Agency Rules Against Relocation Fees Claim : Burbank: An official says an apartment resident seeking $25,000 was not displaced by redevelopment.

The head of the Burbank Redevelopment Agency has ruled against a longtime Burbank resident who alleges that the city owes him $25,000 in relocation fees.

Jules Kimmett, 73, does not qualify as a “displaced person” and is not eligible to receive relocation fees from the city, said Robert M. Tague, assistant executive director of the agency.

“The record clearly shows that you were displaced by the actions of your landlord, and not the actions of the Agency,” Tague wrote in a letter to Kimmett.

A gadfly who has attended City Council meetings for more than 18 years--often badgering the council with accusations and caustic comments--Kimmett said he is not surprised by the city’s action and has vowed to continue to press his claim.

“It’s the usual deal: covering up,” Kimmett said. “If I was going to build the A-bomb, I’d build it in Burbank. You talk about kept secrets.”

Kimmett’s claim stems from the city’s purchase of property at 1106-1130 W. Olive Ave., which once had an apartment where Kimmett had lived for 24 years.

At a 1990 hearing, Kimmett argued that he was being evicted because the city--which had long been interested in the property--was finally purchasing the building from the owner.

The owner denied that claim and testified that he planned to restore and re-rent the apartment and cottages on the property. The hearing officer found that Kimmett had no evidence to back up his allegations and ruled against him.

But eventually the city did purchase the property and is now constructing a senior citizens complex.

At a hearing with Tague and other officials last month, Kimmett and his supporters argued that city officials failed to inform residents of their right to relocation funds and neglected to provide Kimmett with information needed to demonstrate that his eviction was related to the city’s interest in the property.

Back in 1990, Kimmett was not allowed to file an appeal with the agency because he did not fit the criteria for a displaced person, Tague said.

His case has been the impetus for the agency to expand and clarify its appeals process so that even individuals who the city determines are not displaced can have their appeals heard, Tague said.

“There should have been a clear process,” Tague said. “The agency did not have that clear process at that time and we are now developing that.”

Kimmett said he will ask that his case be heard by the Relocation Appeals Board, the next step in the appeals process.