Emergency Medical Services A Hot Topic Tuesday

SAVING THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL FOR LAST
The final item on the agenda of the City Council meeting scheduled to begin at 5:45 on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 in City Council Chambers at City Hall is titled, "Ambulance Transportation For The City Of Costa Mesa" and the staff report for that item may be found HERE.

CONSULTANT'S FEASIBILITY STUDY
The staff report refers to the recently-completed Feasibility Study conducted by an outside consultant, A.P. Triton, LLC, the 51 page report of which may be found HERE.  If you are at all interested in the future of Emergency Response Service in Costa Mesa, I highly encourage you to read that report, then read the staff report for the recommendations being made to the City Council by CEO Tom Hatch and Fire Chief Dan Stefano.

FOR EXAMPLE...
In the study you will find this chart, which summarizes the costs and other advantages of the three options presented (in addition to the current status).

STAFF REPORT NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT
However, before you get all excited, the staff has massaged those numbers, so each of those categories except for the current, Model #1, are significantly different.  It appears they show the difference between #1 and each of the others, making the bottom line on each smaller.  Still, significant cost recovery numbers are available with each of the other choices.

OPTION #3 RECOMMENDED
Hatch and Stefano have chosen to recommend to the City Council option #3, the so-called Public/Private Option.  Here's the text of that proposal as presented in the staff report (I have not figured out the significance of the stars * in the text):

Model #3 – Public / Private Partnership 
* Fire department engages in a partnership with a private contractor and provides ALS ambulance transportation while the private contractor provides BLS transportation and back up support service for ALS transportation.

Pros 
• Requires limited changes in current deployment
• Provides increased level of service
• Consistent with the redeployment plan
• Provides for increased cost recovery
• Provides the highest level of flexibility and opportunities to concurrently explore in an evolving local, regional and statewide EMS landscape

Cons
• Could impact the current contractor
• Could create a two tier billing system

Total (Annual) Realized Cost Recovery
$2,504,725*
*$2,304,725 – additional overhead related costs estimated at $200,000
**$1,659,353 – total new net cost recovery/revenue


OPTION #2 HAS A BIGGER RETURN
However, Model #2 as presented in the staff report, in which the CMFD assumes ALL ambulance transport, using a private company only as back-up, seems to represent the greatest net annual cost recovery - $3,250,084 - nearly double that of Model #3.  So, it's going to be interesting to hear the discussion on Tuesday to see the rationale behind choosing #3 instead.

LOTS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST!
Adding to the fun will be several articles and commentaries published over the past couple days on this subject.   

• Hannah Fry published an article in the Daily Pilot, HERE, discussing the entire issue.  
• Former City Council candidate John Stephens - he lost to now-lame duck councilman Gary Monahan by only 155 votes three years ago - published an opinion supporting Option #2, HERE.  
• Today former Interim Fire Chief Tom Arnold - a Costa Mesa resident with more than three decades of Fire Service experience and the father of this entire redeployment model during his tour as interim chief - published a commentary HERE, which supports the Hatch/Stefano decision for Option #3.

WHAT'S UP WITH STEVE AND JIM?
However, muddying up the issue is another commentary, HERE, apparently jointly-authored by Mayor Steve Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, although most likely penned by Public Information Officer Tony Dodero.  This commentary addresses the future of Fire Station #6, our newest station which presently serves the part of town north of the I-405 Freeway.  They tell us that things have changed since closing #6 was a primary part of Chief Arnold's reorganization plan, and that it should remain open.  It's a very nice commentary, but this paragraph - the next-to-last paragraph - needs to be considered carefully:
"We are willing to work with Chief Stefano and give him the leverage to redeploy his fire department personnel in different ways that still maintains the efficiencies and staffing numbers we all agreed to but also keeps Fire Station 6 open at the same time."

READ IT CAREFULLY
You see, this refers to "staffing numbers we all agreed to", which, if followed despite those changes mentioned in the commentary, seems to guarantee the need for a continued reliance on the private ambulance service - CARE Ambulance - which has served the city for eight years.  And, not so coincidentally,  it has been a significant campaign contributor to Righeimer's campaigns in the past.  Am I suspicious about this?  You betcha!  Especially since I'm told by folks looking into this subject that the Righeimer/CARE Ambulance relationship may go much, much deeper than a few hundred dollars in campaign contributions.  But that's for another time.

HERE'S MY TAKE
Here's my opinion on this issue.  The City Council has already bought off on a change in the way Emergency Medical Services are delivered to this community.  The study they requested seems to give a solid foundation for making an informed decision.  In fact, prior to that study, they were so committed to Chief Arnold's plan that they already authorized the purchase of six (6) Rescue Ambulances for a cost of over $1.6 million.  Those pieces of equipment are now being placed in service, although in a reduced role until this issue gets fully resolved.  Three (3) are currently being used.  That's another good reason to move forward with one of the plans outlined in the report.

SORTING OUT THE "STATION #6" ISSUE
Currently the Costa Mesa Fire Department is operating with eleven (11) vacancies, due in great part to the uncertainty of the future of Fire Station #6.  If station #6 is to remain open - and there seems to be plenty of reasons to do so - those positions must be filled ASAP.  However, that changes the financial issues, since we will not receive compensation anticipated for the sale of that site - which was donated to us for the fire station by the Sakioka family many years ago.

I'M WITH JOHN STEPHENS...
My preference coincides with that expressed by Stephens in his commentary - go with option #2 - the full Monty.  Have members of the Costa Mesa Fire Department do ALL transport and receive ALL the revenue from that activity, depending on a private firm only for emergency back-up.  That one makes the most sense to me and results in a more than $3 million annual revenue stream we presently do not have.

...BUT CAN SUPPORT THE STAFF REPORT, IF...
However, if Hatch, Stefano and Arnold - for whatever reasons, political or otherwise - are willing to take an interim step and recommend the adoption of Option #3 as the "next step" in EMS service to the community, I can support that choice.  It still results in a significant revenue stream to the city and can be made to work almost immediately.

WAITING FOR THE PREDICTABLE RIGHEIMER RANT
If, though, Righeimer attempts to leverage his support for maintaining Station #6 with the previously agreed-to staffing levels (which anticipated closing #6) - which would require greater use of CARE Ambulance - it will be clear to all watching that his concern is not for the residents of this city and their emergency medical needs, but is only for the well-being of his campaign contributors.  And, quite honestly, it won't surprise me one bit if that's the approach he takes Tuesday night.  I really want to hear his rationale on this issue at that meeting.  I fully expect him to go into one of his apoplectic rants, interrupting speakers and destroying their train of thought.  You know - same old Righeimer.

NOT SURE THEY CAN DISCUSS #6
And, it's unclear to me whether they can get into a discussion about the future of Station #6 Tuesday, since the staff report specifically refers ONLY to the Ambulance service as posted.  It's very possible that the Station #6 discussion will have to wait for another day, when it has been properly posted and agendized.

MORE ON THE REST OF THE MEETING LATER
More about the rest of the council meeting on another post later.

Short Meeting Probable On Tuesday

DON'T BLINK!

It's very likely that we will see the shortest City Council meeting in City history on Tuesday, July 2nd, when the council meets in their first meeting of the new fiscal year at 6:00 in council chambers at City Hall.  I won't be surprised if the meeting lasts only a half hour, depending on how much time officials spend patting themselves on the success of the 60th Anniversary Celebration.  If you don't want to drag your bodies to City Hall on Tuesday, you can watch the proceedings live on CMTV, Channel 3 on Time Warner Cable and Channel 99 on ATT U-Verse or on streaming video at the city web site.

SKIMPY AGENDA
The agenda, HERE, has no Public Hearings, no Old Business and no New Business items.

INTERESTING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Although the Consent Calendar has eleven (11) items on it, I doubt anyone will pull any of them for separate discussion, but that doesn't mean there's not some interesting information on it.

NEW AMBULANCES - THANKS, CHIEF ARNOLD!
For example, Item #9, HERE, is the expenditure of more than $1.4 million for six new ambulances and equipment for them that will be necessary under former Interim Fire Chief Tom Arnold's redeployment model.  That plan has already begun implementation through the lease of two such vehicles from the Orange County Fire Authority until the arrival of our new equipment.  I say "former" because Arnold's term of service expired this past week.  Every resident and visitor should be  grateful to him for his wisdom and leadership during his tour with The City.  We wish him well on his much-deserved retirement - again.

FEELING SAFER ALREADY
Item #8 is the new City Emergency Operations Plan, HERE.  All 404 pages makes for some very interesting reading.  This plan was much in need of updating and the job is now done, even though this plan is a "living document" and will likely require occasional updating as circumstances in our city change.

HAVE A SAFE AND SANE HOLIDAY
So, neighbors, enjoy your Independence Day holiday.  Please be safe with those fireworks.  As Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger always says, "It's all about the kids.", so we hope ALL the kids of Costa Mesa - and their parents, too -  exercise caution with fireworks over the three nights they are permitted to be blasted off beginning July 2nd.  The next regularly scheduled council meeting is July 16th.

Leece Asks Council To Review Private EMS and Outsourcing

ANGER GUARANTEED
In a move guaranteed to give an emotional wedgie to her peers on the dais, Costa Mesa City Councilwoman Wendy Leece has formally requested a "Review" of two controversial items that were approved by the council at it's March 1st meeting.



OUTSOURCING
She asked for the "Outsourcing Of City Services" to be reviewed for possible re-hearing because:

1) Insufficient notice was given to the public;

2) The report was not sufficient to include financial data to identify cost savings;

3) Many residents have complained that they could not understand the complexities and outcomes due to insufficient information;

4) That the decision to move forward may be in violation of employee contracts and

5) Because the legal opinion was given to the council only one hour before the meeting there was insufficient time to review and consult with the City Attorney.

PRIVATE EMS SERVICE
The second item is the decision to explore the possible Privatizing of Emergency Medical Services - Paramedic in our city. She cites as the reasons for her request to Review this item as:

1) Insufficient public notice - the report did not come out until Friday afternoon before the Tuesday council meeting;

2) Many residents have complained to her that they had insufficient time to review the report and to arrange to attend the meeting;

3) She had insufficient time to review and discuss the legal opinion with the City Attorney since it was received only a few minutes before the meeting;

4) Taking the approved action may be in violation of anti-trust statutes and employment contracts and may increase the City's liability.

NEW BUSINESS ON 3/15/11
Both of these items will appear under New Business at the City Council meeting that begins at 6:00 p.m. on March 15, 2011. The council will hear Leece's reasoning behind requesting a re-hearing and there will be an opportunity for the public comment on the request for re-hearings only, not the substance of the issues, before they vote to either conduct a re-hearing or not.

***

OCFA TO PRESENT PROPOSAL AT STUDY SESSION TUESDAY
At its Study Session at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 8, 2011, the City Council will hear the presentation by members of the Orange County Fire Authority of their proposal to take over providing Fire and Paramedic services for Costa Mesa. As we've discussed before, while there appears to be some savings involved by contracting with the OCFA, the proposal has HUGE holes in it that could make the financial considerations much less desirable for the city.

TURNOUT?
We don't know what kind of a turnout to expect, but it sure wouldn't surprise me to have this session shifted to the council chambers - as was the case of the last one - to accommodate all the interested residents and employees eager to hear first hand just what this plan will mean to them. If the study session is held in Conference Room 1A as planned there will be NO live television coverage - only a taped delay later in the week. In Study Sessions public comments are very limited - only a few minutes TOTAL are set aside - so this will be more of a "sit and listen" event. I also don't know if members of the Costa Mesa Fire Department will participate, even though many of them have much to lose if this plan is implemented as proposed.

OCFA PENSION SHORTFALL IMPACT UNKNOWN
Another unknown is the impact on this proposal of the recent disclosure that pension contributions for the OCFA have been dramatically under-funded, and that the organization will be required to pony up tens of millions of dollars to make the deficit whole.



PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW?
The council will also hear about the "Pavement Management Overview", but we have absolutely no clue what that's all about because no staff report is available for review at this time.

First The Fun, Then The Bad News

ROEDER AND BARLOW FETED FIRST
This evening, following the 5:00 p.m. reception for retiring City Manager Allan Roeder and resigning City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow in the City Hall Lobby, the City Council will hold what may be the most rancorous City Council meeting of this young year. It is anticipated that the auditorium will be packed to overflowing, most likely with employees anxious about their future with the city and residents worried about their safety and services being provided to them.

MONAHAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The meeting will open up at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Gary Monahan doing his "feel good" routine by making announcements of upcoming events - in this case it will be youth baseball, a presentation Wednesday by the Costa Mesa Green Task Force and Saturday's re-opening ceremony for the Diego Sepulveda Adobe.

RECOGNITION
Employee of the Month, Tim Sun, will be honored. Officer Oscar Reyes will receive the MADD Deuce Award and presentations will be made to Roeder and Barlow. Roeder will provide an update on the Orange County Fairgrounds in what will likely be one of his final official pronouncements in the City Council chambers. His retirement date is Friday, March 4th.

NEW FEES FOR "ROCKS"
There will be a Public Hearing on the new fee schedule for the Recreation On Campus For Kids (ROCKS) program.

UNNECESSARY CHEST-THUMPING
Under Old Business Steve Mensinger's pipe dream of changing the title of the City Manager to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the City will be adopted. What a colossal waste of energy just so a guy with an inflated ego can say, "Hey, look what I did!"

SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS - LISTEN CLOSELY
The five council sub-committees will then present reports. Those are:
Economic Development and Development
Sports and Recreation
Policies, Procedures and General Plan/Circulation
Budget and Capital Improvements
Motel Issues

DUARTE IN FOR BARLOW
Under New Business, current Assistant City Attorney Tom Duarte of the firm of Jones & Mayer will be appointed City Attorney. Duarte has functioned as the City Attorney for the Planning Commission. He will replace Kim Barlow, who abruptly and unexpectedly resigned as City Attorney recently, citing personal and business reasons. More than a few folks around this town wonder if she was shoved out by the new city council because she kept telling them "NO" when their plans violated the law or city regulations. We'll probably never know - yet another top city official departing without reason being given.

PERMITTING REQUIREMENT FOR MASONRY WALLS
The council will then approve an amendment to our Municipal Code related to building permits for Masonry Walls.

PRIVATIZING EMS
Then, under New Business #3, the council will discuss Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer's most recent scheme, HERE - to privatize our Emergency Medical Service. This one is to transmit a letter to the Medical Director of the Orange County Emergency Medical Services requesting that he determine the feasibility and requirements to evaluate he addition of the City's ambulance provider, Care Ambulance, as added capacity to the current Costa Mesa Emergency Medical Service-Paramedic delivery system.

KICK OFF - THEN WHAT?
This is a big deal. Once we kick this ball off the "T" we're not exactly sure where this process goes next. In the staff report, HERE, there is not yet any discussion of the potential increase in costs to the city AND RESIDENTS if this scheme is adopted. I know this is only to get the ball rolling, but this City Council has demonstrated in only two short months that these things take on a life of their own and decisions are made well in advance of public input. Some folks knowledgeable on this subject tell me that costs for the use of a private EMS service provider could very significantly increase to those who need the service - perhaps as much as $2,000 per trip, if not more.

ENHANCING = ADDING = MORE $
The staff report talks about "enhancing" our EMS service. That means "adding" to me. What about the costs to the city? How does this affect the proposal by the Orange County Fire Authority to replace our Fire Department? Again, this is happening much too quickly.

OUTSOURCING OF CITY SERVICES
The last item under New Business will be the biggie - Outsourcing of City Services. You can read the staff report HERE, which lists the functions the sub-committee - Monahan and Righeimer - think can be successfully outsourced. You will notice at the top of the list is the entire Fire Department - nearly 90 employees. Nobody has yet calculated the actual total number of employees covered by this plan, but some estimate it to be around 150 employees - nearly a third of the current staff.

NO CLUE ON COSTS
One interesting comment made in the staff report is found under FISCAL REVIEW. The comment is "The fiscal impact for outsourcing the identified City services is unknown at this time." Of course, because six months notice is required for any employee and bargaining unit for operations being outsourced, the council will almost certainly approve this issue and employees will be provided official notice immediately.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
In the separate staff report on Noticing Requirements, HERE, I found an interesting statement in Item 2. The question posed in that item asks, "Is the City required to be specific as to the service/program being considered for contracting out? In other words, can the City Council issue a blanket notice to all employees of its intent to contract out all services to keep all options open?" The answer provided is, "NO". We assume that answer is to the second question, not the first.

THEY'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS
The explanation to that answer is as follows (EMPHASIS IS MINE):
"The Council MUST FIRST consider and determine which specific services would be contracted for AND THEN give the required six months' notice to affected employees and bargaining units. Article 19.2 with the CMCEA states that 'once a decision is made by the City to contract out for a specific service' the required notice is given. Staff believes this REQUIRES that notice be given out AFTER the decision to contract out, NOT BEFORE."

"BUMPING RIGHTS" CHAOS
Further down in the staff report the issue of "bumping rights" is addressed. It indicates that part-time positions will be eliminated first. It then says, "In addition, employees who are notified of layoffs are required to exercise their 'bumping' rights WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS of receiving layoff notifications. Thus, whether thirty days' notice or six months' notice is given to specific employees, the notified employees will have to notify management of any position which they elect to displace into, which would in turn trigger layoff notices to those effected who otherwise would not have been laid off." Yikes! That's not much time for an employee to make a life-changing decision, is it?

THE CART'S BEFORE THE HORSE
So, the way I interpret this information is that the council will determine, based on the information provided to them in the staff report and testimony at THIS council meeting, which specific units will be contracted out. The big question I have, though, is how will they determine whether there are cost savings to be had BEFORE any bids for the contracting is taken. They've got the cart before the horse. They should FIRST decide which functions MIGHT be contracted out, then get bids for that contracting and compare them to the current costs for service by employees, THEN make the decision and start the noticing process. That logical sequence of events, though, doesn't play well with their pre-disposition to outsource everything, as articulated so clearly by Righeimer in the first council meeting of the year.

"BUT, WE CAN ALWAYS CANCEL"
They will tell us that they can cancel this noticing any time, so they are providing it now "just in case" we actually decide to outsource some of these functions. Swell - throw the ENTIRE city staff into chaos while they play God! This is looking more and more like a scene straight out of "Through The Looking Glass", with Righeimer cross-dressing as the Queen of Hearts - "Off with their heads!"

THEY'RE TOO IMPATIENT!
They will reply that the logical sequence will take too long - that we'll be well into the new budget year before any action could be taken. OK, so what? We still don't know exactly what our fiscal condition is for THIS fiscal year, much less the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The last we heard from our friends in Finance was that revenues were trending upward. It's entirely possible that we will have a balanced 2010-2011 budget by the end of June, for goodness sake.

AGAIN, NO COSTS KNOWN
And, again, under FISCAL REVIEW, there is this statement: "The potential financial impact of eliminating, reducing or contracting out specific services CANNOT BE DETERMINED until the specific positions/services are identified." Again, the cart before the horse. Again, this council won't give a rat's rear end about this. They want to dump the unions and their pensions and are taking the easy way (for them) to accomplish that goal. No negotiating, just slashing, then smiles all around with their buddies at the OC GOP for a "job well done". It's truly disgusting!

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - A DANGEROUS TIME
The meeting will end, at who-knows-what-hour, with council member comments and suggestions. You will recall that I've reminded you frequently that this segment - when almost everyone is tired and has departed - is when the mischief begins. This is the time when they will request this or that from the staff - issues that end up like this "outsourcing" debacle. Time for some "No Doze", my friends. You just cannot blink around these guys - but then, I've said that before, haven't I?

More Fairgrounds Drama & Council Meeting Wrap-up

PRESS RELEASE SHEDS NO LIGHT ON TRIP
As promised, City Manager Allan Roeder issued a press release late yesterday afternoon regarding the trip he took to Sacramento with Katrina Foley on Monday. Unfortunately, it didn't really tell us much.

FOLEY QUOTE
Foley is quoted as follows: “The meetings were helpful in better understanding some of the legislative challenges ahead and the process required for authorization of the legislation,” stated Council member Foley. “I am pleased with the support the City has received from the Assembly member as we move forward on this phase of our effort to keep the Fairgrounds under public ownership.”

Beyond that, we were told that Assemblyman Jose Solorio scheduled the meeting.. that's it.

BECKY BACK IN THE SADDLE?
Bigger news, however, came in an article in the Daily Pilot late last night online and in the print edition this morning. That article, HERE, announced that former Fairgrounds CEO and current consultant to Costa Mesa in the Fairgrounds negotiations, Becky Bailey-Findley, has been tapped by Facilities Management West as the interim leader of their Fairgrounds operations if their bid is successful. Findley, who has apparently spent virtually her entire adult life working in or around the Fairgrounds, agreed to accept that interim position until FMW finds a permanent leader. She is not interested in the permanent job.

DEFLATES FAIR BOARD'S SCHEME
This news has got to be making the Fair Board and current CEO Steve Beazley apoplectic! This news will certainly put a damper on their "revenue sharing" proposal announced Monday at the Board meeting. One of the big criticisms of the FMW pitch by the most vocal of critics has been their lack of experience in this kind of an operation. Findley resolves that issue right out of the gate.

GREAT NEWS FOR EMS USERS
At the City Council meeting Tuesday night they passed the Advanced Life Support Cost Recovery Program and, as a result, save the position of EMS Coordinator that was lost due to the recent budget cuts. Fire Chief Mike Morgan emphasized that under this program Costa Mesa residents will not be required to pay anything additional over what they are paying under our current EMS system. Here are the terms and conditions as presented by Chief Morgan last night:

1. Costa Mesa residents will not be required to pay any costs for EMS that are in addition to whatever they would be paying under the current EMS billing system (i.e., Costa Mesa residents will not be subject to any additional costs due to implementation of this program).

2. Costa Mesa residents will continue to be exempt from paying the $275 first responder charge (only non-residents are billed for this).

3. Care Ambulance Service, which performs all EMS billing for the City per contract, will be authorized to begin billing the private insurance companies, Medicare, or Medi-Cal, of all resident and non-resident patients, a $300 ALS transport charge.

4. Care Ambulance Services will waive all patient co-pay and deductible charges of Costa Mesa residents that are specific to the ALS Cost Recovery Program.

5. Care Ambulance Service will waive the $300 ALS transport charge for all Costa Mesa residents who do not have any form of medical insurance or coverage.

6. Residents will not have to do anything to obtain a waiver: All waivers will be automatically reflected in the billing statement mailed by Care Ambulance Service, which will be an amount reduced according to the amount waived.

ONLY BEVER VOTED "NO"
This is terrific news all around for Costa Mesa residents and provides a financial mechanism to assure that Costa Mesa continues to receive Emergency Medical Services of the highest level. The council approved this item, with only our municipal lamebrain, Eric Bever, voting NO.

SOBECA SENIOR HOUSING RE-HEARING
Next up was Wendy Leece's request for a re-hearing of the previously-approved plan for a low cost senior housing facility, Harper's Pointe, at 845 Baker Street in the SoBECA District and beside the Shark Club. The purpose of this agenda item was to determine if there was sufficient reason to schedule a re-hearing, not to conduct the re-hearing last night. In fact, that's basically what happened.

BUFFA THE DESTROYER
After much discussion the applicant trotted out it's big gun, former mayor Peter Buffa, who identified himself as the authorized agent for the developer, took the podium and methodically shredded Leece's arguments one by one. One can only admire his skill set when he's in action. I had to chuckle when Buffa, while rebutting the concern Leece had about the facility being "5 feet from the 73 Freeway", corrected the record. He told us that, in fact, the building was actually 50 feet from the roadway of the 73 Freeway! And he said it with a straight face! As I write this, across the street - roughly 50 feet from my window - a gardener is mowing my neighbor's lawn and I can barely hear myself think! Very smooth, Peter...

LEECE AND FOLEY DISSENTED
The council voted 3-2, with Leece and Foley dissenting, to deny the request for a re-hearing. So, now it looks like our city will get some more much-needed affordable senior housing. I know the owners of the Shark Club will wait with great trepidation for the first noise complaint by residents of that facility, and wonder just how the City will manage that issue. My suggestion would be to restrict residency in that facility to only folks with hearing impairments. It will cut down on the noise complaints.

ACTIVIST PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEMES
Next came two items generated by our activist Planning Commission dealing with Zoning Code Amendments and Code Enforcement activities. The Planning Commission, led by developers Jim Righeimer, Steve Mensinger and Colin McCarthy, seem determined to convert Costa Mesa into a pseudo-Irvine and choose to do so by creating a heavy-handed Code Enforcement organization - much like the operate in their own business lives.

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!
Based on the tone of the Planning Commission's suggestions, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decided to do a Google Earth flyover of the city and methodically note those residences that MIGHT have ancillary units on their lots, then unleash the Code Enforcement folks to go pound on doors to determine compliance. Leece expressed concern that we might be having Code Enforcement go knock on doors of homes with approved granny units to determine if only age-appropriate residents lived there! Sounds like Nazi Germany to me! Show me your papers!

DON QUIXOTE AND SANCHO PANZA
One of their truly stupid ideas, proposed by Mensinger and his sidekick, Jim Fitzpatrick, was to have the Code Enforcement staff report directly to the City Manager's office - to Assistant City Manager Tom Hatch, specifically. This suggestion comes at a time when every member of the City Manager's office is struggling just to tread water due to staff reductions and the increased work demands due to the budget issues and the Fairgrounds Sale. Roeder reminded the council of the facts and, eventually, this idea was rejected. Not only would this scheme overload the City Manager's office, but it was a direct slap in the face of the Chief of Code Enforcement, Willa Bowens-Killeen, and the rest of Kimberly Brandt's staff. If Righeimer or Mensinger - or any elected or appointed official - has a problem with the competence of a staff member they need to take that directly to Allan Roeder - not make a huge issue of it in public. Talk about heavy-handed! It was absolutely clear from the comments he made that Roeder was NOT happy with the suggestion.

HOW HIGH, SIR?
We did learn something important during that little exercise, though. We got a glimpse of what life will be like if Mensinger gets appointed to Katrina Foley's seat should she successfully run for the School Board and resign her council seat in January. Mensinger, who is making quite a positive name for himself in the arena of youth athletics here in town, is used to having people immediately levitate when he says "jump!" He still has not learned that this won't work in city government. He still thinks that bullying is OK. The scary thing is, if Riggy and Wendy are elected in November it is almost a foregone conclusion that they, along with Bever and Monahan, would appoint Mensinger to Foley's slot. Why else would Mensinger have drafted Foley for the School Board? That would give a probable 10-year term on the council - the remaining two years on Foley's term plus the opportunity to run for two consecutive four-year terms as an incumbent. Sweet deal for him - not so sweet for us.

BACK TO WEEKLY STREET SWEEPING
Finally, the council agreed to reinstate our previous method of managing our street sweeping program. They voted to accept the staff proposal, which will involve hiring two new street sweeping drivers - three had recently retired due to the sweetened retirement pot - and re-hire two laid-off part-time civilian Police Department employees to patrol and write tickets on cars not moved on street-sweeping day. Apparently, when sweeping the streets on a weekly basis, parking fines generate over $600,000 annually! Yikes! The staff report clearly demonstrated the wisdom of returning to a weekly schedule and justified the staff increases mentioned.

PAY ATTENTION OR PAY THE PRICE
So goes life here in our little slice of heaven. If the recent events in the City of Bell tell us anything at all, it is that if the residents of a city do not pay attention to what their leaders are doing they deserve what they get. In our case, we could likely get a developer-oriented dictatorship as a result of the November election. It's time to start paying attention.