D.A. Investigates Oxnard Council Session as Possible Illegal Meeting : Brown Act: The panel may have violated state statutes when it met behind closed doors to modify an agreement with a developer.

The Ventura County district attorney’s office is investigating whether the Oxnard City Council violated state open meeting laws when it met in closed session last month to modify a development agreement adopted in 1988.

Donald Coleman, special assistant district attorney, said Tuesday that he is reviewing city records to determine whether the council violated state law when it met behind closed doors to modify an agreement made with the IDM Corp. of Long Beach.

The development agreement to sell IDM a three-acre lot and permit the firm to build a 100-unit senior citizens apartment complex at Bard and Saviers roads was made in a public session in July, 1988.

Coleman said the council, however, might have violated a state open meeting law--the 1953 Ralph M. Brown Act--by modifying the development agreement in a closed session. If such a violation took place, Coleman said the council can resolve the matter by meeting in public session to announce the agreement made in closed session.

“Assuming a violation, it would be relatively easy to resolve the matter,” Coleman said, adding that city officials have been cooperative in providing him with information.

The Brown Act requires all government bodies to discuss and decide public matters before the public. It has several exceptions, however, including the discussion of personnel matters and litigation involving the city.

Oxnard City Atty. Gary Gillig said the council did not violate the law. He said he told the council that it could meet in closed session because the IDM development agreement had become a matter of potential litigation.

Gillig said he may consider advising the council to hold a public meeting on the matter if the district attorney determines that a violation took place.

Because of a “mutual mistake” in the development agreement, the city mistakenly undercharged the firm $246,297 in development fees, according to a city memo dated July 27.

The city had originally asked IDM for $225,253 in fees, said the memo from Acting City Manager John Tooker to the City Council. After a routine review of the agreement, city officials later determined that IDM should have been charged $471,550, Tooker said in an interview.

Tooker said the mistake was made when IDM officials miscalculated building dimensions that are used to calculate fees. He said the mistake was not identified until after the City Council approved a development agreement with IDM.

After the error was identified, Gillig said representatives of IDM refused to pay the additional $246,297 in fees. He said he then instructed the council to meet in a closed-door session two weeks ago to discuss how to resolve the matter.

The council decided to ask IDM to pay an additional $209,000 in fees and to forgo the remaining $37,297 to settle the matter, Gillig said.

The council also agreed in the private session to several modifications of the development agreement, including the removal of a provision that requires the firm to include trash compactors in the apartments, according to Tooker’s memo.

The council also voted to secure bond financing for the project with the provision that IDM include in the apartment complex 20 low-income units for residents age 55 years and older, the memo said.

The memo also said the modification agreement allows IDM to substitute 26 of the 100 garages in the project for carports, which are generally less expensive than garages.

Gillig said IDM has approved the modification agreement.

The council had voted in July, 1988, to sell IDM a three-acre lot for $950,000. IDM had agreed to build 88 one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units.

City Councilman Manuel Lopez said he was not aware of the district attorney’s investigation but does not believe that the council violated the Brown Act. He said the closed session was necessary so IDM officials could not determine how much the city was willing to charge IDM to settle the matter.

“I mean, we are not playing open hand poker here,” he said.

This is not the first time the Oxnard City Council has been suspected of violating the Brown Act.

Last month, a Ventura County grand jury report said the council violated the Brown Act by holding five or six private meetings in September and October, 1989. The grand jury, however, decided not to indict the council members because it said there was insufficient evidence to find that the council was aware of a violation.

The report said the council violated the open meeting law when it met in closed sessions purportedly to discuss personnel matters. Instead, the council discussed and took action on a budget-reduction package, the report said.

Gillig later denied that the private sessions were violations of the Brown Act, saying he simply interprets the law differently than the district attorney’s office.

Coleman has said his office has documented at least three other occasions since 1988 when the Oxnard City Council has allegedly violated the law by meeting in closed sessions.

“We’ve had more investigations concerning the Brown Act in Oxnard than any other agency in the county in the last five years,” he said.