meeting.
Bill Clarkson, Mayor
Patricia Edwards, City Clerk
Approved as presented at the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting 4-0; Perkins abstain.