Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Yucaipa council for settlement talks, recusal transparency and answers about Coyman property loan
Summary
Public commenters urged the council to explore settlement in two development lawsuits, asked for clearer explanations of recusal decisions, and raised concerns that the city over-lent on the Coyman property appraisal, potentially costing taxpayers.
Several Yucaipa residents used the public-comment period on June 22 to press the City Council for more transparency on litigation and land‑use decisions, and to question past appraisals and lending tied to the Coyman property.
Kathy Sellers, speaking as a District 1 resident, urged the council to pursue settlement discussions in the Serrano Estates and Wine Country specific-plan lawsuits, arguing prolonged litigation drains taxpayer resources and divides the community. Sellers also asked the council to explain apparent differences in legal advice about recusals, saying residents had seen one councilmember permitted to participate in a specific-plan decision while another was advised to recuse on a related project. “Residents deserve a clear public explanation of the distinctions between the two situations,” she said.
The city attorney responded during the meeting that the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) had reviewed recusal guidance and provided an opinion. City staff offered to prepare a short explainer for the public clarifying the legal analysis and how the FPPC recommendations were applied to the councilmembers in question.
Another resident, Ed Timmons, raised a separate financial concern about the Coyman property, an 80‑acre parcel that the city previously lent on. He said the appraisal used to justify lending treated the parcel as though it had a “superior level of utilities” and assumed about $1.5 million of utility improvements, a figure he called far too low and said the actual cost of bringing the land to that level was likely several times higher; he described the loan as having gone into default and urged the council to investigate the appraisal and lending decisions.
Both comments prompted requests from councilmembers for staff follow‑up. The city attorney and city manager said the matters raised would be clarified in staff briefings or future communications where appropriate; no formal council action was taken on either the request to pursue settlement or the appraisal inquiry during the meeting.
