CITY
COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
DATE OF
MEETING:
November 12, 2003
TIME OF
MEETING:
3:30 P.M.
PLACE OF
MEETING:
RED BLUFF COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
The agenda for this meeting
was posted pursuant to Resolution No. 28-1995
Councilmembers
Present: Forrest
Flynn, Mayor Pro Tem
Andy Houghton
Gregg
Avilla
Larry
Stevens
Councilmembers
Absent:
Tere Hancock, Mayor (absent – excused)
Staff
Present:
Susan Price, City Manager
Chuck Hayden, Planning Director
Margaret Van Warmerdam, Finance Director
Gary Antone, Director of Public Works
J.D. Ellison, Building Official/Inspector
Rob Gibbs, Director of Parks & Recreation
Al Shamblin, Police Chief
Rick Crabtree, City Attorney
Gerry Gray, Division Chief
Eileen Lampron, Accounting Technician
Cheryl Smith, Deputy City Clerk
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn called
the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was
lead by Cheryl Brinkley and the assembly joined in.
There were no
comments.
RECONSIDERATION OF 2003/2004 HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM; RESOLUTION NO.
68-2003
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that some information had become available after the decision was made to
support the PAM Group project and at this point we are bring this back to listen
to some testimony of additional information available.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that it was at his suggestion to bring back before the City Council as he had
some concerns and then later other information he felt the Council needed to
hear and consider although that does not mean that he feels they are going to
change their decision. In no way
did this have anything to do with City staff or the City Manager, it was at his
request to Mayor Pro Tem Flynn to bring the issue back before the City
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem stated that he
also was under no pressure by any staff member. This was a decision that we felt we
needed to pursue this and see if we could get some answers to the questions we
had.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that a concern that needed to be cleared up with the work and who was going to
do the work at the Kimball Road Project and the information was not available
before the last meeting.
J. D. Ellison, Building
Official/Inspector, stated that he received a call around the first week of
October and was told by the contractor out of the area that they had hired this
person to come in and he would be showing up and asking for the plans to
re-modify the structural of the trusses.
The person that showed up, was the person mentioned in his email. He stated that he was the contractor for
the job that he was going to be doing sub-contracting on
it.
Councilmember Avilla
questioned which job he was referring to.
Mr. Ellison stated that was
the rehab project at Red Bluff Meadows.
The contractor stated that he was going to be responsible for it. This contractor came in and took the
plans and had he not been the one contacted to do the job, he would not have
known to pickup the plans. A
message was received from WP that this contractor was no longer going to be
working for them and that they would be staying with the regular plan check,
which he took home over the weekend and completed the plan check. The plan check was started the last week
in October, was when everything was taken in. The part that made him a little leery
was that Ms. Grant stated that their contractor would be able to be finished
with this one and go right on to the next one. And the contractor that came in and
picked up the truss information he felt there was no way this was going to get
done. The City currently has a
house that he has been working on for 14-15 months and he finally called for a
drywall inspection today. Was
worried about the City and their grant situation and the other people involved
and getting the project done within the time line.
Councilmember Avilla
questioned Mr. Hayden regarding the PAM Company and when they took title to
Meadow Apartments, if it was this year.
Chuck Hayden, Planning
Director, stated that he could not say with absolute certainty when the took
control of the apartment complex.
His understanding was that the management company at one time was not
taking the money that could have been reserved with the money
rent.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that he had gone in side the property and that he was not impressed. His understanding is that we’re going to
do this, we’ve got the money now and this facility is going to be made A number
one, but at what point do they have the opportunity to complete the project,
what kind of time span are we looking at, is it 1-year, 2-year,
3-years.
Mr. Hayden stated that he
did not know, but they were asked to come in, as there were substandard housing
issues, and his understanding is that there are federal funds have been applied
for to rehab the apartment complex.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that he had a copy of a letter that Mr. Hayden wrote to PAM Company in September
of 2000, would that be about the time that this began.
Mr. Hayden stated that if he
recalled correctly he went and spoke to the apartment manager and she directed
him to speak to PAM. At some point
PAM stepped in, he believed at the request of Rural Housing because the other
management company was not taking care of the complex.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that they were lead to believe that they just recently had taken over, a Grant
Deed shows February 18, 2003, but it looks like they were the operator since
2000. Asked Ms. Grant or someone
from her group to answer some of these questions.
Matt McGlynn, Attorney for
PAM, stated that no body has told them the concerns of the City Council; they
were here guessing ahead of time what the concerns could be. He also requested copies of all staffing
reports on Monday and at 11:00 a.m. this morning the copies were faxed to him,
including Mr. Ellison’s letter and he was in court until 1:30 p.m. and so the
soonest that he and his clients knew there was some concern about the contractor
on the project at Red Bluff Meadows was at 1:30 p.m. today. Apparently there is some contractor
named “Chad” who is doing a completely horrible job at 1020 Washington Street,
whom the City has no faith in. He’s
not the contractor on this job; WP Construction is the contractor that PAM has
hired to do the work here. Spoke
with Shawn at WP was asked to find a local contractor, there was a question
about the truss design, so they contacted this “Chad” and asked him to take to
their truss calculations and take to his local supplier, who he believes was
Meeks Building Supply. Has not had
a lot of time to review this, but this guy went in a represented that he was a
contractor, he wasn’t a contractor they hadn’t hired him to do it and then he
went off hunting and apparently he has a bad reputation, none of which is known
by WP and this slows the project and the site plan checks down by a couple of
weeks, but they are in a position that once they get the permits and finalize
these plans to start the construction.
The construction was delayed because USDA, which is one of the primary
sources of funding, needs to sign off on the project, but once they receive that
they’re ready to move forward. Had
they known that the contractor was one of the main issues they would have had
someone from WP at the meeting to respond to those concerns. Mike Vetker of PAM is prepared to show
the City Council some of the projects that PAM has completed. PAM was contacted by USDA to take over
the management of this project and PAM then went about to get funding. They applied for HOME funds from the
City in 2000 and were denied. Plans
were shown to the City Council showing the replacement of rooflines, new siding
on the buildings, addition of a recreation room. They are supervised and required to use
these funds within the required timelines.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned the timeline, he was under the impression that there may have been
information was submitted to you and/or your client as early as Friday evening,
also wanted ask Mr. Ellison what gave the City the opinion that this other
contractor was the person in question that was going to be doing the
work.
Mr. Ellison stated that he
received a call either the 5th or 6th, he’d have to look
at his phone log and see, from the out of town contractor and he stated that he
had hired an out of town contractor and he stated that he had hired a
subcontractor to come in and pickup the plans to change the truss design on the
roofs.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned if he gave the contractor’s name.
Mr. Ellison stated that he
had not, the only person to come in was “Chad” and he would not of known if he
wasn’t the contractor to get the plans, so that it why the plans were given to
him to do.
Mr. McGlynn stated that it
was his understanding that WP was checking in with Virginia at the City and was
told that yeah they were doing the process and JD was sitting back not doing
anything because he was waiting to hear back from Chad. To clarify something for Councilmember
Stevens he received notification on Friday that there would be a special meeting
on Wednesday and nobody had any knowledge that this was an issue, the first that
he heard that this was an issue was 1:30 p.m. today in Mr. Ellison’s memo to Ms.
Price regarding concerns of the contactor, so this got worked out Friday without
any prompting from anybody on his part of on PAM’s part.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that he had a question for Mr. McGlynn and want to pointed out that Pacific
Communities came in a did their own talking, while Mr. McGlynn is representing
the other company. His question for
Mr. McGlynn was at what point did you become the attorney for this project and
how did they discover you.
Mr. McGlynn stated that he
contacted by Elva Grant on behalf of PAM Company to appear and put forth their
position in terms of the City project.
It’s common for attorney’s to appear at City Council meetings and he
became the attorney for the project approximately a week before the City Council
meeting.
Mr. Hayden stated that he
received a call from Elva Grant and she asked him for an attorney that he would
recommend and he recommended Mr. McGlynn.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that in three years time it seems to him there should have been a coat of paint,
things as simply as window coverings were in disarray. He didn’t see any evidence of any
minimal effort to maintain or upgrade these buildings. That is his concern because the City
just went through a very major rehabilitation of another apartment complex at
which residents had to be relocated.
To reiterate his concerns from last Tuesday’s meeting there are some very
sever traffic issues there, we’re also crowding the same amount of people and
cars into half the amount space and the Police Department can tell you that the
closer people are to each other nerves get frayed more incidents occur, it’s
just a bad situation because people are so close to each other. The impact with traffic is an issue, off
street parking is an issue, and he doesn’t see how they’re going to get all of
this into 3 acres of property.
Mr. McGlynn stated that Mr.
Vetker could answer those concerns.
Part of the concerns for Red Bluff Meadows is to get the funding and Elva
Grant has been working to get this funding.
Councilmember Houghton
questioned Mr. McGlynn about the rec room that Councilmember Stevens mentioned,
was that for Red Bluff Meadows, so the additional one is for the old
site.
Ms. Grant stated that the
old site has a rec room, which will be added to and the new site will have it’s
own rec room.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that they turned the management of this complex in 2000 what are the
expectations of a time line that she is supposed to get this done. It seems like 3 years is sufficient time
to get new drapes, or do a little parking lot fill.
Mike Vetker, PAM
Development, stated that the decision by USDA in asking them to take over the
complex, and obviously the complex was in dire need of rehab and the agreement
they have with USDA is to do a major rehab not just a Band-Aid. When PAM Development took this over, at
the request of USDA when the project was in foreclosure, there was no money left
in the reserves to work on this project.
Their plans for rehab will result in new siding, new roof, new parking
lots, new appliances, and addition of rec room.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned what the time line was and if they would have to displace any tenants
to do.
Mr. Vetker stated that as
soon as they get USDA approval they will start construction and that they have a
10-month construction schedule.
They should be able to work around the tenants by doing the exterior work
first and then if there are any vacant units they will rehab those first and
then move tenants into those units while the rehab work is being completed on
their unit and of course give them the option of moving back to their original
unit when the rehab is complete.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned if there was going to be any off street parking on the new complex
for visitor parking.
Mr. Vetker stated that there
is some on site parking, has not had time to count the
spaces.
Mr. Hayden stated that
zoning standards require 2 parking spaces per apartment complex, if the Planning
Commission or on appeal if the City Council wanted more parking they could
require it as part of the Use Permit.
Standards require a number of additional parking spaces for car washing
etc., so there are more spaces than 2 required for the apartment units, but
would have to do the calculations to give the exact
number.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that he has a copy of the letter from September 20, 2000 from Mr. Hayden to Mr.
Wilson, District Supervisor at PAM Company, he’s trying to get it into his head,
but to classify something as a dangerous building, this was 3 years ago, what is
our process.
Mr. Hayden stated that there
is a uniform code for the abatement of dangerous housing, however the State in
Title 25 basically ties our hands and makes it extremely difficult for the City
to enforce the housing regulations as fast as he would like to see it
happen. From his perspective there
is a lack of money to complete the project and he has been working with Elva
Grant for months and that project is not going to get rehabbed with those
funds. Its very difficult to say
fix it when you know there’s no money.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned how many units are in Red Bluff Meadows and how many are currently
occupied.
Mr. Vetker stated that there
are 52 units and just 6 vacant units now.
Councilmember Stevens stated
so basically you’re essentially full and there’s been resources coming in over 3
years what’s happened to these resources over these years.
Mr. Vetker stated that
they’ve have tax issues, USDA foreclosure to deal with and that they have had to
juggle as well as keep the project livable.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that they have not been able to get funding over the last three years for this
rehabilitation project.
Mr. Vetker stated that was
incorrect, they had received a loan from USDA for $776,000, they have received
and allocation of tax credits, they have a current budget of $4,000,000 to put
into this project and work will start as soon as USDA approval is received from
Washington DC.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that he would like to see what happens with Red Bluff Meadows and then see them
next year and support them next year assuming that everything that they say is
going to happens actually happens.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that he was not going to beat up on someone that is trying to do the right
thing, which is what is concern was.
He’s not clear on the company and who’s doing what.
Mr. Vetker stated that there
are three different companies involved.
The Professional Apartment Management is the management company and it
has been in business since 1969; a subsidiary company is PAM Development
Incorporated and then PAM Construction builds the projects. Ms. Grant is a consultant hired by PAM
to obtain funding for various projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that his main concern is if PAM gets the HOME funding and it doesn’t materialize
on the project it’s a black mark on the City of Red Bluff and this is where we
are coming from.
Mr. Vetker stated that in
the last 5-years they have not had an incident where they have not been
successful on obtaining grants.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned who the subcontractors were going to be on the
project.
Mr. Vetker stated that they
would go through the Builders Exchange and put the project out to bid. PAM Company employs 350 employees, plus
they have the two subsidiary companies PAM Development and PAM
Construction.
Councilmember stated that he
looks at the amenities offered and one project has a computer room, a pool, a
Jacuzzi and he didn’t recall if the new project or the existing Red Bluff
Meadows had a pool.
Mr. Vetker stated that there
was no pool at the current project; there are open areas, a computer lab, a tot
lot, basketball court. They are
required to abide by the same rules as the other developer is; they will be very
similar in amenities.
At this time a slide
presentation was made by Mr. Vetker showing other four other projects that have
been completed by the PAM Company.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that he had spoken to the Principals of both schools located in the area of
these projects and that neither one seemed to have a major concern over
traffic. He also spoke with couple
members of the Planning Commission and spoke with them about density of housing
and traffic issues. They stated
that traffic issues are discussed all the time, but in terms of affordable
housing that has never been discussed.
He asked for clarification from Mr. Hayden on where the City was with
affordable housing and the issue of density.
Mr. Hayden stated that the
last time he checked with Rural Development there was a waiting list for
affordable housing. As far as the
densities, when the General Plan was adopted we made a statement to developers
of what we thought was appropriate levels of development. R-1 – 5 units an acre max, R-2 - 10
units, R-3 - 15 units an acre and
R-4 - 20 units per acre.
There is a policy in the Housing Element of the General Plan to promote
affordable housing, for obvious reasons.
Councilmember Avilla
questioned what the highest density has been that the City has
allowed.
Mr. Hayden stated that he
wasn’t sure; he would have to go back and look, but possibly Ellison
Apartments.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that then it’s possible to have 25 units per acre max.
Mr. Hayden stated that he
didn’t believe the City had anything over 20 units, but the Government Code and
developers have not asked for that and the City would have to grant a diversity
bonus of 25% by State Law for any affordable housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that it was a shame to get adequate funding to maintain development, only for
new development.
Councilmember Houghton
questioned Mr. Hayden about this type of rehab has gone on, is there any way to
curtail this type of thing to put a stop to letting places get run
down.
Mr. Hayden stated that the
City could have a Housing Department that would have more oversight, we could
become a Housing Agency to oversee these projects and seek grants our selves and
have staff fulltime. He believes
that there was not sufficient staff at the grantee level and that it’s a funding
issue.
Councilmember Houghton
questioned Mr. Vetker of PAM Company if they have any projects that are in dire
need of rehab.
Mr. Vetker stated that they
have several projects that are coming upon need for rehab, but nothing in the
state of Red Bluff Meadows.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn asked
Mr. Spann if he would like to speak.
Bill Spann stated that what
he’s hearing is that there’s not enough money out there to go around to fund all
the projects. He appreciates the
efforts that Ms. Grant has put into the PAM Company project. The comment was made that if the funding
isn’t obtained that you can give the money back, but his understanding is that
there are penalties to giving the money back. One developer has the advantage and that
developer is them. They have the
funding and you can’t do the project with funding alone, you need tax
credits. He cautioned the City
Council against supporting a project that the site plan presented id not have a
pool or sauna, it barely had room for a basketball court. He stated that his project did have
wetlands issues at the end of Southridge if they were to extend Southridge,
which they propose that the would have to be reported to the Army Corp of
Engineers, but it is something that can be dealt with so there would be no
delays. He suggested that the
Council take the bird in hand and chase the one in the bush next year.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn
questioned Mr. Spann what his odds of obtaining the grant would
be.
Mr. Spann stated that it was
above 90%; the HOME Program likes working with communities that have performed
well in the past.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that the issue of success in terms of the funds, $500,000 he believed Mr. Spann
had, he understands that it gives Mr. Spann’s group a head’s up, if you didn’t
have it your group wouldn’t have that extra advantage, but that doesn’t mean the
other group will be unsuccessful in obtaining funding.
Mr. Spann stated that he
believes their project will receive the maximum points, when you have tied
scores it goes to a tiebreaker. The
first tiebreaker is what’s called a qualified census tract and there are no
qualified census tracks in Tehama County.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that we are dealing with good viable people that can get their projects done,
but what Mr. Spann is saying is that we have a problem if we pick the other
project.
Mr. Spann stated that was
correct. If they don’t get the HOME
funds they wouldn’t get the tax credits, they will have to give the RHS money
back.
Mr. McGlynn stated that the
regulations on the tiebreaker are going to revisit the issue so those rules are
going to change; just because they have their money doesn’t mean that Ms. Grant
is not going to get the funding. On
Tuesday the HOME Partnership was awarded to PAM Companies and that gives them a
leg up. The bottom line is that no
one can stand here and say that they are going to get the money, you have two
good projects for funding, but there’s nothing new in this reconsideration
today. Action was taken under
Government Code 54952.6, a Resolution that was adopted after a Public Hearing
and he doesn’t think that it was legally appropriate. In terms of what we’re doing here today
it was to get some answers and he believed those questions had been
answered. His clients came to the
Tuesday meeting, made their presentation and received a go ahead from the City
Council. The next morning they
entered into a series of contracts to move this project forward. They are committed to the project, they
hear Thursday that it’s not going to be reconsidered than on Friday they hear
it’s going to be reconsidered and at the same time they are trying to complete
the application packet by the November 17th deadline. To pull this out from them now is not
appropriate and nothing had been presented at this meeting that says we made a
mistake by going with this company.
Did point out that the minutes, even though they are not final, that some
of the comments are incorrect and should be corrected. The way it reads it make’s sound like I
was saying that we didn’t have sewer and water, but we do, it’s the other
project that doesn’t have it.
Susan Price, City Manager,
stated that they could request the City Clerk to transcribe word for
word.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that he feels more comfortable with the project now than when they first made
the decision.
Mr. Spann responded that
they could not make an application for tax credits without HOME Funding. The HOME Funds are needed to complete
their project and this project will cost more than past projects so clearly
multiple sources are needed. As far
as changes to the regulations, the tax credit program is under the Internal
Revenue Service and to suggest that changes will be made if highly
unlikely. The tax credit program
does make changes every year, but they are small minor changes not major
ones.
Ms. Grant stated that she
had received a letter from the Tax Credit Committee advising that there was
going to be three meetings held to discuss the tiebreaker. They want to create an even playing
field and that they are going to change geographical information. She further stated that she did call
Jack Mayham at USDA in Davis, and that he stated that projects that have
received notification of funds do have 2 years to use these
funds.
Rick Crabtree, City
Attorney, stated would that he respectfully disagree with Mr. McGlynn in terms
of whether or not you can readdress it, I believe you can, whether or not it’s
wise to is a decision for the City Council to make. We retool policies made by the City
Council all the time, the terms as to whether it’s a good idea falls on the City
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
he didn’t have any other questions, he did not want to make a decision on being
intimidated and that was not his intension.
Ms. Price questioned Mr.
Crabtree whether or not he had a chance to review the contracts that Mr. McGlynn
had presented.
Mr. Crabtree stated that he
had reviewed very quickly the four contracts and that he couldn’t see where it
was contingent on receiving any grant funds.
Mr. McGlynn stated that it
was not his intent to bully the City Council, but to make a point and that he
didn’t receive notice that the City Council was considering reconsidering until
late afternoon on Wednesday, they had to continue to work forward or they would
not be able to complete the funding application by the
17th.
Councilmember Avilla
question to Mr. Crabtree if the City Council changed their minds on this issue
are they committed to the contracts.
Mr. Crabtree stated after a
quick review of the contracts the best he can say is that it is an issue as to
how damaged by reliance on the last resolution.
Mr. Spann stated that they
had sent a letter to the City willing to indemnify the City against any lawsuits
caused by their reconsideration of this issue.
Mr. McGlynn stated that he
thought Mr. Spann’s last comment speaks volume of what’s going
on.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned Mr. Antone on the infill and the $250,000 that would be made
available for infrastructure, with the Southside Neighborhood Study that
indicates that we should be extending Vista Way to Montgomery, the Habitat for
Humanity that’s coming in with 60 some odd homes over the course with a build
out. If that $250,000 is made
available for that infrastructure how does that play against our needs for
infrastructure in that area.
Mr. Antone stated that the
overall score what is proposed in the Southside Neighborhood Study is extremely
large and far-reaching and it runs approximately 20-25 years. It’s hard to pinpoint that, there will
be additional traffic, but you have to look at a project by project basis as the
impacts are felt at those locations and the best that we can do is try and take
the information provided in the Southside Neighborhood Study and then begin to
look at the improvements that they are recommended in that study and then assign
some level of how much needs to be done at these project as they begin to move
forward.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that right now at the intersection of Kimball and South Jackson there is a 4-way
stop and given the increase of traffic that this project will generate how much
would it cost to signal that intersection.
Mr. Antone stated a typical
signalization of that type of intersection is going to be a the neighborhood of
$175,000.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned who would typically pay for that signal.
Mr. Antone stated that
typically it’s paid out of Development Impact Fees or it’s paid by a developer
or a large portion by a developer depending on what size of
project.
Councilmember Stevens
questioned if Kimball Crossing be paying into those Impact Fee that would offset
those developments and if so what their share would be.
Mr. Antone stated that he
did not have that information off the top of his head.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that staff was asked to submit their comments on these projects and asked if
staff had any additional comments to be made at this time, as the City Council
would like to hear them.
No other staff comments were
heard at this time.
Mr. Crabtree stated that PAM
Company was right and that they entered into these contracts on the prior
decision of the City Council and now the City Council changes course and chooses
to go with the competing project.
PAM would have an obligation under the law to take all reasonable steps
to mitigate damages they may have because of entering into these four contracts,
so it wouldn’t be just the City or someone on behalf of the City to indemnify
the City, PAM Company would have to do everything they can to get out of the
contracts, it wouldn’t be the end of the story as far as the contracts and
damages.
M/S/C Houghton, Flynn to
move that the City Council stay with the original recommendation of PAM
Company.
Mayor Pro Tem called for any
additional comments.
Councilmember Avilla stated
that he thought that any concerns that he had prior to this meeting had been
addressed. He wished both groups
could be funded and he thought it went back to Mr. Hayden’s letter stating that
it’s too bad that both projects couldn’t be funded, as they are both good
projects. This has been the hardest
thing since he has been on the City Council to understand and maybe it takes
more preparation on his part and he’s will to do that to represent the citizens
of the City of Red Bluff.
Councilmember Stevens stated
that the concern of all Councilmembers is to do the best for the citizens of the
City of Red Bluff. Those are the
people that will be living in either of those projects. What he has to look at is what type of
project does the most for the community in terms of setting the bar for other
projects within the City. If we
were a community that were more closely at its maximum level than more units on
a smaller parcel is what you have to live with, but we have some very large
parcels in Red Bluff that doesn’t put people on top of people, we’re always
looking at when we develop lots that neighbors are not on top of each
other. Mr. Spann’s project was
willing to put additional amenities into his project that weren’t required, but
added to the quality of life and that is why he voted for that project last
Tuesday and he will continue to support Mr. Spann’s
project.
Councilmember Houghton
stated that he voted against revisiting this as he felt they were gone over last
Tuesday, he understands that there were some concerns with that, but once you
know the facts of what they’re doing, that they were asked by the FDA to come in
and take over the project then we’ve got the answers to our questions and they
are both great project but last Tuesday he voted for the PAM Project and he will
remain with the PAM Project tonight.
Mayor Pro Tem Flynn stated
that he wished both projected could be funded and that this has been an eye
opener for the Council and to staff as far as information availability and the
fact to bring it back and listen to it again, but we have to make a decision and
he was ready to call for a vote on the motion.
Councilmember Avilla asked
for the motion to be restated.
M/S/C Houghton, Flynn that
the City Council will stay with the original decision of last Tuesday to
continue to support the PAM Project.
AYES: Councilmembers: Avilla, Flynn and
Houghton
NOES: Councilmember:
Stevens
ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: Mayor
Hancock (absent – excused)
There
being no further business at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Flynn adjourned the meeting
until November 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., in the Red Bluff City Council
Chambers.
Mayor Pro
Tem
ATTEST: