Boys & Girls Club Extension And Vrska Expulsion On Agenda

POTENTIALLY SHORT MEETING TUESDAY

The Costa Mesa City Council will meet again on Tuesday, March 1, 2016 beginning at 5:45 in Council Chambers at City Hall.  You can read the full agenda HERE.  We could be out of there well before 8:00 p.m.

 DESERVED RECOGINTION

Early in the meeting Gordon Bowley will receive the latest iteration of the Mayor's Award.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Following Public Comments, Council Member Comments and the report from the Chief Executive Officer, Tom Hatch, the Consent Calendar will be considered.  There are eight (8) items listed on the Consent Calendar and, in theory, they are of routine nature and will not be pulled for separate discussion and be handled in one combined vote by the council.  However, if one of the council members, a staff member OR a member of the public wishes to pull one of those items for separate discussion, under the rules imposed by Mayor Steve Mensinger, it will be trailed to the very end of the meeting for discussion and vote.

SPENDING YOUR BUCKS
Item #2 is Warrant Resolution #2552, HERE.  This represents nearly $4 million of our tax dollars spent and is interesting to just scroll down through to see who is receiving what.  Usually I'll give you a long list of things that caught my eye, either because of the amount of money involved or because of the nature of the item.  Today that list will be short.  Feel free to go to that link and take your own trip through millions of your dollars being expended.  Here's my list:

• Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau - $198,346.11 - BIA Receipts for Dec. 2015
• Johnson Favaro LLP - $98,857.20 - DD Library&Pk Impv
• Mercy House - $40,000.00 - Grant for Homeless
• National Auto Fleet Group - $178,525.08 - Five (5) new police vehicles
• Newport Mesa Unified School District - $15,000.00 - Feasibility Study CMHS
• West Coast Arborists, Inc. - $21,317.00 - Emerg. Remov. Hazardous Trees
• Hilton Costa Mesa - $2,500.00 - Employee Svs Award Deposit
• The Omega Group Inc. - $7,025.00 - Furnish & Install. (What?)
• Jones & Mayer - $37,134.35 - Legal (Dadey)
• Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth - $3,607.50 - Legal - various

I didn't list all the temporary service items, nor the consulting fees for things like Inspection and Plan Check services.  It was interesting to note that we apparently spent nearly $40,000 on one entry with Jones & Mayer, our contract City Attorney firm.  Anyhow, enjoy.

NO PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are no Public Hearings scheduled for Tuesday night.

DON'T BLINK ON THIS ONE
Old Business #1, HERE, is the second reading of a mandatory ordinance related to water efficient landscape plan and related guidelines required by new state rules.  This should take five minutes, tops.

 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB LEASE EXTENSION
New Business #1, HERE, is an interesting issue.  This is the lease agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of the Harbor Area, inc., and the City for property at 2131 Tustin Avenue.  The original lease was for a term of 50 years, with a proviso that the Lessee shall have the option to extend the lease for an additional forty-eight (48) years.  This is where we are today.  The new term would commence November 14, 2016 and expire November 13, 2064, with a rent rate of $1 per year.

RIGHEIMER'S HISSY FIT
New Business #2, HERE, is the vindictive demand by Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer for the removal of Anna Vrska from the Fairview Park Citizen's Advisory Committee.  No reason is required for a volunteer to be removed from a City committee, but this is clearly the result of Ms. Vrska's recent unfortunate use of the word "Nazi" when referring to the Sergeant-at-arms during the Planning Commission meeting on February 22, 2016.  Righeimer will likely deny it, but there is NO other reason for this action.  I wrote extensively about this in a recent post, HERE, so I won't say more now except that it demonstrates the petulant dictatorial behavior that we've seen by Righeimer ever since he took office five year ago.  Ms. Vrska subsequently apologized for her use of that word.  I published her apology verbatim in an entry HERE.  I won't be surprised if a few residents and others speak to this issue Tuesday night.

HOPING FOR A SHORT ONE, BUT...
This meeting could be a short one, but one just never knows how long winded Righeimer might be, which stretches the time out.

A New Appeal Process Tops City Council Agenda Tuesday

HOPING FOR A QUORUM
The Costa Mesa City Council meets for the final time this month on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 beginning at 5:45 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall.  The agenda for this meeting may be read HERE.  It should be a short one, but you just never know.  It will be preceded by a multi-item Closed Session in Conference Room 5A.  Since they failed to provide a quorum for the last Study Session last week, it will be interesting to see how many of the council members show up.

THE WARRANT...
Early in the meeting the council will consider nine (9) items on the Consent Calendar - those items deemed to be of a routine nature and, in theory, should be voted on in one vote.  Item #3 is Warrant #2544, HERE, which contains a listing of recently paid bills.  Usually I will list some of those items for your illumination, but today I'll simply let you click on that link and scroll down yourself and pick out some of your favorites.  I will observe that, even though this warrant did not include a payment to our contract City Attorney, Jones & Mayer, we still managed to pay nearly $25,000 to other law firms for various legal services.  Enjoy your scroll through the warrant.

MORE INTERESTING STUFF
Other items on the Consent Calendar that were interesting include:

• Item #4, HERE, for more than $200,000 for Cattail Removal at Fairview Park
• Item #6, HERE, for nearly $140,000 for engineering design services for improvements along Harbor Blvd. between Wilson Street and 19th Street.
• Item #7, HERE, a resolution authorizing the submission of comprehensive transportation funding program applications to try to capture some of the nearly $50 million in transportation-related funding available via the so-called Measure M2 funding.  The city staff has historically done an excellent job of grabbing some of these dollars for transportation projects in our city.
• Item #8, HERE, is a Budget Adjustment and Acceptance of a Grant from Hoag Hospital for Medical Transportation Programs of $100,000, administered through the Costa Mesa Senior Center.
• Item #9, HERE, is a resolution consenting to the inclusion of properties within the City of Costa Mesa to join the Californiafirst Program for installation of renewable energy, energy and water efficiency improvements and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  

EXTENSION OF SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
There are two Public Hearings on the agenda.  #1, HERE, is an ordinance for the Second Amendment involving the Segerstrom Town Center and includes extending the development agreement (originally executed in 2001) for an additional 20 years until 2035.

VACATION OF MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Public Hearing #2, HERE, is for the vacation of excess right-of-way at 752 West 19th Street.  This is the most recent of many such requests, usually granted coincident with a planned development adjacent to the site of the vacation.

APPEAL FEE POLICY
The final item on the agenda, New Business #1, HERE, is the most interesting.  This is the discussion of the City's Appeal Fees and Procedures.  In recent months there have been two (2) incidents where a resident has appealed a decision made by a city body - the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission - and in both cases those appeals were upheld.  Each of those residents had to pony up significant dollars, nearly $700 in one case and more than $1200 in the other.  Because their appeals were upheld they each, individually, requested reimbursement for their fees.  The City Council lumped those two requests into one action item and rejected them.

LOOSEY-GOOSEY NOW
The City has no formal policy on this kind of thing, although there have been at least two incidents within the past few years where the fees were reimbursed.  They are mentioned in the staff report.  Unfortunately, the recommendation by the staff is that a new policy be established firmly stating that all such appeal fees are non-refundable.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION OVERTURNED
I'm familiar with both of the current incidents.  In each case it might have been possible for a council member to appeal the issue without cost to the resident.  In one case it was possible for a planning commissioner to do so, and it was presumed he would - but then he backed out at the very last minute and the resident had no choice to pay the fees and proceed on her own.   This was the Solid Landings issue on East 19th Street.  It's interesting to note that, although the appeal was upheld and the organization was found at fault, they still have not remedied the situation.  It's interesting to note that one of the Closed Session items involves legal action with Solid Landings.

FARMER'S MARKET REJECTED
The other incident involved the proposed Farmers Market at the church on the corner of Bay Street and Orange Avenue.  In that case the resident discovered what the staff should have discovered - a condition of approval on a prior project at that site that would preclude the establishment of the Farmer's Market.  She basically did the work the staff should have done and the approval for that market was overturned.

NEW POLICY NEEDS MORE FLEXIBILITY
In my view, the proposed policy is much too stringent and, in fact, seems punitive.  In my opinion, there should be more flexibility in any such policy, so concerned residents who take their own time and effort to thoroughly vet an issue, which turns out to be a correction of a mistake by the process, should not be also required to pay for the privilege.  If their action results in a proper decision, then consideration should be given to reimbursement of all, or at least part of, the fees paid for the process.  The discussion should be very interesting and, as usual, comes at the very end of the agenda.

AN EARLY EVENING IS POSSIBLE
It's possible that we could be out of the meeting before 8:00 p.m., but I have a sneaking suspicion the last item will draw out a few speakers.  We'll see.

Transparency Is A Double-Edged Sword

GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS SB331
Well, kind of lost in the shuffle this weekend is the fact that Governor Jerry Brown, in a last minute flurry with many other bills last Friday, signed into law Senate Bill 331, the Civic Reporting Openness in Negotiations Efficiency Act (CRONE).  We've briefly mentioned this before.

TURNABOUT...
This act, described by many detractors as an attempt by unions to get back at jurisdictions that have adopted the Civic Openness In Negotiations process (COIN) by imposing a similar deliberative process over most big-ticket government contracts.  You can read about this act HERE.  I won't attempt to give you links to all the negative comments - just click HERE and sift through them yourself.

AFFECTS ONLY A FEW
Now it is law and the jurisdictions affected by it are ONLY those who have adopted COIN - like Costa Mesa, Beverly Hills, the County of Orange and a few more.

TELL STEVE HOW YOU FEEL
So, to those folks who govern those jurisdictions - like our Board of Supervisors and the elected leaders of Costa Mesa and the other cities involved - please remember how you got into this predicament.  You can feel free to write directly to our mayor, Steve Mensinger, the father of COIN and the man who has thumped his chest about it since he first fertilized the egg that became COIN in Costa Mesa.  Please, write to him to tell him how much you appreciate his handiwork, because without COIN there would be no CRONE.

EARLIER REQUESTS REJECTED
Some of you will recall that many community activists encouraged the city to adopt a similar rule for government contracts a couple years ago when COIN was being hatched, basically citing that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and that if the presumed-transparency derived from COIN in labor negotiations is something we desire, then similar transparency in government contracts seemed to be important to consider.  We need only look as far back as our now-notorious 60th Anniversary Celebration debacle - where cost-overruns ran into the tens of thousands of dollars - to see the value of such a program.  But those requests fell on deaf ears.  In fact, certain high-ranking members of our city government chided those who suggested it.  Uh, huh... well, here we are today with a state-wide law that focuses directly on those utilizing COIN.

LED BY THE NOSE
This is the kind of stuff that happens when a person who is not all that smart is being guided by those with strong anti-employee biases.  I don't for one second think Mensinger conjured up COIN on his own - he was just chosen to deliver this mess to a council with an unbreakable majority - a guaranteed pass.  It is this kind of lock-step mentality that generates initiative petitions all over town - people just don't trust their elected leaders to do the right thing.  Well, as the saying goes, "Karma's a bitch!"

AVOID "CHRONE" BY DUMPING "COIN"?
Now, as long as COIN is the law in those jurisdictions, the deliberative - slow - process described in in the CRONE legislation will have to be enforced.  That leads us to a question....  Since it applies ONLY to jurisdictions where COIN is the law, I presume those jurisdictions could escape CRONE by simply wiping COIN off the books, right?  I suspect some of those jurisdictions involved might just decide to do that, rather than be forced into a "transparency" situation that might make them more than a little uneasy.  We'll find out soon enough.

WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM?
And, what do you call a contractor whose presentations fall under this new law?  A "CRONEY"?  Seems just about perfect, don't you think?

"STUFF" HAPPENS...
A friend observed the similarity in sounding out the name of this new law - CRONE - and the intestinal disease, Crohn's Disease.  He snarkily observed that both are a pain in the gut and both will likely result in a whole lot of effluent being expelled from the alimentary canals - of the humans and the governments.  He may be correct.  It's going to be very interesting to watch this new drama play out.  I suspect we may have just found a new way to enhance the retirement fund of our contract attorney's at Jones & Mayer.  There may be a whole lot of legal stuff going on with CRONE.

The Real Cost Of The CMCEA Contract

EXPECT HOOPLA TONIGHT
Tonight the Costa Mesa City Council will, during their short meeting, consider the new labor agreement between The City and the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA).  It is CERTAIN that there will be much hoopla about this being the first agreement consummated using Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger's bastard offspring - the Civic Openness In Negotiations (COIN) ordinance.  Expect to see dislocated shoulders as Mayor Jim Righeimer, Mensinger and perhaps others as they pat themselves on the back and tout what a wonderful, money-saving tool this has proven to be.

THE "REAL COSTS"...
Well, besides the fact that this agreement - in which the employees had to give up so much -  will almost certainly make it extremely difficult to recruit employees now, your crowing elected "leaders" will certainly omit some important facts that are very relevant to this issue.... some of the REAL costs involved.

KREISLER, THE SAVIOR...
Let's begin with the much-ballyhoo'd hiring of Richard Kreisler of the law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to be The City's labor negotiator.  At the time Righeimer and Mensinger presumed that previous negotiators - the City Manager, Allan Roeder, and the Human Resources staff - were more than willing to give away the store and the future of The City to those "hard-nosed" CMCEA negotiators - folks like our favorite Jiffy Lube Guy, Billy Folsom.  You remember him - the guy who dedicated more than three decades to the city to keep our public safety equipment running so the police and fire folks could respond to your emergencies.  He's now happily retired.

...BUT AT WHAT COST?
The high-powered Mr. Kreisler - who, by all reports, is a competent lawyer and negotiator and a good guy - was hired by our contract City Attorney, Jones and  Mayer, back in April of 2012 - you can read the staff report about that transaction HERE.   Included is a list of fees, which tops out at $300 per hour - or segment thereof - for certain staff positions.  Then, if you peruse the reports available on The City website, you can see just what that cost has been.
Legal Expenses, FY 2011/2012 -   $41,316.00
Legal Expenses, FY 2012/2013 -   $66,560.00
Legal Expenses, FY 2013/2014 - $222,418.00
                                                                    $312,294.00

DEFENDING STUPIDITY
However, that's not all.  Back in September, 2011, HERE, The City retained the uber-powerful law firm of Jones Day - At $495 per hour -  to represent The City in the lawsuit filed by the CMCEA against the city as a result of the bogus, illegal attempt by Righeimer and his pals to layoff more than 200 CMCEA employees - a move that demoralized most of the city staff and resulted in young maintenance worker Huy Pham leaping from the City Hall roof.  Since that time their legal fee meter has been spinning like a slot machine in Las Vegas.  Referring back to those same reports, you will find that Jones Day and Jones & Mayer have been charging large numbers to that litigation:
                                                         Jones Day             Jones and Mayer
Legal Expenses, FY 2011/2012       $999,112                  $16,344
Legal Expenses, FY 2012/2013       $475,469                  $10,849
Legal Expenses, FY 2013/2014       $296,929                  $0.00*
                                                                       $1,771,510               $27,193
These numbers do NOT reflect any charges for FY 2014/2015.  *No specific numbers broken out for this litigation from General Litigation.

EVEN MORE THAN THE MONEY...
So, when the crowing begins this evening, remember that the actual costs of this process are more than they will be telling you.  The tangible ones are reflected above.  However, the intangible costs - in morale of the employees and the diminishing of service to the residents and visitors to this city are not quite as easy to quantify.  We continue to see highly-skilled employees depart for perceived greener pastures and/or retire much earlier than anticipated, taking with them years of expertise and institutional knowledge.  Many of those vacancies have been filled by expensive consultants who, while perhaps well-intentioned, have NO real loyalty to The City and those it serves.

REMEMBER...
These are facts that should be remembered in November....

Small, But Potentially Contentious, Council Agenda

SHORT (MAYBE), BUT LIVELY MEETING TOMORROW
Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 16, 2014, the Costa Mesa City Council meets again for their final meeting of the month with a small agenda, but one that might bring some fireworks to the proceedings.  The open portion of the meeting begins at 6:00 in Council Chambers, preceded by a closed session at 5:00.  You can read the entire agenda HERE.

SIXTEEN (!) ITEMS
Let's just take it right on through the agenda, beginning with the Consent Calendar.  This is where items that are considered "routine" in nature are placed and it is anticipated that they will all be passed without discussion and with one vote.  That almost never happens, and probably won't tomorrow night.  This time we have an extraordinary number of items - 16 - on the Consent Calendar. For example...

CRUSING THE WARRANT...
Item #3, Warrant #2522, HERE, has some items that a member of the council, staff or public might like some explanation about.  I won't list everything on it, but here are just a few things that caught my eye as I scrolled down through the 40+ pages:

0182736 - Jones & Mayer - $153,406.53 - A long, long list of legal services
0182737 - Lilley Planning Group - $19,070.00 - Planning Consultant Services
0182760 - Civil Source - $6,890.00 - Park Staff Support Services
0182774 - FTOG, Inc. - $2,475.00 - Interim Buyer
  
I'll let you cruise down through the list, but you may wish to know that on the previous warrant earlier this month we also paid Jones & Mayer more than $73,000.00, which gives us roughly a quarter million dollars to one law firm this month alone!

CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR
#11, HERE, is the amendment to extend the contract of CARE Ambulance Services another year.  You'll recall that we recently spent several million dollars for Paramedic Vans, which could - and should - be used to transport patients so that revenue goes to the city instead of an outside contract firm.  Yet, here we are, extending the contract of a major campaign contributor to the mayor's campaign for another year.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
#15, HERE, is the biennial review of the City Conflict of Interest Code.  You'll find the list of included positions, HERE, of interest.

CMCEA CONTRACT
The only Public Hearing, HERE, is the COIN hearing and vote on the contract with the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA).  We wrote about this at the time of the first hearing earlier this month.  This contract is a disaster for the employees.  Their representatives refused to comment following the first hearing, but I suspect they'll be willing to give us their thoughts after this one is passed by the council.  Attachment IV, HERE, is a 20-page PowerPoint presentation of the issues.  The staff report summarizes the key points as follows:

The following are the key provisions of the negotiated agreement and are summarized in
Attachment IV:

• Salary - No salary increases, in addition, merit increases will be frozen for current
  employees during the term of the MOU. 
• Salary Ranges - New employees’ salary ranges will be 10% less than current
  salary ranges for existing employees. New employees will be eligible for merit
  increases.  
• CalPERS Retirement Employee Contributions – All CalPERS unit members shall
  contribute an additional 2.469%“classic” members (hired prior to January 1, 2013)
  shall pay 60% of the two year (2013 and 2014 fiscal years) total CalPERS
  employer contribution increases equivalent to 3.3% total. In addition, CMCEA
  members shall pay 60% of such increases thereafter without sunset. 
• Vacation Leave - Reduced total vacation maximum accruals for current and new
  employees. Reduced vacation accruals for new employees.  Sick Leave - No cash out/no cash value of any primary or secondary sick leave account balances.  
• MOU Language Revisions - The parties agree to several language changes to
  MOU Articles including, but not limited to overtime, classification and
  compensation, maintenance of benefits clauses and labor marketplace.  
• Retirement Health Savings Plan (RHS) – Participation will be eliminated including
  matching City contributions.  
• Flexible Benefit contribution - effective the first payroll period commencing on or
  after Council adoption of a 2013-2016 MOU, employees will receive an additional
  $120.00/mo. ($919.00 mo./total).  
• Contracting Out – It was agreed upon that Street Sweeping operations will be
• provided by an outside agency.

The CMCEA members have ratified the tentative agreement. This agreement is
presented to the City Council for final approval and adoption and is included herein as
Attachment I. The above mentioned provisions will also apply to Confidential employees.

"GIVE AND TAKE"?  NOT SO MUCH...
In most negotiations there is give and take.  It sure looks like all the "giving" was done by the employees and all the "taking" was done by the City.  As an old - emphasis on the old - HR guy who did a lot of recruitment over a long, long career, as I read through the summary I find myself wondering just how much more difficult it has become for the City of Costa Mesa to attract - and retain - the high-quality employees we've come to know.  I guess we'll find out soon enough.

THANKS, JIMBO...
Clearly, this contract is a result of guidance given the negotiators by men who view "human resources" as they view boxes of nails - just run down to Home Depot and pick up a couple more boxes.  This is a sad time - and a not-so-perfect bookend to the influence of Jim Righeimer on this City Council.  This contract forms one bracket and the ham-handed attempt to layoff most of the same people affected by this contract during his first year in office that resulted in an on-going lawsuit and the death of young Huy Pham forms the other.  Thanks, Mr. Mayor, for reminding us just how unfit you are for this office so close to the election.

ANNEXATION VEXATION
The only other item on the agenda is Old Business #1, the second reading of the Annexation plan for the so-called Santa Ana/Colleen Island, HERE.  The first reading produced many speakers opposed to this scheme and I'll be very surprised if similar numbers of residents and concerned citizens don't show up for this one, too.  It's VERY interesting that the owners of the odd-shaped vacant property located within this island have waited for this annexation scheme to be proposed before presenting a development plan that - just coincidentally - benefits from the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size the City will impose on the site.  The county has a 7,200 square foot lot size, which would mean many fewer homes - and much less profit - for the developers.  By the way, it's my understanding that the developers of this property have ties to the folks who tried to buy the Orange County Fairgrounds not too long ago - and also have a relationship with hizzoner, the mayor.  Thanks, again, Mr. Mayor, for providing us with even more fodder for our "oust Righeimer" cannon.

YOUR GUESS...
I have no idea how long this meeting will last.  It's campaign season, so public comments could be feisty.  Certainly, the last item on the agenda will generate some conversation.  I'm guessing we might be out of their by 10:00 p.m., but one just never knows.  Regardless, check back here for a report on the proceedings.  See you there.  HINT:  Council chambers is air conditioned!