Clearlake City Council members address conflicts in order to deal with redevelopment plan

Written by Elizabeth Larson
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
CLEARLAKE – In order to discuss business related to a proposed redevelopment plan amendment, Clearlake City Council members had to follow a series of formalities last Thursday that included declaring potential conflicts and a high card draw from a deck of cards.

Redevelopment business at the council's regular meeting on Thursday, Jan. 14, included discussion of the proposed amendment and the possible formation of a project area committee.

City Attorney Malathy Subramanian was unable to attend the meeting, so Melanie Donnelly, another attorney from the same firm of Best, Best & Krieger, sat in on the meeting to help the council work through the issues.

Donnelly helped lead the council through the discussion regarding some members' potential conflicts of interest with regard to the proposed redevelopment plan amendment, which City Administrator Dale Neiman said must be completed by this coming July 9.

She said the council needed a minimum of three members in order to have a quorum on the subject, but three council members – Mayor Judy Thein, Vice Mayor Joyce Overton and Curt Giambruno – all said they believed they had conflicts because of their homes' close proximity to the redevelopment area, and that they would realize property value improvements as a result.

Donnelly said they would need to “rehabilitate” one of those council members and allow them to sit in on the decision, which she said could be done using the legally required participation exception, which allows for a conflict of interest exception to political reform act rules.

The method for selection had to be done randomly, so Donnelly presented a deck of cards and had Overton, Giambruno and Thein each draw a card, explaining that the high card would win the draw.

Thein drew a queen, Overton a three and Giambruno a 10. That meant that Thein would stay on the dais, while Overton and Giambruno recused themselves and left the room.

Councilman Roy Simons questioned if the redevelopment agency's amendment could go through just by the council's approval, or if it needed to go to a referendum, which Simons believed it did.

Neiman disagreed. “I have a different interpretation of that.”

Councilman Chuck Leonard said the plan was amended in 1994 by the council, not a referendum.

Simons insisted that the matter needed to go to a referendum. Neiman said he'll have Subramanian provide a legal opinion.

With the quorum reestablished, the council next needed to consider if establishing a redevelopment project area committee was appropriate.

“This is the first decision that you have to make in order to proceed with amending the redevelopment plan,” Neiman said.

Neiman told the council that the redevelopment plan, between the housing and project funds, will generate a total of $42.2 million for the community if it's amended.

He said they couldn't meet the deadline for establishing the committee, but that it was wasn't needed because they were not planning to add use of eminent domain or expand the project area.

“Basically there's no legal requirement to create a project area committee,” Neiman said.

Simons asked why they needed the amendment. To get the $42.2 million, Neiman replied.

“How do you expect us to believe that when we've just been through two decades of total failure” in redevelopment, Simons asked.

Neiman agreed that there have been problems in the city's redevelopment history.

Simons considered a project area committee important to the whole plan, and said lack of one in the past is one of the reasons why redevelopment, in his opinion, has failed. He added that Neiman was promising them millions when the city can't even do a sidewalk project, referring to the Lakeshore Drive area.

Neiman said the $42.2 million would be generated over a 10-year period.

“I'm not against the amendment, I want you to know that,” said Simons. “I just want it to be done right, that's all.”

Neiman said he agreed with Simons.

During public comment, community member Rick Mayo asked about a $14 million bond set to take place in 2019, which Neiman's report to the council cited as revenue. Mayo asked how a bond could be considered revenue when it's really a loan.

“That's worse than fuzzy math,” Mayo said.

Neiman replied that the bond will generate revenue for the city.

Mayo, who formerly sat on the Clearlake Planning Commission, told the council that they held 100 public hearings when Wal-Mart wanted to come into the city.

He said such a public hearing process is being circumvented for the Lowe's shopping center project at the former Peace Airport property on Highway 53, for which the redevelopment agency is proposing to help fund improvements.

Mayo said that the planning commission had wanted to keep Pearce Field opened as an airport, but then Wal-Mart decided to build in the flight path.

“This whole thing should have gone through the planning commission,” said Mayo. “The council was always a last resort.”

When Estella Creel asked about the proposed bonds, Neiman said there would actually be two – one for housing, and one for the redevelopment project. He said there would be more discussion “down the road,” as the amendment began taking shape.

Creel asked why Neiman wouldn't just say he doesn't know the answers to her questions. “I know exactly what I'm doing, Estelle,” Neiman replied.


READ THE FULL STORY