AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9�--� September 26, 2005 The Honorable Norman J. Gatzert Page —2— My own observation of the circumstances has led me to the conclusion that, in our development process of creating a distinctive sense of place and a vibrant city community, the City must: • ensure that individuals' and our community's values, character, and history are respected; • recognize that property owners and properties are unique, and honor their distinctiveness. These are two guiding principles which I believe are important to pursue with the full Council when the Subcommittee report is complete and presented. Grand Jurv Recommendation #1 (paraphrasec�: Develop written guidelines and train staff on the proper treatment of citizens. City Response to Recommendation #1: As noted above, I had already directed (prior to the Grand Jury report) the Subcommittee to begin work to develop a set of such guidelines. The Subcommittee will report back to the full City Council within three months, and upon review and approval by Council the guidelines will be incorporated into our development process. At that time, relevant staff will be briefed on the guidelines. Grand Jurv Recommendation #2 (paraphrasec�: Designate a member of the City Council as the point person for complaints concerning the RDA, who will seek appropriate remedies and report back to the City Council concerning required actions. City Response to Recommendation #2: The City agrees with this recommendation (specifically alternative "b"). I am directing that the Redevelopment Subcommittee include in their final report a recommendation of a Council member to act in this capacity. As noted above, the Subcommittee will report back to the full City Council within three months. IYs important in the context of this response to point out several significant shortcomings of this Grand Jury Report. The Report correctly notes that the City Council sits as the Redevelopment Agency Board, "...a dual role that is a common practice for California cities." Yet, with that said, the Report goes on to impugn the City Council for that "common practice" as projecting "... an apparent conflict of interest." I refute the implication of any conflict of interest, and assert that the members of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board have acted entirely in good faith, with only the community's best interest at heart, and with complete public transparency in both their capacities. Further, I'll remind the Grand Jury that State law provides for a city council to act in this dual role — it is therefore inherent in such cases that there is not a conflict of interest, and any perception to the contrary is simply incorrect.