Response to the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury Report*

R1

- The City of Patterson needs to consistently follow the Brown Act in order to ensure transparency to the public and remain compliant with the law. RECEIVED ruad by.<br>g. Silviere SEP 1 5 2015 <b>Civil Grand Jury</b> The Honorable Marie Sovey Silveira September 14, 2015 C. Response to Finding. The City disagrees wholly with this finding. The City consistently follows the Brown Act and therefore was not in violation thereof. The City Council of the City of Patterson (the "City Council") substantially complied with all requirements for property negotiations under the Brown Act. A legislative body may meet in closed session with its negotiator to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency (Ca Gov't Code § 54956.8). Prior to the closed session, or on the agenda, the legislative body must identify its negotiator, the real property that the negotiations may concern and the names of the persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate (Ca Gov't Code § 54956.8). For the May 1, 2012 Regular meeting, the City Council provided notice of the closed session discussion of property purchase negotiations for the 21/25 S. Del Puerto Avenue property owned by John Ramos, and that the previous City Manager would be the negotiator. This satisfied the Brown Act notice requirements. Further, Government Code section 54957.1 requires that after real estate negotiations are concluded, the approval and substance of the agreement must be reported. The reporting depends on when the actions is final, if the legislative body's own approval makes the agreement final, the body must report in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. (Id.) If final approval rests with another party, the local agency must report the approval as soon as informed of it. Once final, the substance of the agreement must be disclosed to anyone who inquires. (Id.) Here, it was not until the May 1, 2012 Meeting that the City Council took any final action. At that time, the City Council directed the City Manager to enter into the purchase and the action was then reported out of closed session. Even though entry into the purchase was authorized, the final purchase terms were still not complete until the negotiator entered and met again with the property owner. The City Council has substantially complied with all provisions of the Brown Act. Closed session topics were properly noticed prior to each meeting, they were properly announced to the public prior to adjourning the meeting to closed session, and the approval of all final action decided by the City Council was reported publicly after the session ended. The City Council does recognize that the specific vote of each member was not included in the minutes of the report from closed session. However, the report did state "the City Council gave direction to the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement to buy the properties (from John Ramos) for $650,000" (see City Council Regular Meeting May 1, 2012 Minutes at pg. 2.) which indicates that the City Council approved the direction by a majority vote. Following the closed session report, there was opportunity for public discussion items during open session. Additionally to this point, one resident did make a comment about the price of the property during the The Honorable Marie Sovey Silveira September 14, 2015 public comment period which shows that this was a valid opportunity to voice concerns. Thus, the City Council substantially complied with the Brown Act requirement to publicly report any closed session action and gave the public proper notice. D. Implementation of Recommendation. The City will continue to maintain compliance with the Brown Act. The City is committed to ensuring that all meetings are transparent for the public and that all meeting procedures comply with the law. II.

R2

- The City of Patterson needs to comply with applicable laws concerning the acquisition of property by a public entity, including but not limited to, the California Government Code and Public Resources Code. C. Response to Finding. The Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The City substantially complied with all laws and duties related to the acquisition of the 21/25 S. Del Puerto Avenue property. D. Implementation of Recommendation. The City will continue to comply with all applicable laws. V.

R4

- The City of Patterson needs to adopt and approve a written policy and check list for the acquisition of real property, assuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. C. Response to Finding. The Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The Grand Jury failed to do its own due diligence by citing a totally unsubstantiated and therefore, speculative figure. The City substantially complied with all laws and duties related to the acquisition of the 21/25 S. Del Puerto Avenue property. D. Implementation of Recommendation. As stated above, the City will review and evaluate its internal procedures and update them as necessary for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The City will then implement the policy for future property purchases. X.

R5

- The City of Patterson must cooperate with the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury and the Stanislaus County Superior Court in their lawful attempts to obtain public documents. C. Response to Finding. The Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The City substantially complied with all requests related to the acquisition of the 21/25 S. Del Puerto Avenue property. While there was never a written purchase agreement for the property, the City did properly carry out the purchase of the property. The City Council Agendas and documentation are provided to notify the public of City action and to keep residents . . The Honorable Marie Sovey Silveira September 14, 2015 apprised on real property negotiations as required under the Brown Act. The Agendas and documentation never stated, nor implied that there was a written purchase agreement other than what was included in the escrow instructions. Moreover, any discrepancy or confusion about the existence of a purchase agreement was unfortunately exacerbated by the departure of the City Manager who handled the majority of the negotiations to purchase the building. D. Implementation of Recommendation. The City is committed to assisting the Grand Jury with all information requests and will continue to be responsive in the future. XI.

R6

- None C. Response to Finding. The Respondent agrees with this finding. As stated to the Grand Jury on more than one occasion, the prior City Manager chose to have the terms of deal included in the escrow instructions rather than a separate purchase agreement. Ð. Implementation of Recommendation. None. Lastly, the City must point out that the Grand Jury violated state law by publically quoting "raw evidentiary materials" in its publication of this report in contravention to McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, 751 P.2d 1329 (1988). If you have any questions regarding the City's response or would like additional information, please contact me at tom@churchwellwhite.com. Sincerely Torn Hallinan Patterson City Attorney TH:kro cc: Ken Irwin, City Manager