Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 23® 1994 1. CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Werner. ROLL CALL'. Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari, Miller and Papen. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; ]Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS° ICA/Montgomery indicated that matters acted upon at the last meeting should not be discussed again which would include Public Comments and Council Comments. He explained that a motion would be necessary in order to re -open Public and Council Comments. It was moved by M/Werner, seconded by MPT/Harmony to allow for Public Comments. Motion carried unanimously. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., complimented the professionalism of the Building and Safety Department during.an inspection recently conducted at his home. Michael Lowe expressed concern regarding the bickering taking place among the City Council Members and in regard to the approval of the agreement between D.B. Associates and the City settling the lawsuit. Michael Snyder, 1100 Pepperwood Dr., expressed concern regarding traffic on D.B. Blvd. C/Miller and. C/Papen left the meeting at 7:40 p.m. C/Papen returned to the meeting at 7:45 p.m. MPT/Harmony, responding to a comment made by C/Miller regarding the DBA litigation, asked ICA/Montgomery if the issue of a formal apology was ever discussed in Executive Session in order to settle the lawsuit. ICA/Montgomery stated that, as the City Attorney, he cannot reveal what was discussed during an Executive Session. MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 2 MPT/Harmony then asked the other Council Members if the idea of preparing a formal apology to Council Members Miller and Papen was ever considered. ICA/Montgomery, in response to M/Werner, stated that the Brown Act provides that such matters discussed in Executive Session be kept confidential; however, there is no penalty for such disclosure. MPT/Harmony pointed out that negotiations to settle the DBA lawsuit was hindered by the condition requesting apologies from DBA to Council Members Miller and Papen. C/Papen, concurring with the validity of some of the comments being made by MPT/Harmony, requested that the Mayor open Council Comments. C/Ansari moved, C/Paper seconded to open Council Comments. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCIL, MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller M/Werner stated that Public Comments would be reopened at the end of the meeting. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS g None 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Parks & Recreation Commission - March 24, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 5.2 Hazardous Waste Round -up - March 26, 1994 - 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. - Gateway Corporate Center, 1300 Block of Bridge Gate Dr. 5.3 Planning Commission - March 28, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 General Plan Advisory Committee - March 29, 1994 - 7:00 p.m. - Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 5.5 City Council Meeting - April 5, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 GENERAL PLAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND NOTING RIGHTS - M/Werner reported that the matter was continued from the March 15, 1994 meeting for discussion regarding a concern whether the five members of GPAC representing developers should have MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 3 voting privileges. He stated that he received a written response from Bernie Mazur, a developer representative of GPAC, as well as a verbal response from another developer representative of GPAC indicating their willingness to voluntarily relinquish their voting rights as long as they may continue to have the opportunity to speak and share their concerns with other members of the GPAC. M/Werner expressed his desire to continue the General Plan process fairly and equitably to all parties, with a special emphasis to meet the desires of the citizens of D.B. C/Papers moved, M/Werner seconded to accept the resignation of Bernie Mazur as a member of GPAC, reducing the number of developer representatives to f our . M/Werner stated that he did not perceive that Mr. Mazur intended to relinquish a voice on GPAC, but merely offered to suggest that the vote was not as important as the ability to express their concerns. C/Papen amended her motion that the Council accept Mr. Mazur's offer to relinquish his vote, reducing the remaining number of votes of the developer's representatives to four. MPT/Harmony moved to amend C/Papen's motion to indicate that the developer's representation be reduced to one representative, thus granting only one vote on issues regarding the General Plan. M/Werner inquired if changing the General Plan process at this time would require a re -vote of all the issues previously discussed. C/Papen, opposed to re -making prior decisions, pointed out that the Council had concurred last meeting that the make-up of GPAC should remain the same until the conclusion of the review process. She stated that it is inappropriate to change the make-up of the GPAC at this point; however, since one developer has expressed his willingness to relinquish his vote, then the Council should accept the offer. She pointed out that, had the General Plan been wrought to ballot, the election would have been held by now and the issue resolved. M/Werner withdrew his second to the motion made by C/Papen to accept Mr. Mazur's offer to relinquish his vote, reducing the number of votes of developer's representatives to four. MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 4 ICA/Montgomery noted that MPT/Harmonyfs amendment to C/Papen's motion failed for lack of second. Bernie Mazur, concerned that C/Papen misinterpreted his letter, pointed out that the end of his letter indicates that DBA would support the Council°s efforts if they desire to eliminate the vote of the developer, and that he too would support that decision. In regard to the suggestion that only one vote be allowed per all devel-opers, he pointed out that each of the developers on GPAC have differing objectives and considerations; therefore, it would be difficult to decide which developer would cast the vote. M/Werner inquired if the Council should be con- cerned that the one appointed developer representative may cast a vote in his/her interest. ICA/Montgomery stated that since GPAC is strictly an advisory body and not a decision-making body the Council does not need to be concerned with having one appointed developer representative. Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, indicated that he has attended all GPAC meetings as an observer, and has not observed any GPAC members voting in blocks; however, since appearances are important, it may be appropriate to change the revision process. Max Maxwell questioned when it was decided that the developers would have voting privileges to begin with. He expressed concern that the review process is being hurried along and that GPAC is not being allowed to fully discuss issues before voting. He suggested that the voting privileges of all the developer's representatives be suspended, allowing them, however, to continue to speak on the issues. He also expressed concern that the Council needs to address the citizen°s desire to protect the environment and slow development. Steve .Nice, Rising Star Dr., expressed support of suspending developer's voting privileges. Terry Birrell pointed out that the resident®s °°vision" for the City is being lost to the rights of developers. She noted that some individuals are classified as developers when they are really speculators, owning land zoned open space but desiring to create development rights through the General Plan process. She stated that, not only is there a disproportionate representation on the GPAC regarding the ratio of citizens being represented, MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 5 but there is also a disproportionate representation in respect to technical expertise. She suggested that there needs to be an independent point of view to recommend alternatives to the technical opinions being offered that would be acceptable to everyone. In response to C/Miller's comment at the last meeting that cities often have non-residents serving on a GPAC and that he served on the City of Monrovia's GPAC, she stated that she called the City of Monrovia for verification and was informed that they did not have a GPAC process for the General Plan; therefore, C/Miller could not have served on that committee. She then stated that the Council's responsibility is to the voters of D.P., regardless of what other cities do. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove, expressed his opinion that the General Plan process is moving along successfully, though slowly, and positive changes are occurring. He stated that he does not see the developers having an undue influence in decisions or votes taken on the issues; therefore, there is no need to change the make-up of the GPAC at this point in time M/Werner asked staff to explain how it was decided that there would be the five voting members of GPAC to represent developers. CM/Belanger stated that there was discussion at a January 3994 Council meeting regarding the composition of GPAC and the involvement of property owners and how they might be represented. M/Werner inquired if a change in the voting composition of GPAC at this point would invalidate decisions made previously. He also inquired if there would need to be input from the members of GPAC before a decision is made to alter the voting composition of the committee. ICA/Montgomery stated that since GPAC is an advisory committee, the City Council can amend the policy or suspend the committee at any time. C/Papen expressed concern that a Planning commission representative on the GPAC had participated in voting on issues at the last GPAC meeting, which may have jeopardized his position to be able to vote at the Planning Commission level. In response to a comment made by Max Maxwell, C/Papen pointed out that the City is working toward open space objectives and has obtained approx- MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 6 imately iso acres for open space at no cost from Bramaleao MPT/Harmony pointed out that the property referred to by C/Papers was actually deed or map restricted land. He then stated that since the old General Plan was flawed, with no respect for map restrictions or anything to preserve the open spaces already dedicated, it could not have gone to a vote. If it was brought to a vote, it would most probably have been brought hack for further revision. M/Werner, in response to the concern that a Planning Commissioner had voted on issues regarding the General Plan, stated that staff indicated that they did not count any votes from individuals who were not authorized voting privileges, except for the one Planning Commissioner's vote on whether there should be a meeting held on March 29, 1994. C/Papen stated that the issue is not whether or not the vote was counted, but rather if a Planning commissioner appeared to vote, thus swaying decisions and tainting the process. She expressed concern that the City continues to lose money and jobs because the General Plan process continues on and that the School District is in jeopardy of losing millions of dollars needed to construct the South Pointe Middle School. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. RECONVENE'. M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 6.1 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP (CONT®D.) - C/ Ansari, concerned with the bickering occurring during Council meetings, assured the audience that GPAC meetings have been conducted on a professional level with people of differing opinions respecting one another. She stated that the only voting she noted that was done by a Planning Commissioner was whether or not to place an item in "the box96, which is a term used to indicate that the item needs further discussion at a later time. C/Werner expressed his opinion that there had not been any undue influence on the part of the developers who are voting members of GPAC, nor have they influenced a decision to go in their favor by the use of their five votes; however, since GPAC is a citizen based committee, then he would concur to suspend the developers voting privileges. MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 7 M/Werner moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to have the five developers represented as non-voting delegates on the GPAC. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 6.2 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 38, 39 AND 41 - CM/Belanger reported that the City must secure the services of a qualified engineering firm for maintenance of public improvements by special assessment upon lands within the City's Landscaping Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and 41. He recommended award of a contract to GFP-Friedrich & Associates. MPT/Harmony expressed specifications in the RFP w rather than written, which if one requirement is not applicant. He stated that the process was flawed, the accepted this evening. concern that the are expressed verbally, could create a problem repeated to the next since it appears that proposal should not be CM/Belanger stated that verbal RFPs are not uncommon in the industry, especially when the nature of the work being requested is one set forth by the Government Code, He explained that the verbal RFP was a request for written proposals, from qualified engineering firms in the fields, based upon the description of the nature of the work needed in the City. MPT/Harmony, concerned with the concept of using verbal RFPs as an operating policy, stated that he received complaints from competing firms indicating that they did not receive the same information that may have an influence on a proposal. He then inquired if the recommended proposer is the low proposers ICA/Montgomery stated that the ordinance currently in place is being revised to include services, along with supplies and materials, so that in the future, all non-public works bids will have a written RFP. He stated that a written RFP is preferable; however, it is acceptable to continue with the current process until the revision of the code is completed. CM/Belanger, in response to M/Werner's inquiring if MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 8 there are any time constraints involved, stated that the engineering staff indicated the need to complete the engineering report for the Council's review as soon as possible. C/Papen, noting that the numbers in the March 15, 1994 staff report differs from the number in this staff report, expressed concern that it appears the recommended firm was given the opportunity to -come back with a better offer in order to be awarded the contract. she suggested that the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder indicated in last meeting's staff report. CM/Belanger stated that staff recommended this firm at the last meeting and is still recommending the same firm this meeting. He stated that it is within the intent and spirit of the law if the proposer is willing to lower the proposed price. He pointed out that price is not supposed to be used as a basis of selection for these types of proposals. ICA/Montgomery stated that staff chose the firm they felt was the most qualified and that since the process is currently being revised, there is no reason not to move forward with this contract. CM/Belanger, in response to MPT/Harmony, stated that the contract can be awarded for a one year period, instead of a three year period; however, a three year contract is beneficial in that it keeps the cost down in subsequent years because the engineers are familiar with the data and the rates are kept constant for that three-year period. John Friedrich, with GFP-Friedrich & Associates, stated that he would be willing to accept a one-year contract at $7,200. ICA/Montgomery stated that, with a one-year contract, the proposer is free to re -bid for the second and third years. C/]Papen stated that she does not question the qualifications of the firm, but rather staff's actions after receiving direction from the Council at last week's Closed Session. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to award the contract to GFP-Friedrich & Associates in the amount of $21,600 plus a contingency of $5,000 for fiscal years 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 9 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller M/Werner moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to approve the contract with GFB-Friedrich & Associates for one year in the amount of $7,200, revisiting the contingency issue as it becomes necessary; and direct staff to solicit a proposal process for the following years. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 6.3 BUSINESS RETENTION, ATTRACTION & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - ACM/Usher reported that the Council received the following: a memorandum outlining the actions for retention, attraction and development; a D.B. business retention survey and a D.B. consumer questionnaire. He reviewed the following variety of activities planned: a visit to local business owners and business property owners to discuss how the City can help them be more successful; streamlining the business licensing process; the development of a welcome wagon program for both businesses and residents; identify gaps in existing services or products in the City; a community marketing program in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce; working with the brokerage community in contacting potential businesses; investigating the activation of a redevelopment agency to study the feasibility of providing financing and other redevelopment services; establishment of an industrial development authority for financing purposes; emphasizing the need to adopt a General Plan that has a community consensus, providing information regarding local financing incentives; facilitating the dissemination of information from the California Trade & Commerce Agencies; providing information from utilities and other governmental entities which are of use to business; providing a desk top computer to the Chamber of Commerce for the business retention and attraction project and for general purposes; developing a team of representatives from the City, in conjunction with Chamber of Commerce members, to go out and visit each business to ask questions on the survey; and a random telephone survey asking what is good and what can be improved about the business community and the services provided by the City and the Chamber of Commerce. MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 10 Cathy Cook, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 350, President of the D.D. Chamber of Commerce, thanked Council and staff involved in developing the Business Retention, Attraction & Development Program. She then expressed concern with the Council's bickering, the indecisiveness and the vacillation of the Council's actions and its effect on the community and the business community. C/Ansari stated that, with the help of ACM/Usher and the Chamber of Commerce, in the best interest of the City, a proactive plan has been developed to help the business community. C/Papers expressed concern that $150,000 to $200,000 would be needed to implement this program, yet only $25,000 was budgeted for economic development. She stated that approving a program without funding would accomplish nothing. She then expressed the following concerns: half the businesses in D.B. are home-based and not located in commercial centers; there has not been Council discussion regarding a redevelopment agency and it is not feasible to buy a computer for the Chamber of Commerce before the programs are set up. She suggested that issues regarding development should be dropped from the agenda until after the General Plan is adopted. C/Ansari stated that the program is simply a general objective and goal plan, not a program to establish a redevelopment agency. She explained that the reason for providing the Chamber of Commerce with a computer is to set up a network enabling them to access City Hall and local realtors. M/Werner, concurring with C/Ansari, stated that the program is being presented as a conceptual outline of what is being advocated as a starting point for economic development in the community. C/Papen suggested that the City focus more on marketing the City On-line system; the capacity for satellite communication through the facilities at AQMD and the alternative fueling stations at the AQMD available for public use. She stated that the committee's agenda should delete the development target areas dealing with redevelopment areas, project areas and finance. ACM/Usher stated that there is sufficient budget for all of the foreseeable actions needed to be done in this fiscal year. He stated that the actions specifically to be taken in fiscal year MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 11 1994-95 will be brought before the Council for specific appropriation in the annual budget for economic development. He also stated that it would be short-sighted not to at least consider investigating some redevelopment actions. MPT/Harmony stated that it is in the City's best interest to support this action program and encourage business to the community. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., expressed concern that developers charge high rents for those businesses wishing to be established in the City, which creates vacant centers. He suggested that the Chamber of Commerce approach the landlords regarding this problem. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., expressed the following concerns: the efforts are poorly funded; the effort lacks concise goals, objectives and strategies, there is an ill-defined scope of work; there is no schedule for completion and there is a confusing chain of command. However® he stated that it is imperative that the Council build a better working relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, the business community and each other and that the City get started with an economic development program. He urged the Council to endorse the program. Max Maxwell expressed support for the Economic Development Program. C/Papen suggested that staff be directed not to spend any more money or suspend further action in the field of development until the General Plan is adopted. ACM/Usher pointed out that it is not possible to adopt a redevelopment project without a valid General Plan in place. He stated that it is not anticipated that any funds will be expended given the expected time frame for the General Plan process. M/Werner suggested that the adoption of the General Plan be placed first on the list under development. The Council voted upon the motion made by C/Ansari to approve the business retention, attraction & development program and provide conceptual approval and continued action regarding a business retention program. C/Ansari moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to approve the MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 12 Business Retention, Attraction & Development Program and provide conceptual approval and continued action regarding a business retention programa With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.4 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - CM/Belanger reported that the Council adopted the FY 1993-94 Budget on June 15, 1993 and approved Budget Amendment No. 1 on November 16, 1993, which adjusted the adopted expenditure projection from $8,579,000 to $8,810,000 million and the proposed revenue to $9,644,000 million. He stated that Budget Amendment No. 2 proposes an expenditure pattern of $101804,000, a significant difference in revenue projection over what was projected at the end of the fiscal year. He highlighted the following significant changes of the budgets a property tax allocation adjustment from the County resulting in additional property tax revenue for this fiscal year of approximately $927,000; a reimbursement of $503,000 from the County for the 60 freeway enhancement project; a transfer of funds from the reserve fund of the General fund of approximately 333,000 to fund extraordinary expenses as indicated in the staff report, a salary and benefit increase of 3.5% for City employees; the reclassification of three positions; the creation of a Community Relations Coordinator to provide a variety of services currently done by consultants; funds for programs to complete the air quality element; the creation of a subsidy program using Prop A funds subsidizing passes for transit and rail services to the general public and students, seniors and the handicapped; a restructure of the revenue and expenditures in the Integrated Waste Management Fund reducing the allocation of the Asst. City Manager's time and additionally, implementation measures for the next fiscal year for SRRE programs. He recommended that the Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the FY 1993-94 Municipal Budget. C/Papen moved to approve Amendment No. 2 to the FY 1993-94 Municipal Budget, except for the personnel recommendation regarding the 3.5% salary and benefit increase. She pointed out that approval of the 3.5% salary and benefit increase means that the City has given a 12% increase in salary and benefits in a three-year time period, which is inappropriate considering current economic MARCH 23, 1994 conditions. PAGE 13 C/Ansari suggested that discussion on the salary and benefit increase be held over to the next meeting .because she did not receive all the appropriate information. C/Papen's motion died for lack of a second. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve Amendment No. 2 to the FY 1993-94 Municipal Budget, except for the personnel recommendation regarding the 3.5% salary and benefit increase pending further review and recommendation by the Finance Committee and/or Personnel Committee. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES., COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONT'D.): Max Maxwell suggested that the issue regarding the DBA and the two Council Members be made public and clarified appropriately. Special Counsel, Leonard Hemple, of Rutan and Tucker, representing the City in the DBA lawsuit, advised that settlement discussions should be conducted in Closed Session, and that it would not be advisable for the City to waive the attorney/client privilege until there is a settlement that can be presented to the public. He explained that waiving the attorney/client privilege and disclosing negotiation discussions before there is an agreement retards the agreement from making progress and puts the City at a disadvantage in terms of negotiating. M/Werner inquired if the Council would be entering into Closed Session with the opposing party. Mr. Hemple stated that the Council will not be entering into Closed Session with OBA. He explained that it is unusual for both parties to enter into Closed Session, and once the opposing counsel is invited into Closed Session, there is no longer an attorney/client privilege. MPT/Harmony stated that there is a need to get to a point where both parties are talking because there appears to be a misfiring of communication in this case. He expressed concern that the issue is becoming politicized. Mr. Hemple stated that he has never commented to the press or to anyone else regarding this case. He indicated that there has not been any difficulty between him and Mr. O'Neil, the opposing attorney, in MARCH 23, 1994 PAGE 14 communicating though they have had difficulty sometimes in reaching an agreement; however, progress has been made which will be disclosed in Closed Session. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS: MPT/Harmony expressed his objection to convening to Closed Session. C/Papen stated that she requested Council Comments prior to adjournments She expressed concern that the School District may lose $8 million in matching funds for the South Pointe Middle School unless the City takes action allowing them to move the dirt by April 20, 1994. She suggested that staff be directed to renotice the public hearing on the South Pointe Master Plan to discuss the issue on moving the dirt. ISI/Werner pointed out that the motion to open Council Comments failed 2-2; however, C/Papen's announcement is so noted. 8. CLOSED SESSION: Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9 - Diamond Bar Associates vs. City. M/Cerner adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 10.46 p.m. M/Werner reconvened the meeting from Closed Session at 11. 15 p. in. ICA/Montgomery reported that the Council approved 3-0 the final proposal submitted by DBA for reconsideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. MPT/Harmony requested that the City Clerk make paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement, as read by Mr. Hemple, available to the public tomorrow. Council concurred. C/Ansari stated that the settlement to reconsider Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was done in the best interest of the community to end the $123 million lawsuit against the City. She also wanted it stated that she and MFT/Harmony were not part of the Council when the suit was filed. Dennis O'Neil, attorney representing DBA, indicated his concurrence with the revisions of paragraph two as read by Mr. Hemple. He expressed appreciation for the cooperation received from Mr. Hemple and from TCCA/ Montgomery in the negotiations. M/Werner stated that, for the record, he and MPT/Harmony received campaign contributions from DBA. He requested clarification from the City Attorney and Special Counsel if those campaign contributions would in any way affect their ability to act on this settlement offer. MARCH 238 1994 PAGE 15 ICA/Montgomery stated that Special Counsel previously researched the matters prior to M/Werner's and MPT/Harmony's involvement in the settlement discussions. He stated that he concurs with the conclusion that the contributions made do not affect M/Werner's and MPT/Harmony's ability to act on this settlement offer. Mr. Hemple confirmed that no commitments were made in terms of receiving those contributions that had anything to do with the litigation or lawsuit. M/Werner stated that, while he has had several conversations with members of DBA, he has not had any meeting with them in which they had negotiated any aspect or discussed any aspect that would lead toward settlement. 8. ADJOURNMENT. With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m. 4LYDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: