Budgets, Bogus Surveys And More, Ahead

 TUESDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING COULD RUN LONG
OK, I apologize in advance for this long, long report.  Just grab a cup of coffee or a Diet Coke, take a deep breath and limber-up your fingers.  Here we go...  In what will be a very busy week for those of us who actually pay attention to municipal goings-on, the Costa Mesa City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 will be an appropriate kick-off.  The meeting, which begins at 5:45 p.m. following a closed session at 5:00 in which labor negotiations involving the Costa Mesa City Employee Association (CMCEA) will be discussed.  That's the group that recently approved a contract that basically took them back to the dark ages.  Because this is in a closed session we have no clue what this discussion is about.

FIRST A TCA REPORT
Anyhow, the regular meeting - the agenda is HERE - starts at 5:45 and has a presentation by the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) updating the San Joaquin Hills refinancing.  Then comes Public Comments and Council Member Comments and the CEO Report.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Next up is the Consent Calendar, where all nine (9) of the items are considered to be routine and can be voted on in one motion, without separate discussion.  However, if a council member, staff member or member of the public decides to "pull" one, it will be trailed to the very end of the meeting for discussion.  Well, there are a few items worth at least considering...

WARRANT 2531
As has been my practice in the past, I'm going to give you a few examples from Item #3, Warrant #2531, HERE.  You can plow through the entire warrant if you wish, but here are some interesting numbers that appear which just caught my eye:

• Civil Source - $88,765.00 - Staff support, Nov. and Dec. 2014
• Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau - $236,056.92 - BIA Receipts for Dec. 2014
• LSA Associates - $22,106.09 - Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Steadfast Contracting, Inc. - $29,809.58 - WiFi Installation Senior Center
• Accountemps - $1,210.80 - Temp Svcs - Budget, 1/26-1/30/15
• CSG Consultants, Inc. - $3,080.00 - Building plan Check, 11/29-12/26
• Employment Development Department - $6,683.00 - Unemployment, 10/1 -12/31/14
• Government Staffing Services, Inc $5,302.50 - Temp Svcs, Cont. Mgt and Eng
• Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. - $12,154.50 - Sr. Bldg Insp. Svcs. Dec. 14
• PSOMAS - $4,558.75 - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Safe Moves - $3,293.76 - Bicycle Education Services
• Urs Corporation - $7,305.50 - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Apple One Employment Services - $1,622.87 - Temp Svcs, Admin and Cntrl Svcs
• City of Huntington Beach - $20,440.00 - Helicopter Svcs, Dec. 2014 
• G4S Secure Solutions, Inc. - $60,283.74 - Jail Facilities Svcs. Dec. 2014
• Orange County Humane Society - $18,289.50 - Kennel Fees - 3 months
• Orange County Tax Collector - $44,248.50 - Prkg Cit Proc and OCSD/Comm
• Accounttemps - $1,210.80 - Temp Svs, Budget, 2/2-2/6/15
• Government Staffing Services, Inc. - $8,215.00 - Temp Svcs - Mgt Analys and Prog Mgr
• Tonys Locksmith & Safe - $11,625.56 - Wilson Park and Fairview Park Door Lock
• White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP - $1,000 - Final Audit Bill FY 13/14

OK, lots of temporary staff support again.  And, I'd sure like to know what kind of locks Tony put on the park restroom doors...

MINUTES
Item #5, approval of minutes from several meetings, HERE, is fascinating because the council is being asked to approve them minutes from, among others, a meeting on October 4, 2011!!  Really?  What giant crack did THAT one fall through?  Good grief!

ORANGE COUNTY MARATHON RESOLUTION
Item #8, HERE, is the resolution authorizing street closures for the 2015 Orange County Marathon on May 3, 2015.  This staff report contains eight (8) attachments, including route maps and major intersections affected.  Yep, we're going to pass this one without any conversation, even though it involves the deployment of roughly half of the CMPD and CMFD staff plus another 100 civilian and Explorers.  Yeah, nothing going on here.. no need to talk about it.

ARLINGTON DRIVE BIOSWALE PROJECT DELAY
The final item on the Consent Calendar, #9, HERE, is the request for authorization to request a 24-month time extension from the Orange County Transportation Authority for the Arlington Drive Bioswale and Dry Weather Diversion Project.  The City had secured a nearly $1.7 million grant last year and the deadline for the award of the construction contract is June 30, 2015.  While all the technical stuff has been done, no community meetings have been held yet.  According to the staff report, meetings are planned as follows: OC Fairgrounds Board in March; Newport Mesa Unified School District representatives in April; Mesa del Mar Neighborhood in May and the Parks and Recreation Commission in June.  The City is allowed a one-time delay request of up to 24 months.  Yep, nothing to talk about here, right?

CMPMA CONTRIBUTION EXTENSION
Public Hearing #1, HERE, is the COIN discussion of the Costa Mesa Police Management Association Side Letter.  Because negotiations are on-going, and terms of the side letter regarding employee contributions to PERS has expired, this is a request to extend the agreement for 26 more pay periods while negotiations continue.

MODIFYING THE SMALL LOT ORDINANCE
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is a change to the Small Lot Ordinance to clarify requirements for side yard setbacks and parking requirements.  Read the staff report and see if YOU can figure it out!

TWO MORE SENIOR COMMISSIONERS
Old Business #1, HERE, is the ordinance amending the number of members of the new Senior Commission from five (5) to seven (7).  Katrina Foley wanted the number expanded to nine (9) to provide broader community representation.  The council majority seemed uninterested in that number.  By the way, the first meeting of the Senior Commission will be held on March 10th at 9 a.m. at the Senior Center.

NEW FINANCIAL AND BUDGET POLICIES
New Business #1, HERE, is the adoption of Financial & Budget Policies.  You can read the "marked-up" version of the new policy HERE.

GENERAL FUND RESERVES STUDY
New Business #2 is the General Fund Reserves Study, HERE.   The staff recommendations are:
1 - Approve a recommended reserves goal of $63,671,535
2 - Approve a plan to add up to $2,000,000 per year to reserves until the City reaches the reserves goal of $63,671,535.

The staff report also includes some excellent charts showing Sales Tax, Property Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) volatility.  Click on the title of each to see those charts.

MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
New Business #3, HERE, is the Fiscal Year 2014-2105 Mid-Year Budget Report.  That staff report includes links to seven (7) attachments that support and further quantify the numbers used.  One of the most interesting is #6, HERE, which is titled "2014-15 Allocation of General Fund Contingency Account as of 01-27-15".  This is an accounting of how CEO Tom Hatch's slush fund bestowed upon him by the council majority several years ago is being spent.  As you scroll down through those numbers you'll find some interesting entries.  Like, for example printing costs for the bogus Charter scheme.  At the Study Session when this subject was discussed, Foley wondered if the proponents of that ill-advises scheme might hold a fund-raiser to reimburse the City for those costs.  I think she asked that tongue-in-cheek, but it's a good question.  I've never been comfortable with Hatch - or any City Manager - having such a large pot of cash to play with as he chooses - or as he's directed to do by the guys who hold his job in their hands.  Just take a look at those entries and ask yourself, "What did law firm Best Best & Krieger do for that $25,000?"  "Why wasn't that $25,000 for city-wide chair replacement included in department budgets?"  And what the heck is "Council support for after election initiatives, photos, conferences, Ipad, etc." for $10,000?  I'm not too concerned about Hatch misusing municipal funds, but I AM concerned about him being TOLD to spend city cash on things without any kind of open discussion or specific council approval or at least awareness.

STEVE'S BOGUS SURVEY SCHEME
Finally, at the tail-end of the meeting, when all but the most dedicated, concerned residents will have long-since departed to their warm beds and late night television comes the final item on the agenda, New Business #4, HERE.  This is titled "Fairview Park Use Survey" and is Rookie Mayor Steve Mensinger's last gasp at trying to get some kind of a community consensus to plow under parts of Fairview Park to add playing fields - even though his head will explode as he denies it.  It's been clear as he sat as the liaison for the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPCAC) for most of the meetings over the past 20 months that he was NOT happy with the clear opposition expressed by the vast majority of folks who took the time out of their own busy lives to address park uses at those meetings.  Upwards of 90% of the speakers over all those months basically said, "No Way!" to playing fields ANYWHERE in the park.  That included Chairman Dr. Richard Mehren, who finally resigned in disgust at the last meeting.

STALLING THE FPCAC
Now, Mensinger proposes a tactic that will almost certainly take many more months to complete, while the FPCAC cools it's heels because their meeting next week cancelled so certain elected politicians can attend a community meeting on rehab homes scheduled at the same time.  The next FPCAC meeting will be in April - if then at all - even though the staff reports are ready to go for next week.

ANOTHER COMMITTEE!
Back to Mensinger's pipe dream - "The Survey".  The staff report outlines how it would work and, guess what?  It involves forming yet another "Committee"!  Yep, the "Consultant Selection Committee"!  That's right, folks - another committee, which will almost certainly be stacked with cronies - history shows us that's their tactic.  And, mark my words, it's a waste of time, because the consultant selected to do the survey is very likely to be Adam Probolsky, an OC GOP insider and go-to guy when you want a survey that gives you the answers you're looking for.  No, I'm not saying old Adam would ever rig the numbers, but he has a very special way of framing the questions.  You know, some of those "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" kind of questions.

WE CAN COUNT TO 3
I think there is ZERO chance the council will reject Mensinger's survey scheme - he already has the votes, because Councilman Gary Monahan - who seems to have basically just checked out these days - has told us flat out from the dais that he thinks the mayor should be able to do whatever he wants to do.  That doesn't mean, however, that concerned residents shouldn't step up and speak up late next Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning.

HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?  YOU GUESSED IT!
Oh, yes... in case you're wondering how we will pay for this bogus survey, the staff report tells us it will come from the Contingency Fund - Hatch's slush fund!  Yep, he still has more than $370,000 to play with between now and the end of the fiscal year!  Good Grief!

GONNA BE A LONG ONE
See you next Tuesday night... bring a pillow..

Costa Mesa Sanitary District Survey Released

INTERESTING TIMING
In an interesting bit if timing considering all the controversy swirling around the decision by four Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to oust Director Jim Fitzpatrick, on Friday, May 18, 2012, a survey prepared for the Sanitary District by Probolsky Research was released.  The title is "Costa Mesa Sanitary District Community Survey".  You can read the entire survey HERE.

ABOUT THE SURVEYOR
The owner of Probolsky Research, Adam Probolsky, is a long-time, well-connected and influential  member of the Orange County Republican Party hierarchy.  You can read a little biographical summary on him HERE.  Here's an extract from that summary that you may find of interest: 

"Mr. Probolsky is a member of the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Orange County and the California Republican Party’s Initiatives Committee."

 IT IS WHAT IT IS
I'm not going to try to influence your opinion on this survey - it is what it is, typos and all.  It's been my observation of surveys Probolsky has done in that past is that they end up giving their client what they are looking for.  That seems to be the case here, too.  That's not necessarily wrong, just my observation.

BE CAREFUL ABOUT THESE NUMBERS
For example, on page 5 you will find the chart shown below. (click on image to enlarge it)  The ratios shown are a result of this question:   Do you think that (the City of Costa Mesa/the City of Newport Beach/Orange County) is on the right track or on the wrong track?  The surveyor presents this as indicating "A Plurality (45.8%) thinks their community is on the right track".  However, 54.2% either answered "Wrong Track", were not sure or refused to answer.  I caution you to really think about the questions and the choices of answers provided.

 "CONCLUSIONS" START ON PAGE 49
I know most of the readers here like pretty pictures - only teasing - so you'll probably take the time to go through every single one of the 52 pages.  However, if you're looking for a shortcut to the results, just scroll down to page 49 where you will find the first of four pages of "conclusions".

I'D LIKE TO KNOW YOUR OPINION
If you do take the time to go over this survey I'd be interested in any observations you might have.  Enjoy...

Revenues & Probolsky's Poll

MORE FOLKS ATTENDED THIS YEAR
Unlike in past years, this session was held in council chambers to accommodate the growing number of residents and others actually interested in these proceedings. Last night slightly more than 50 people attended the meeting, of which about half were residents. That's a good sign. The remainder were staffers, journalists, union observers and security personnel. Also, the change in format which permitted public comments after each segment made for a much more useful and informative agenda. The comments made by residents were, for the most part, respectful and thoughtful. The responses from the council and staff were generally helpful and informative.

BEVER A NO-SHOW - AGAIN
One person who DID NOT show up was part-time, part-time council member Eric Bever, who was absent again from the second consecutive meeting. Once again, nobody missed him except, perhaps, stand-in City Attorney Harold Potter, who was left dangling out there on the end of the dais by himself all night.

MONAHAN STIFF-ARMS MENSINGER
I was impressed when Mayor Gary Monahan rebuffed councilman Steve Mensinger's overture to move the presentation by pollster Adam Probolsky forward on the agenda. (Apparently Mensinger invited Probolsky to make the presentation) Monahan, appropriately, stiff-armed that suggestion, much to Mensinger's chagrin. Monahan left at 6:15 p.m., so Mensinger apologized to Probolsky when he finally had a chance to make his presentation just after 7:00 p.m.. One could only assume that he thought he could convince Monahan that Probolsky's time was more important than that of those actual residents who came to hear the budget discussions. He couldn't, because it's not. Sometimes Monahan actually does the right thing.

JUDI FINDS AN ERROR - AS USUAL
Long-time budget watchdog and community activist Judi Berry - as some of us anticipated - had gone over the entire preliminary budget document with a fine-tooth comb and popped up to ask about an error in the document. To his credit, Budget and Research Officer Bobby Young acknowledged the error and had corrected pages ready and waiting.

SALES TAX CONSULTANT WAS EXCELLENT
As in years past, the presentation by Lloyd deLlamas of The HdL Companies, Sales Tax consultants who have supported Costa Mesa and many other entities over the years, was fascinating. His mixture of facts and opinion based on decades of experience provided a clear understanding to the audience of the Sales Tax issue in general and Costa Mesa's situation specifically. Our city, apparently, is an aberration to the norm, since our funding is heavily tilted toward Sales Tax and those dollars are primarily generated by what he referred to as consumer goods and "luxury purchases" - high-end items that tend to rebound more quickly from an economic downturn like we've been experiencing for the past couple years. You can view their PowerPoint presentation HERE.

REVENUE INFORMATION
Young's presentation last night dealt with the Revenue side of the budget - the Expenditure side will be covered next Tuesday - and provided excellent information to the council and audience. His charts and graphs showed us clearly where we stand today, the trends in our revenue streams and comparisons to surrounding cities to provide perspective. He told us, for example, that 91% of all revenues comes to the City through the General Fund; that 78% of all General Fund revenue comes from taxes and franchise fees and that, unlike other cities, Costa Mesa is more heavily weighted to Sales Tax revenue - 44% of all General Fund revenue.

COMPARISONS
We learned that, while Sales Tax dollars represent 44% of the General Fund in Costa Mesa, that funding source represented only 34% in Irvine; 16% in Santa Ana; 17% in Newport Beach and 11% in Huntington Beach.

SALES TAXES REBOUNDING
We also leaned that Sales and Use Taxes dropped from a high of $46 million in FY06-07 to a low of $34.5 million in FY 09-10 and is on the rebound with $41.7 million projected for FY 11-12.

PROPERTY TAX FLAT
We learned that the less-volatile Property Tax revenue has remained fairly level, from a high of $21.3 million in FY 09-10, down to $20.1 in FY 10-11 and back up to a projected $20.9 in FY 11-12.

COMPARISONS
Property Tax revenue represents 22% of the General Fund in Costa Mesa, 48% in Newport Beach; 38% in Huntington Beach; 31% in Irvine and 14% in Santa Ana.

TOT INCREASE HELPED
The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which represents 8% of our General Fund, has benefited from the 2% increase approved by the voters last November. It has rebounded from a low of $4 million in adopted FY 10-11 budget back up to a projected $5.9 million projected for FY 11-12 thanks to a recovering economy and that voter-approved increase. It makes one consider the stubbornness of Monahan last fall, when he rejected the staff-recommended 3% increase and the additional million dollars it would have brought to our coffers.

BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
The lack of a reasonable Business License Fee structure was discussed, including our inability to do anything about it until the 2012 elections. Had a modest adjustment to our Business License Fee structure been proposed and approved by the voters last November we would have begun to see an increase in that revenue stream already - it has been stable at around $850,000 each year since the current structure was adopted in 1985! That's right - we've had NO change to our current Business License Fee structure for the past 26 years!

COMPARISONS ILLUSTRATE SHORT-SIGHTED MANAGEMENT
While Costa Mesa generates only $850,000 each year on Business Licenses, Santa Ana has $10 million, Huntington Beach $2.2 million and Newport Beach generates $3.9 million. When you consider that we have arguably the most successful retail center in the country - South Coast Plaza - it makes you realize what a short-sighted lost opportunity we have had. If an increase in this fee were to be approved by the voters in 2012 we won't receive any impact of it until 2013.

PROBOLSKY'S POLL
When we finally got around to the presentation by Probolsky we learned a few new things thanks to the excellent questions by some in attendance. We learned, for example, that "nobody" paid for this poll - it was done "pro bono" by Probolsky Research for the Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC) as an "in kind" contribution to their operations. Unfortunately, nobody asked the second part of that question - "Who asked for the survey to be done?" Since Probolsky is joined at the hip with many of the Orange County Republican movers and shakers - including Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer - one might speculate that one or more of those folks put the bug in his ear. I can almost hear Scott Baugh whispering in his ear.

SMALL SAMPLE SEEMS PROBLEMATIC
Several speakers took exception to the validity of a poll with such a small sample - 325 respondents in a pool of 3.2 million residents does seem a wee bit thin. Probolsky defended it, saying it was perfectly valid to measure the tendencies of Orange County residents, including all demographics. He did say the survey was conducted in English, though, so that certainly cut out a significant segment of the county population. In Costa Mesa it would have eliminated more than a third of the residents, for example.

"PUSH POLL" OR NOT?
Both Righeimer and Mensinger seemed extremely sensitive to the characterization by some (me) of this poll as a "push poll", so they asked Probolsky to address that issue. He, of course, denied that it was a "push poll", since it wasn't designed to influence public opinion during the process of conducting it. He cited, and Righeimer emphasized, that the small sample kept it from being a "push poll" - that thousands of individuals would have had to been polled. Of course, the way the questions were framed DID influence those taking the poll and the summary of the results touted that fact. I guess these guys really DO think the public is stupid - that we don't actually see through the facade and understand the intent of this poll.

READ THE POLL YOURSELF AND DECIDE
I encourage you to read the poll results yourself, HERE, concentrating on the actual questions as asked by the pollsters. Bring a magnifying glass because the type used for the questions at the bottom of each page on the report is teeny. Judge for yourself whether those questions were geared to influence the answers. I know what I think...

RIGHEIMER - "PENSIONS NOT PART OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSION"
Righeimer, during his council member comments segment, told us that "pensions were not part of the budget discussion tonight", and yet there stood Adam Probolsky - invited to be at the podium of a study session dedicated to the discussion of our municipal budget - with his poll that was clearly aimed at influencing public opinion toward major pension reform. Righeimer acknowledged that, because our association contracts last for the next 3 or 4 years, nothing can be done about Costa Mesa pensions now. As I've said before, his only choice then, is to dump the employees who would get the pensions. To my knowledge no representative of city management has asked the bargaining units to sit down and discuss concessions that might save jobs - yet. Instead, the draconian and mis-applied outsourcing stampede continues.

REALLY, JIM? C'MON!
During his comments Righeimer said we need to decide what pensions are supposed to be. He made a clever statement to the effect that we don't want to "kick them onto the streets" but do we "want to kick them to the beach?" - alluding to his opinion that the current pensions are much too rich and take effect too early. After this mini-rant, are we REALLY supposed to believe that "pensions are not part of the budget discussions tonight"? Clearly, that issue is in the forefront of his considerations as he hears and contemplates our current budget dilemma. Again, he apparently REALLY DOES think the residents of this city are stupid.

"LET'S HAVE COFFEE"
I was amused when, at the end of the meeting, Righeimer suggested that if people REALLY wanted to discuss issues they should call him and make an appointment to have a cup of coffee and discuss them instead of griping at the podium of public meetings. I chuckled out loud because that is SO typical of him and his pals - "let's discuss public issues in private"! Well, I can tell you from personal experience, "having coffee" with Righeimer doesn't resolve issues - unless you agree with him. So, good luck with that, folks. You'll end up with a half-caf decaf frappachino with an order of baloney on the side.

NEXT WEEK THE "FUN" PART - EXPENDITURES
Next Tuesday, the day following the Memorial Day holiday, the considerations of the Preliminary Budget will continue with the presentation of the "expenditure" side of the equation. This meeting - again at 4:30 in the council chambers - promises to be even more interesting because it will dig into just what parts of our budget will have to be cut to find that elusive $3.3 million necessary to balance it. Since much discussion took place about "rebuilding our reserves", don't be surprised that simply balancing the budget is enough for these guys. I expect that there will be strong support for building the reserves by ousting more staff members. See you there...

Push Pollin' With Adam...

STOP WORKING OF THE QUIZ NOW...
As mentioned in my last post, Tuesday the Costa Mesa City Council will begin their serious consideration of the 2011-2012 municipal budget. For those of you still working on my quiz, you can stop now and just go to City Hall at 4:30 or tune in to Costa Mesa TV and have much of the information explained to you.

ACC-OC PENSION REFORM POLL
The second item on the agenda is a brand new poll conducted for the Association of California Cities-Orange County, HERE, that recently gathered data in Orange County on the public's views on pension reform. You can read the PowerPoint presentation we will see tomorrow evening HERE.

TOO MANY POLLS LATELY
It seems Costa Mesa has been awash in polls lately - even my pal, Chuck Cassity at the Chuckmeister Unleashed blog chimed in with his views of push polling to which he had recently been exposed. This one, while not Costa Mesa-specific, certainly addresses one of the current hot button issue in our town.

THE POLLSTER
The polling organization, Probolsky Research, HERE, is operated by Adam Probolsky, a major player in Orange County Republican circles. I've read some of his work product in the past and found it interesting how the results were exactly what his clients were looking for. Funny how that happens, isn't it? Perhaps we'll get a clue if we read the final sentence on their "About" page, which says, "Principal, Adam D. Probolsky always works closely with our clients - on every project - to deliver the right results."

RIGHEIMER WAS A CLIENT
For example, on his web site you'll find an entry dated January 1, 2010, which recaps the performance of clients in recent elections. Near the bottom of that little essay is a paragraph which includes this segment... "And, while Jim Righeimer’s campaign for Costa Mesa City Council fell short of victory, his near-win as a first-time candidate demonstrates broad community support and all but assures his success in obtaining a council seat in 2010.”

TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT
I've read through the poll and if you do the same, including reading the teeny little print on the bottom of each slide in the PowerPoint presentation which gives you each question that was asked. For example, one question was: "When many local government employees retire they can receive nearly 100% of their salary in retirement benefits. Do you support or oppose pension reform for local government employees that would cap the amount of benefits they receive when they are no longer working?" It won't surprise you that 72.6% of the respondents said "Support". I suspect this information has some value if you take it with a grain of salt. Considering the way the questions were asked, this is a classic "push poll". Still, I'm a little leery about giving too much weight to a poll that sampled only 325 people in a county of more than 3 million. Heck, Adam Probolsky may have just meandered through his cell phone contacts list for folks to poll.

STRAPPIN' IN FOR THE PRESENTATION
Still, I'm looking forward to how this will be presented tomorrow. I'm going to look for a seat in the council chambers with a seat belt, because I have this feeling that there's going to be a whole lot of spinnin' going on. See you there...