1977-06-20 Joint CC HAB Minutes355
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD MONDAY - - - ~ - JUNE 20, 1977
The City Council and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda met in a special meeting
at 5:15 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1977, in the Council Chamber at City Hall, as duly noticed in the
manner required by the Charter.
ROLL CALL:
1. The President of the Council called the meeting to order and on roll call the following
were noted present. Councilmembers Diament, Sherratt, Tillman and President Corica, (4);
Commissioners Douglas, Ferro, Godfrey, Palmer, Pruitt, Trujillo and Chairman DeWitt, (7).
Absent: Councilman 8eckam, (1).
The President declared a quorum present.
Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Meeting had been acknowledged by the Councilmen
and Commissioners and was on file. The purpose of this session was for consideration of the
third year Housing and Community Development application, and action thereon, if desired.
Z. Consideration of Third Year Housing and Community Development Application.
President Corica stated the area of concern was the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) application and
the financing for the Makassar project. He said he believed he must accept re3pa5ibilitv for not
insisting the Housing Authority be represented at the meeting with HUD, and strongly suggested
the Housing Authority be invited to attend any further meetings of this type. He stressed the
HAP and HCDA projects were a joint effort of the City and Housing Authority. He stated HUD
had been informed, on several occasions, that the Housing Authority was the agent of the City Dd
pledged further meetings would be joint. The President commended the work done in the past by
the Housing Authority Commissioners, and commended Alameda's housing projects as being the
finest in this area.
Councilman Sherratt concurred with President Corica's remarks, and expressed his regret the
misunderstanding and lack of communication had occurred.
President Corica commented on the newspaper article which had charged Councilman Diament had
violated provisions of the Brown Act by attending the Executive Session of the Housing Authority.
He stated it was his strong feeling any member of the Council could attend any meeting being
held by any Board or Commission.
Councilman Tillman stated he attended many meetings of various boards and commissions and planned
to continue because of the valuable feedback he received.
Councilman Diament stated the issue was the question of attending the Executive Session and
hoped it could be clarified. She suggested, if necessary, the Council members be named
ex-officio members.
After further discussion, Councilman Sherratt requested the City Attorney clarify the legal
question of a Council member attending an executive session. City Attorney Stroud stated the
consequences available under the Brown Act provide that, if a public body took action while in
executive session, it might be subject to a misdemeanor. In the case of the Housing Authority
meeting held June 15, since the Housing Authority took no action, at the executive session, there
was no illegal act. He stated that, if a ohlfc body made a habit of holding private meeting5, an
injunction might be obtained through the civil process of the Superior Court. Since no board
or commission of the city was in the habit of holding private meetings, it was his opinicn
nothing "illegal" was done. He explained the executive session's provision in the Brown Act
relating to personnel matters and stated whether or not the meeting was public was at the option
of the personnel involved, and if open to some of the public, must be open to all. He continued
that under common law, a subject of litigation may be discussed privately. He suggested that, as
a practice, the Council should not attend executive sessions; however, in this case since no
other person had requested to attend, there wasno violation. He stated nothing "illegal"
occurred on the 15th, but advised the Council as a general practice to avoid the situation
except in the special circumstances he had outlined.
President Corica noted the City Council had requested either the Mayor or Vice Mayor to attend
the June 15 meeting.
Commissioner Godfrey stated he wished to make it very clear the Commission was delighted to have
Councilman Diament attend their meeting. He stated that, since the issue to be discussed in the
executive session was of great concern to all members of the City Council, Councilman Diament had
been invited to attend.
President Corica stated it was his understanding the Housing Authority wished to proceed with
some new construction, but wanted to retain the option of using whatever funding appeared to be
the most advantageous. The Commissioners concurred this was essentially oorrect. The President
related Patricia Harris of HUD, had attended the Conference of Mayors and he reported her comments
indicated federal regulations were increasing. He suggested local control was slipping and
questioned the possibility of getting along with the most minimal amount of federal funds.
Councilman Diament questioned the Commission's response to the City Attorney's report regarding
HAP applications - Makassar financing, dated June 17, 1977.
356
Chairman DeWitt responded the Housing Authority had tabled action on the proposed fifty units of
conventional housing as presented by Mike Church. He commented on the City Attorney's reference
to "the danger for the City" in regard to the total plan. He stated some of the Housing
Authority Commissioners were nt willing to let themselves be locked into HUD's plan for housing
in Alameda and wanted to retain flexibility. He commented the Authority functioned as an arm
of the City and questioned the willingness of the City Council to stand with the Authority against
the set plans of HUD.
Commissioner Palmer added the prime concern of the Commissioners was designating a specific number
of units to be built, and being held to that commitment. He stated staff had assured them
the numbers were unimportant, but he and the other Commissioners, based on past experience, had
very little faith in verbal commitments made by HUD, He stated the Commissioners wedre concerned
about what would happen if, at the time the performance is evaluated, that specific number of
units had not been completed.
It was noted that Councilman Beckam arrived at 5:50 p.m. and took his place on the Council.
On question, Mike Church commented the HCDA application was dependent upon the Housing Authority
and the City working together. He stated whether or not the 50 units was applied for would not
affect this year's application; but might impact on the performance report which must be prepared
next year. He said he was not well enough informed on what Urban Consultants were doing to be
able to project what woulc happen. If Urban Consultants were not successful, and these 50
units not applied for, they would have a difficult time showing an effort at accomplishing to
HCDA goals and would, therefore, be open to criticism, and would jeopardize funding for tother
HCDA projects, as well as Section 8 funds.
Commissioner Godfrey commented he and Mr. Marquardt had called Urban Consultants just before
the meeting trying to get some determination of where they were in finding funding. He stated
they had a verbal commitment from HUD, for 100 units of Section 8 new housing. He commented
they had been unable to get written commitments so far, and were very unwilling to depend on HUD's
verbal commitments. He confirmed the Housing Authority had no desire to jeopardize the funding
position of the city, and would act as the Council directed. However, it was, he continued the
preference of the Commissioners to provide 50 new units under Section 8 funding; or if that
were not possible, 50 units of conventional housing on an unspecified site. He reviewed the
commitments which had been made to The residents and neighbors of the Parrot site.
On request, Mr. Church responded the application for Section 8 funds and conventional funding
for a non-specified site would not jeopardize each other.
Councilman Sherratt commented the Council was not in opposition to the Commission's position,
and saw no problem with the application, inasmuch as an effort was being made to meet the
housing goals of HCDA.
Chairman DeWitt commented they had been discussing HUD and HAP goals. He stated the Housing
Authority had their goals outlined and their own ideas on how to accomplish them. He reiterated
the Commission's concern with committing to meet federal goals since there may, at some future
time, be some difference between the goals established by HUD and those established by the
Housing Authority. He said the Commission feared a time would come when any opportunity for
flexibility would be gone.
On question, Chairman DeWitt stated the Commission was not opposed to a referendum. City
Attorney Stroud commented the Housing Authority's Resolution No. 399, which sets out their
goals, does mention the possibility of a referendum along with other alternatives.
Executive Director Marquardt pointed out to the Council that they had been comparing this 50 unit
application to the end result at Esperanza. He noted that Esperance had resulted as an
attractive and desirable project from the Authority's ability to supplement the Federal
conventional funding with seven acres of land and 1/2 million dollars of its own, and stressed
that this application would not result in a miniature Esperanza because the Authority no longer
had supplemental funds to pump into any development, and the application, if approved, would
result in a project built exactly as directed by HUD, and once built would be operated for 40
years exactly as directed by HUD.
Mr. Marquardt then contrasted this with the Authority's development of the Senor Citizens'
Complex at Otis/Park, which was built exclusively with Authority funds so that the Authority
owns and controls it. At Otis/Park the Authority merely contracts with HUD to provide rental
subsidies and the contract is continued at the Authority's option and not HUD's. This is the
manner which he and the Commissioners preferred to develop the Parrot Street site.
Chairman DeWitt reported the Commissicn had met with the neighbors of the
Parrot site and commented the Commissioners felt these people deserved a good project which would
enchance the neighborhood. He said they felt that, if the project were rebuilt as HUD directed,
they would not be able to keep faith with the commitments they had made to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Palmer stated it was the concern of the Housing Authority that it not overcommit
itself to a particular number of units and not be able to provide housing on a level which the
entire City could be proud of and which wculd be an asset to the city.
Councilman Sherratt commented it was the desire of the Council to retain flexibility in the
HCDA progiram, and to allow the Housing Authority to proceed with its goals. He suggested the
application for this year be pursued.
357
Commissioner Godfrey moved to take from the table the discussion of the possibility of an
application for federal funds for the Parrot site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Palmer. The motion was carried on the following roll call vote of the commission. Ayes: Seven.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
Commissioner Godfrey moved the Housing Authority instruct Executive Director Marquardt to work
with city staff to put into the Housing Assistance plan program an application for 50 units on
an unspecified site under conventional housing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Palmer.
Following further discussion, Commissioner Godfrey, with the consent of the second, amended his
previous motion to include that it be put in the form of a resolution and that Mr. Marquardt be
authorized to fill in the dollar amount. On a call for the question, the motion carried cn the
following roll call vote of the commission. Ayes: Commissioners Douglas, Ferro, Godfrey, Palmer,
Pruitt, Trujillo and Chairman DeWitt, (7). Noes: None. Absent: None. The Chairman thereupon
declared said motion carried and said resolution adopted.
Councilman Sherratt moved staff be directed to pursue the City of Alameda's third year HCDA
application. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote
of the Council members. City Attorney Stroud requested the Cooperation Agreement between the
Housing Authority and the City be added to the agenda of the regular meeting of the Council to
be held on June 21, 1977. It was the consensus of the Council this item be added to the agenda
of that meeting.
Chairman DeWitt expressed appreciation for the joint meeting, and noted it was his opinion HUD
had a philosophy to bypass public housing authority and deal with the cities. He requested the
understanding and support of the city in challenging this procedure.
President Corica concurred and again pledged the two agencies would work together and share all
available information.
Councilman Beckam moved the City Council endorse the goals as outlined in the Housing Authority's
Resolution No. 399, and the application for funds approved at this meeting. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote of the Council members.
ADJOURNMENT:
3. There being no further business to come before the City Council and the Housing Authority,
and on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deputy City Clerk