Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRodgers Seniors Center - Capital ImprovementsAle CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mayor & Members of the From Gail Hutton City Council City Attorney Subject Senior Citizens Center Expansion Date September 14, 1990 As a postscript to our opinion dated September 12, 1990, please note that it would appear that, even if a contract to expand the Senior Center is not approved by the city before the "Save Our Parks" measure passes, the "existing service" exception would appear to permit the proposed expansion. We did not address this issue because it was not applicable to the question previously posed, namely what would be the effect if a contract to expand the Senior Center was entered into Prior to passage of the Save Our Parks amendment. We now address the flip side of the issue: what if no contract is entered into prior to enactment of the measure? The charter measure excepts agreements which would not increase the amount of parkland used by the party providing the existing service. We have been apprised that the Senior Center now occupies the site of the proposed expansion. The land use would not be increased or diminished by the building expansion. Arguably, the existing service exception would apply to a proposed contract which would not increase the amount of parkland used by the service. Also, the preamble of the Charter Amendment states that it applies to public vote requirement to "any major development or land disposition." A contrary position, which we think is less persuasive, would strictly construe the exception so that it only applies to contracts to perform an act or provide a service, but does not apply to the express restriction against building permanent structures on parkland that are over 3,000 square feet or cost more than $100,000. We prefer an interpretation which implements our understanding of.the intent of the measure, but point out that the ambiguities of the proposed amendment expose it to different outcomes. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that an expansion within the lands now used by the Senior Center, even if costing more than $100,000, would fall within the existing service exception. Gail Hutton City Attorney GH/RCS/clh WPSG45 J -i m' CITY OF HumnpmTON BEACH 1-7 INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �S, O HUNTINGTON BEACH �� •�C/i� . 1..� To Honorable Mayor and Members From Gail Hutton of the City Council City Attorney Subject Senior Citizen Center ContractDate September 12, 1990 AGENDA ITEM_ % September 17, 1990 City Council Meeting ISSUE: The Council, through Councilwoman Winchell, has posed a question as to the legal effect of enactment of the "Save our Parks" initiative upon a contract to improve the Rogers Senior Center. CONCLUSION• In our opinion, the initiative measure would not preclude building an addition to the Senior Center if the contract was entered into prior to the passage of the initiative. ANALYSIS A portion of the "Save our Parks" initiative provides that no building over 3,000 square feet in floor area or structure costing more than $100,000 may be built in a city park or beach without a vote of the people. This measure will be submitted to the voters in November. The proposed addition to the Senior Center is 2,600 square feet and will cost $150,000. By reason of the cost, it would be subject to the initiative. There are exceptions to the initiative for libraries, piers, and some services, but they are not applicable. The focus of the initiative is that qualifying buildings or structures may not be "built" without an election. The issue is whether this prohibition applies to a contract entered into prior to passage of the measure. The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, and the California Constitution, Article I, Section 16, preclude passing laws which impair the obligations of contracts. The Charter itself may, of course, be amended. It is not a contract, but a delegation of power by the State. The question is whether such an amendment would limit a valid, existing contract to build. Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council September 12, 1990 Page 2 We have not found any cases precisely on point. There are situations where contracts have been validly impaired under the police power, considering the nature, importance and urgency of the interest to be served by the challenged legislation, and whether the legislation was appropriately tailored and limited to the situation necessitating its enactment. (Donlan v. Weaver (1981) 118 C.A. 3d 675, 173 Cal.Rptr. 566) An example is Depression legislation imposing moratoria on foreclosures and sales and extending redemption periods. But the initiative measure does not by its own terms purport to have retrospective effect on existing contracts, nor does it appear to be tailored towards limiting expansion of existing buildings or structures. A municipal corporation is bound by its own contracts; thus, contracts between a municipality and another party are protected against impairment. (McQullin, Municipal Corporations, Section 19.39) While the initiative has the laudable public purpose of preserving parklands, it would not seem to meet the urgency or importance tests were it to be applied to a contract to expand the existing Senior Citizens Center, particularly where the only trigger of voter approval would be the cost. The square footage of the addition is within the 3,000 square feet of allowable building. Thus, if the city enters into a valid, legally enforceable contract to build a 2,600 square foot addition to the Senior Center, subsequent enactment of the "Save our Parks" measure would not preclude building the structure pursuant to the contract. Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Michael Urberuga, City Administrator Jim Engle, Acting Dir. of Community Services Robert Sangster, Deputy City Attorney