Fun With Finance

IT'S BEEN AWHILE...
For the first time in many months I attended the meeting of the Costa Mesa Finance Advisory Committee this afternoon at City Hall.  Most of the members were in attendance.  Only Chairman Shawn Dewane and Steve Mensinger were absent.

ME PLUS THREE
I attended because the items on the agenda, HERE, were interesting.  There was plenty of room in Conference Room 1A - only four residents attended this meeting.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Gary Armstrong, Director of Development Services/Economic Development and Deputy CEO, provided a briefing for the committee covering the current state of affairs in Economic Development in Costa Mesa.  Basically, there isn't much going on, although there was a lively discussion for 45 minutes on the subject and Armstrong provided several very useful handouts to the committee.

SALES TAX

It was generally agreed that having so many of our financial eggs in one basket - South Coast Plaza - isn't a good idea for the long-term financial future of the city.  Presently, sales tax revenue represents about 50% of our revenue and South Coast Plaza is a huge chunk of that.  If we lost that revenue Costa Mesa would go back to being known as Goat Hill.  During the conversation CEO Tom Hatch responded to a question by stating that he'd prefer to see Sales Tax represent only 25% of revenue because it's a volatile revenue source.

DOING NOTHING
Committee members asked Armstrong and Hatch what kind of plans the city has for broadening our economic foundation - what are we doing to attract new businesses and what kind of businesses are we targeting.  The answer, stated a couple times, was that we're basically doing nothing because we don't have staff to put on the project.

FEW BIG DEVELOPMENT SITES
Armstrong mentioned that we have very few big parcels available for development in the city - Segerstroms Home Ranch site and the Sakioka Farms site are the only two mentioned.  Those seem earmarked for high density residential development - not exactly what the committee was hoping to hear.  He also mentioned the 240 apartment development approved by the Planning Commission last night, which doesn't do anything to improve the renters/owners ratio in the city, which is about 60/40%.

HOUSING COSTS
A discussion was held about the cost of housing in Costa Mesa and how it affects the ability to attract young families.  Armstrong indicated that Eastside housing sales have now reached the $1.7 million level.  That would be the house across the street from me, in a neighborhood where there are currently three homes on the market over $1.4 million. The house across the street from me sold for $1.4 million last year and the new owner tore it down and has begun building a new home on the site.  One member postulated that there will NEVER be affordable housing in the city.

HIGH-TECH DEMANDS INCENTIVES
Others speculated about attracting high tech and the bio-tech businesses that help keep Silicon Valley so stable.  Armstrong and Hatch concurred that those kind of businesses typically demand some very serious financial incentives and that Costa Mesa has historically not been interested in doing business that way.

YEP...
It was generally agreed that more needs to be done to spur economic development in the City.  Armstrong defined the administrative process for new businesses and provided several handouts used to attract them.  Committee members opined that more should be done to retain existing businesses.

ETHICS POLICY
Then the conversation turned to the discussion of the Ethics Policy, presented by new Assistant CEO Tammy Letourneau.  She presented a Draft of a proposed policy for the committee to review and offer comments.  I won't try to present the entire document here, but I will give you a flavor for it by providing the segment titles.  I'll give you the entire preamble, though.  It reads thus:

The residents and businesses in the City of Costa Mesa are entitled to have a fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity.  The proper operation of democratic government requires that decision-makers be independent, impartial and accountable to the people they serve.

The City of Costa Mesa has adopted this Ethics Policy to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government.  All elected and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the City's government are required to adhere to this policy, understand how it applies to their specific responsibilities, and practice these values in their work.  Because we seek public confidence in the City's services and public trust of its decision-makers, our decisions and our work must meet the highest ethical standards and demonstrate the highest levels of achievement.

READ THEM...
The eight segment titles of the Ethics Policy are:

1. Act in the Public Interest
2. Respect for Government Structure and Process
3. Conduct
4. Comply with the Law
5. Conflict of Interest
6. Use of Public Resources
7. Confidentiality
8. Development Projects
9. Gifts and Favors
10. Positive Workplace Environment
11. Compliance and Enforcement

STIFLE!
OK, no guffawing out there!  I'm sure a few of you either raised your eyebrows as you read through that list, or flat out laughed.  Many of us have observed actions by elected officials over the past couple of years that seem not to pass muster based on these titles.

EVERY TWO YEARS...
According to Letourneau and Hatch, this is nothing new.  Every two years the City Attorney holds a workshop for all elected and appointed officials plus City department managers to refresh their memories on this policy and EVERY city employee must read and sign it when they are hired.  Letourneau, in response to a question, said that even if an employee doesn't sign it, he is still responsible for knowing and following this policy - it's part of the new-hire orientation packet.

NO DRAFT AVAILABLE ONLINE
I looked for a draft of this policy on the City website, but am unable to locate one.  I'm sure it will become part of the official record as the staff presents it to the City Council for adoption.

ONLINE BUSINESS LICENSES
During a discussion of Future Agenda items Assistant Finance Director Colleen O'Donohue discussed the recent implementation of an online Business License Renewal system and told the committee that on April 21st they will launch a New Business License online program.  The online renewal program is working fine.  The discussion also revolved around finally determining just how many businesses in the city are NOT paying their fees.  Apparently that will take coordination with a county and/or state database, which is not yet set up. 

REPLACING DAVID STILLER
The meeting was adjourned around 5:30 in memory of my friend, David Stiller, who was a member of this committee and the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee.  Today the City sent out a reminder that applications to fill Stiller's positions on both these committees are due no later than Monday, March 31, 2014.  You can read the details HERE.

Leece Vs. Mensinger On Business License Fees

IN CASE YOU MISSED THEM...
For those of you who do not subscribe to the Orange County Register, last Wednesday, June 5th, two commentaries by Costa Mesa council members appeared side-by-side on page 6 in The Current, the Register's Costa Mesa/Newport Beach supplement that appears Monday through Friday.  If you missed it and DO subscribe to The Register, it is still available in the online archives of The Current.

RAISING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES, OR NOT?
Under the headline, "Keeping Costa Mesa Out of the Red", commentaries by councilwoman Wendy Leece and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger presented their views on the issue of possibly increasing the Business License Fees in response to a much-needed revenue source as the City faces a $12 million budget deficit - which will be discussed in the Study Session this afternoon beginning at 4:30 p.m. in City Council chambers.  You can also view it live on CMTV.

QUOTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
I cannot provide you with what Leece and Mensinger wrote word-for-word without violating The Register's copyright, but I will give you a few comments and my opinion of the issue.

A GOOD QUESTION
Leece begins her commentary with this  question, "Which should be more binding, a pledge given in a campaign or the duty to serve Costa Mesa and make the best decision considering all the facts?"  She then goes on to explain that, in her view, the City Council should ask the Finance Advisory Committee to study the current Business License Fee structure and recommend alternatives that might generate new revenue for the city.  She explained, as many of us already know, that the Business License Fee structure in Costa Mesa has not changed since 1961.

ANTICIPATING REJECTION...
Anticipating the council majority rejecting her suggestion, she wonders, "Why wouldn't the council majority want to have the committee analyze this?  Or have they already decided they know what is best without looking at all the facts?"  She then ends by saying, "Reminds me of the saying, 'I've made up my mind, don't confuse with the facts.'"

*****

In fact, this item was considered as part of the Consent Calendar at the meeting on Tuesday, June 4th 2013.  The staff report on that item is HERE.  Leece "pulled" it for separate discussion and, as she tried to give her reasons for doing so Mayor Jim Righeimer attempted to quash her comments, stating that this was, "just a simple Consent Calendar item that only requires a yes or no vote."  Of course, he was way, way out of line by doing that.  He did allow public comments and Mensinger to comment and the item was passed on a 4-0 vote, with councilman Gary Monahan voting NO.  So, the Finance Advisory Committee WILL study this issue and report back to the council at some date in the future.

*****

STEVE'S OPENING STATEMENT
In his adjacent commentary Mensinger began with this observation, "As Calvin Coolidge once said, 'Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.'"  He then asks, "So what is necessary?"

SAY AGAIN?
His next statement is bizarre, so I'll include it verbatim.  He says, "The purpose of a business license is to determine whether a business is operating within the applicable federal, state and local laws.  It ascertains that businesses maintain a safe environment for the general public.  It also ensures the location is properly zoned for the activity to be conducted."  Actually, the purpose of the Business License Tax - that's what it is, a tax - is to generate revenue for the City, some of which MAY be used to regulate the businesses through fire, police, code enforcement and monitoring of use permits and the like.  The rest goes into the General Fund to provide for public safety and pave streets.

..I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU
Mensinger, condescendingly uses the term "the usual suspects" when he implies that advocates of an increase in the Business License Fee are doing so "to pay for ever-increasing public pension costs".  Once again, he demonstrates the disdain he holds for the many residents who study the issues and take the time out of their busy lives to step up and speak to the council on them.  It's clear that he thinks he knows what's good for us, and we shouldn't dare to challenge his views.

COLLECT WHAT IS OWED
He goes on to say that, before hiking fees, "we first should make sure that the current system works and that each Costa Mesa business has a license."  I fully agree with him on that issue.  Until the  City recently purchased software to aid in the analysis, there was virtually NO attempt to insure that (1) all businesses in the city are licensed and, (2) those that are licensed are paying proper fees.  Mensinger mentions the purchase of that software in his piece.  Our municipal code provides for penalties for unpaid taxes, so tracking down and billing scofflaws could result in a one-time revenue jump.

DOESN'T CHANGE THE NEED
That, however, does NOT mean the Finance Advisory Committee shouldn't proceed with their assignment and do an analysis of our current structure and make recommendations to the City Council on whether they feel adjustments are in order, and how those adjustments should be made.

OK, STEVE, BUT...
Mensinger closed his piece by stating, "We can all agree that Costa Mesa is a great place to do business. Let's keep it that way.", assuming a modest Business License Fee would change that perspective.  During her presentation Tuesday night Leece read, in part, a letter from Ed Fawcett, Director of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, that suggested we, in fact, should study the issue before placing it on the ballot.  Apparently Fawcett isn't too worried about the results of a study.

JEFF HARLAN'S VIEW
Daily Pilot columnist Jeffrey Harlan recently wrote a commentary that discussed this issue, HERE.  He addressed these two commentaries from his perspective as a Costa Mesa resident and professional land planner.  I think you'll find his observations interesting.

STAKE IN THE HEART LAST YEAR
Last year, when the issue of increasing the Business License Fees came up, the staff presented the council with some options to consider, one of which spoke of a highest fee of $10,000!  That single comment, in my humble opinion as an observer of these meetings, drove a stake in the heart in the effort to consider alternatives to our current structure.  That number was pulled out of the air as an example, but the results were catastrophic.

DO THEIR HOMEWORK
I hope the members of the Finance Advisory Committee will do their homework and actually study this issue as directed by the council.  I'm sure they won't come up with anything quite as draconian as that "$10,000" number.

EVERYBODY PAYS
In my opinion, anyone who holds a business license in Costa Mesa should be required to pay at least a minimal fee, whether they have income or not.  It costs the city money to process the applications for renewal and those costs should be covered 100% by the fee.  That might mean a minimum fee of $25.00 - $50.00.  The committee can evaluate that.

QUADRUPLE IT!
Then, they could simply recommend quadrupling the remaining fee structure, with a maximum fee of $800, up from $200.  These fees have remained stagnant for more than a half-century and I doubt if those in the highest brackets - the Nordstrom's, Sax Fifth Avenue, Tiffany and the like - will balk at $800.  Such a modest change could generate more than $3 million in additional revenue for the city and allow us to hire more police officers and fully staff the fire department, for example.

HOPEFUL
I'm looking forward to seeing how this analysis proceeds, and what kind of recommendations the committee generates.  They have plenty of time for this project - an increase in the Business License Fee must appear on a General Election ballot and the first one available is November, 2014.

Charter, Jail, Fire Pits, Choir & Saving Lives

AN UNEXPECTED GIFT

So, last night at the Costa Mesa City Council meeting was a mixed blessing.  We escaped early - 10:20 p.m. - but only did so because Mayor Jim Righeimer and his council decided to dodge some of the more pithy, controversial and time-consuming issues

BUSINESS LICENSE FEES TO BE STUDIED 
Except for the minutes of an earlier meeting, only one of the dozen items on the Consent Calendar was pulled for separate discussion - #11, which directed the City's Finance Advisory Committee to study the City's Business License Fee structure.  Wendy Leece pulled that one to explain why she did it.  It passed on a 5-0 vote.  The remainder of the Consent Calendar also passed without comment.  I was surprised that nobody pulled #12, the authorization of the extension of Management Partners contract and the assignment to perform an organizational and operations review audit of the Costa Mesa Senior Center.  So, look out, seniors, Tammy LeTourneau will be all over you in short order.

KICKING THE CAN

They "continued" to a future date Public Hearings #1 and #2, both involving Community Development Block Grant funds and New Business #1, the "live/work" development on Placentia Avenue.

BANNING RANCH TRAFFIC "TABLED"

Then, much to the surprise of recently-retired Economic and Development Director/Deputy CEO Peter Naghavi who had returned to make the staff presentation, the council decided to "table" the issue of the Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation issue.  More than 30 people who obviously attended the meeting to address this issue seemed to be pleased and surprised as they wandered out of the auditorium following the announcement.

A CHANCE FOR AN EARLY NIGHT!

All of a sudden a meeting I expected would drag on until the wee hours of Wednesday morning looked like it had a chance to actually finish in the same day it began.  And that's just how it turned out.

ALL AMERICAN BOYS CHOIR

In the beginning Righeimer bestowed the Mayor's Award on the All American Boys Choir, which serenaded us with a couple songs.  The first, our national anthem, can be viewed HERE.  Note how long it took the audience to remember their etiquette and stand as the song was sung.


JUST LIKE ANY OTHER KIDS
By the way, in case you're wondering, those talented young men are just like any other group of young boys, as witnessed by this photo I took before they entered the council chambers.

HANDS ONLY CPR 
Then Diane Hill told us of her experience with her recently-departed husband, Paul and the reason she's actively pushing to have Costa Mesans learn Hands Only CPR.  An excellent video was played that demonstrated the life saving technique and Hill also had a table outside the council chambers to demonstrate the procedure.

OCTA REPORT ON I-405 CONNECTOR

Then Sarah King of the Orange County Transportation Authority told us about the work being done at the Orange County line on the I-405 Connector and gave us a link to use, HERE.

 
CRIME STATS
Several speakers during Public Comments addressed the recent FBI report on crime that showed Costa Mesa's numbers were up 15%, and took the council to task for its part in the rising crime level by eliminating A.B.L.E. and cutting the police department headcount.  Righeimer attempted to blame the "problem" motels around town and quoted some statistics about one of them to reinforce his opinion. 

BIA APPROVED

When the third Public Hearing was addressed - the Business Improvement Area (BIA) reauthorization, a recent long, long letter from Newport Beach resident Jim Mosher was discussed and Righeimer said to the staff, "I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it because Mr. Mosher burns up a lot of staff time."  Contract City Attorney Tom Duarte indicated he would respond to Mosher directly, point-by-point, and provide his response to the council.


FAMILIAR NAMES ON THE SENIOR CORP. BOARD
New Business #1, the appointment of three members to the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation Board of Directors took only a couple minutes to handle.  Incumbents Ernie Feeney and Kathleen Eric were re-appointed and Barbara Echan filled the third slot.


RIGHEIMER RANTS ABOUT FIRE PITS 
Righeimer took a long time to explain why he thought it was important for The City to pass his resolution rejecting the SCAQMD's proposed amendment of Rule 444 prohibiting open burning on beaches.  He probably could have accomplished it with many fewer words, but the issue passed, 5-0.


THE CHARTER COMMITTEE, FACILITATORS AND THE SCHEDULE

At 8:00 our attention turned to New Business #5, the selection of Charter Committee members, approval of facilitators and the schedule of meetings for the committee. Read the staff report HERE.  CEO Tom Hatch explained at great length why he selected Estancia High School Principal Kirk Bauermeister and Pastor Mike Decker as his choices to facilitate the deliberations of the Charter Committee.  Eleven members of the community spoke on the issue and were fairly equally split on whether there should or should not be a facilitator, and whether the men chosen were the correct picks.  Eventually they were affirmed and the meeting schedule - every 2nd and 4th Wednesday evening - were passed on a 5-0 vote.  Then the fun began.

FIRST FIVE CHOICES

The council then launched into the selection process for 13 members of the Charter Committee.

  Read the list of 38 applicants HERE.  They followed what I viewed as a flawed process.  Each council member chose one person from the list of 38 applicants.  Their selections were as follows:

• Steve Mensinger chose Lee Ramos
• Sandra Genis chose Mary Ann O'Connell
• Gary Monahan chose Ron Amburgey
• Jim Righeimer chose William Fancher
• Wendy Leece chose Hank Panian

"NOMINATIONS"
Then the council used a "nomination" process to select the next five.  This, in my view, was the bogus part of this process.  Here's how it went:

• Monahan chose Brett Eckles and Steve Mensinger seconded it.  The vote was 4-1, with Leece voting no.
• Righeimer chose Tom Pollitt and Monahan seconded.  The vote was 4-1, with Leece voting no.
• Genis chose Harold Weitzberg and Leece seconded.  He was rejected on a 2-3 vote, with Righeimer, Mensinger and Monahan voting no.
• Mensinger chose Kevin Tobin who was confirmed on a 3-2 vote.  Leece and Genis voted no.
• Leece chose Corinne Stover and Genis seconded.  She was rejected on a 2-3 vote.
• Monahan chose Gene Hutchins, who was chosen on a 5-0 vote.
• Righeimer chose Tom Graham and Mensinger seconded.  He was chosen on a 4-1 vote, with Leece voting no.

NOMINEES FOR THE LOTTERY
The final three members were chosen by a "lottery".  Each council member chose a person remaining in the applicant pool and the names were written on slips of paper.  From those 5 individuals three were chosen by a draw of the Sergeant-at-arms.  The selection went this way:

• Mensinger nominated Kerry McCarthy
• Genis nominated Nina Flores
• Monahan nominated Andrew Smith
• Righeimer nominated Anna Reagan
• Leece nominated Harold Weitzberg

THE DRAW...
The first name drawn was Kerry McCarthy.  The second was Andrew Smith.  Finally, with the final draw, Harold Weitzberg was chosen.

(City Clerk Brenda Green takes a lottery slip from Sergeant-at-arms as Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz looks on)

YOUR CHARTER COMMITTEE IS...
So, the 13 folks who will spend the next six months, meeting at least twice a month, trying to coble together a charter that the voters might find acceptable on a ballot sometime next year will be: Ron Amburgey
Brett Eckles
William Fancher
Thomas H. Graham
Gene Hutchins
Kerry McCarthy
Mary Ann O'Connell
Henry S. Panian
Tom Pollitt
Lee A. Ramos
Andrew B. Smith
Kevin A. Tobin
Harold Weitzberg

They will be "facilitated" by Kirk Bauermeiser, Mike Decker and Kimberly Hall Barlow.

(Chief Tom Gazsi chats with facilitators Mike Decker and Kirk Bauermeister while committee member Lee Ramos speaks with Robin Leffler)
 

OUTSOURCING THE JAIL OPERATIONS

After a short break the meeting re-convened at 9:20 to discuss the privatization of the Costa Mesa Jail Operations.  CEO Hatch went through the relevant high points of the lengthy staff report, HERE,  He addressed several cities that already use G4S - the proposed contractor - the potential savings - over $600,000 annually and, in vague terms, the "transition" anticipated.

MEETINGS UNSUCCESSFUL

Hatch said the staff had met many times - at least seven - with members of the CMCEA and the OCEA to try to find common ground - unsuccessfully.

MUIR CLAIMS BAD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS

Among the four speakers addressing this during public comments was Jennifer Muir, representing the OCEA and the CMCEA.  She told us that the City was trying to sabotage efforts at conciliation - that The City had taken the "It's my way or the highway" approach to negotiation on this issue.  She mentioned an April 16th email to the City requesting a meeting that had gone unanswered.  Not surprisingly, the other speakers also had problems with this plan.

PASSES, 4-1
Eventually, after lengthy discussion by staff and council members, the item passed on a 4-1 vote, with Leece voting no.


BACK TO COURT?  NOT SURE... 
I asked members of the OCEA what their plans are now.  They said they'll wait and see for the moment, but I won't be surprised to see them back before Judge Luis Rodriguez sometime soon for a reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction that was lifted earlier this year.

NEXT UP... THE BUDGET, AGAIN

So, at 10:20 we adjourned to the budget study session next Tuesday afternoon, June 11th.

Whopper Of A City Council Meeting On Tap Tuesday!

GET READY!
OK, troops, take a deep breath, go grab a cold drink, get comfy in your chair, because I don't want you nodding off while reading this entry.  We're going to talk about The Charter Committee; Privatizing the Jail Operations; Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation Agreement; Business License Fees; The Senior Center (twice) and much more.

BRING A PILLOW AND BLANKET
The agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in council chambers - was released earlier Friday afternoon.  This one is HUGE - you can read it HERE -  and, short of some kind of divine intervention, will keep us up until well after midnight.  So, let me just take it from the top and work our way through the entire agenda, one step at a time.

CLOSED SESSION WORKLOAD
You know we're in trouble when the Closed Session, which begins a 5:00 - contains 5 items!  Good luck starting the regular meeting at 6:00!  The third item is a "labor negotiation" involving CEO Tom Hatch.  The fifth item involves the Benito Acosta existing litigation.  It just never goes away!

PRESENTATIONS
The "Presentations" segment should be interesting.  First, we'll see the Mayor's Award to the All American Boys Choir.  Then we'll have an "In Honor Of Paul" Project presentation in which Diane Hill will tell us about her plan to have every Costa Mesa resident proficient in "Hands Only CPR".  Finally, the Orange County Transportation Authority will make a presentation, the content of which is apparently secret.  If it's about their resurrection of the plan to put toll lanes on the 405 Freeway I'll understand why they're keeping it a secret!

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar alone contains a dozen items, and I'm told several were removed.
Warrants, Items 3 and 4

As usual, the Warrants that are now available for review, provide some interesting reading.  For example, on Item 3, Warrant 2474, HERE,we see charges for $19,194.00 to the City of Huntington Beach for helicopter support.  I guess they didn't support us much during March.  Also on that same Warrant we see a charge of more than $200,000 to something called "Govplace" for 'installation, shipping and tax" for something - not described.  On Item 4, Warrant 2475, HERE, we find a payment to Stradling Yocca Carlson and Rauth for $20,209.10 for legal services - mostly for housing-related issues.  And, we find a petty cash entry for $2,452.15 that includes several entries for the staff members who traveled to Vegas for the most recent boondoggle.

Fairgrounds Traffic Agreements

Items 5, HERE and 6, HERE, are agreements with the 32 Agricultural Board (Fair Board) for traffic management services for the year and the Fair specifically.

Three Dozen New Units
Item 7, HERE, is the final map for a live/work development on West 18th Street.

Professional/Cooperative Agreements

Item 8, HERE,  is an engineering services agreement for improvement of the intersection of Fairview and Wilson.
Item 9, HERE, is a cooperative agreement with CalTrans on the SR-55 Gateway Improvement project.
Item 10, HERE, is a consulting agreement in the environmental impact of a 236 unit apartment development at 125 East Baker Street.

Business License Fee Study
Item 11, HERE, directs the Finance Advisory Committee to study the current business license structure.

Senior Center Operational Audit
Item 12, HERE, extends the consulting contract with Management Partners and authorizes that organization to perform an organizational and operational audit of the Costa Mesa Senior Center.  This is VERY interesting, particularly considering New Business Item #1 below - the appointment of new members of the Senior Center Board.  Since the Senior Center is a private organization, it's unclear to me how the city has authority to perform ANY kind of an audit of its operations.

And that's just the Consent Calendar, folks!  Whew!

PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are three (3) Public Hearings scheduled for Tuesday night.

CDBG and HOME Funding Priorities
The first Public Hearing, HERE, deals with the 2013-2014 Funding Priorities for Community Development Block Grand (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME).


CDBG Grant Allocations
The second, HERE, involves the CDBG Public Service Grant Allocations.  This one might generate some interesting conversation because the CEO recommendations differ dramatically from the recommendations of the committee charged with this process.  In fact, the recommendation is to only authorize spending 67% of the money available and to allocate the remainder for such activities as the improvement of public infrastructure.  When you check the staff report you'll see organizations like Colette's Children Home, City of Costa Mesa Social Worker, Churches Consortium, Fair Housing Council of Orange County and Mercy House-Transportation (all of which serve the Homeless) left out in the cold with NO funding recommended.  We'll see what the council decides to do on this one.

Business Improvement Area (BIA) Reauthorization and Resolution To Levy Annual Assessment
This item, HERE, is usually a short piece of business to reauthorize the BIA and to approve the annual levy for their activities.

NEW BUSINESS
Senior Corporation Board Appointments
New Business #1, HERE,  is the Appointments to the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation Board of Directors.  You may recall that the council was apparently dissatisfied with the recent slate of three people who applied for the three open positions, so asked for another recruitment effort to take place.  That recruitment resulted in six (6) applicants, including two incumbents, to fill the positions.

38 New Westside Units
#2, HERE,  is a Master Plan screening request for a 38-unit live/work development in the 2000 block of Placentia Avenue.

Banning Ranch Traffic Deal Is Back!
#3, quietly placed on the agenda, is the Newport Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation Agreement, HERE.  Retired Economic and Development Director/Deputy CEO Peter Naghavi, will return to make this presentation.  When this was first presented to the council last year it generated many negative comments from the public.  Reviewing the staff report, it appears most of those concerns have been addresses.  Take some time to review it yourselves.

Fire Pit Rules
Item #4 is a resolution opposing the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed rule 444 prohibiting open burning on beaches, HERE.  This looks like an interesting dilemma for our council.  If they oppose the rule - as is proposed - they spit in the eye of the elected leaders in Newport Beach.  If they don't, they do the same to Huntington Beach.  Tough call - for a city without a beach.  Don't you just love politics?

Charter Committee

Item #5, HERE, is, in my view, the BIGGEST issue on the agenda Tuesday night.  This one deals with the Charter Committee appointments, the ratification of Facilitators and the proposed meeting schedules.  The composition of the Charter Committee will go a very long way determining whether the work-product they finish will have the credibility necessary to have a chance of passing in the next election for which it is eligible.  It's not clear yet whether pending legislation restricting such items to General Elections will pass in time to impact this process.

37 Applicants!
There are 37 applicants listed in the staff report, HERE,  for the 13 positions available for this committee.  Of those, only six or seven can be identified as having opposed Jim Righeimer's Charter last year.  The remainder are either clearly identified with the pro-charter majority or are unknowns.  The current recommended process provides for each council member to appoint one member.  The next step would be to select the next 5 by the nomination process - which guarantees that the council pro-charter majority will have an 8-2 majority before the remaining positions are filled.  Those, using the proposed system, involve each council member selecting one person, the names of which would be placed in a hat and selected randomly.  The first three names selected would complete the committee.  This could result in an 11-2 or 8-5 majority for the pro-charter majority - not a fair solution at all.

A Better, Fairer Solution
I suggest they select the first five as mentioned above, giving the pro-charter majority a 3-2 edge.  Then, from the remaining 32 applicants, each council member would, in rotation, select four (4) names to be placed in a hat.  From those 20 names the remaining eight (8) committee members would be selected lottery-style.  The result could be that 11-2 majority mentioned above.  Or, it could be 10-3 the other direction, or any of several combinations in between.  It is a much fairer method of attempting to get some balance in the charter committee.  And, after all, this time around Mayor Righeimer has told us he's not going to be involved in it at all, and that he wants it to come from "the community".  This is one way to demonstrate some statesmanship and show that he's serious about providing the broader community a chance to help craft a proper charter and not just stack the deck with his sycophants.  I guess we'll find out Tuesday night - late Tuesday night.

Kirk Bauermeister Is A Great Guy, but...
I'm going to make some folks very angry with this next observation.  I think it's a mistake to select any of the three people identified in the staff report as "facilitators" of the Charter Process.  The primary facilitator, Estancia High School Principal Kirk Bauermeister, is a GREAT guy, an outstanding educator and leader and is fully immersed in community activities.   Much the same could be said for Mike Decker and Kim Barlow is a proven commodity.  However, in my opinion, anyone selected - and paid - to facilitate this process should have NO previous Costa Mesa involvement, except, perhaps, as a consultant.  If this process is supposed to result in a true community-crafted charter - free of the political bias and rancor that we all experienced last time around last year - then the person(s) charged with facilitating the process simply MUST be outsiders, with no axe to grind on this issue.  They should be paid consultants without political affiliations that would taint their role.  It's going to be hard enough to get a balanced committee.  Having an insider as the facilitator will just further muddy the water.  Find a person with Bauermeister's credentials from another city and I'll probably be happy.

Meeting twice a month on Wednesdays
The meeting schedule proposed, 6:00 p.m. on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month, seems ambitious, but is probably necessary if this committee is going to involve any community input in the process.  It's going to make for some very busy weeks for those of us who try to pay attention to this stuff.

Privatization of the Costa Mesa Jail Operations
The final item on the agenda will be no less controversial.  This is the privatization of the city Jail operations.  I've read through the staff report, HERE, and came away with some serious concerns.  The City says it will save $636,800 out of an anticipated $1,380,129 Fiscal Year 2013-2014 budget by making this change, then backpedals to $436,616 by assuming a full-time police sergeant would be used to supervise operations the first year.  Assuming the first number, the city says it will save $3.2 million over a five year period.

Did CMCEA Agree?
Although the staff report goes to great lengths to tell us that the employee organization, the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA) was heavily involved in conversations about this change, nowhere do they say that the CMCEA agreed to it.  Read this paragraph from the staff report and decide for yourself:
"While Costa Mesa, for some time, has believed that contracting out jail services was likely to be the best option—particularly inasmuch as it could result in over $3 million in savings to Costa Mesa and its residents—Costa Mesa, with the input of the CMCEA, has given due consideration to all of its options regarding the on-going operation of its jail. After considering CMCEA’s input and weighing it options, the CEO has concluded that it is in the best interests of the residents of Costa Mesa to contract out the operation of Costa Mesa’s jail including, of significance, the real fiscal benefit this approach will return to Costa Mesa in these difficult economic times."

No layoffs, but...
The staff report also tells us "At this time, the CEO does not recommend that Council layoff any employee currently working in Costa Mesa’s jail. Costa Mesa remains open to the possibility of allowing any employee currently working in Costa Mesa’s jail to transfer into other Y-Rated positions (if they so desire), and Costa Mesa will continue to work with the employee- representatives of such employees to achieve those transfers (if requested)."  "At this time"?  OK.. I guess.

"Transition" to G4S?
The staff report also tells us that the contract with G4S, the proposed contractor, includes a section, "dedicated to hiring and retention of current City employees into their private service model. The plan will be to do whatever is reasonable and possible to help employees transition either by holding positions with G4S, through utilizing an attrition model or retraining city personnel to work in other areas of the City organization."  I don't find any reference in the contract language that talks about the pay for those employees who might "transition" to G4S.

New Systems?
It also mentions the immediate implementation of three new high-tech systems, but doesn't indicate that these could or could not be implemented if the city retains the Jail Operations.  That would be good to know.

Just The Beginning...
This is just the beginning... expect more of this kind of stuff as the current majority tries to outsource every job in the city over a period of time.  Well, not EVERY job - I suspect all the jobs on the 5th floor are safe - somebody has to oversee the contractors, don't they?

I WARNED YOU...
OK, don't say I didn't warn you way back at the beginning... I know it took a long time for you to plow through all this, but there are very important issues to be decided on Tuesday - issues that will directly affect every one of us.