Things To Consider For Tuesday(Amended!)

SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER
As you prepare to attend the City Council meeting/Public Safety Rally Tuesday at Costa Mesa City Hall here are a few things that you'll probably find of interest.

DON'T FORGET THE SUPPORT STAFF
First, as you gather to honor the men and women who have sworn to protect and serve us, and to keep us from fire and other disasters, please don't forget those folks who also work in public safety but are part of the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA).  They work in dispatch, are crime scene investigators, write reports and have been jailers.  They perform essential jobs that support the sworn officers in the field and deserve your acknowledgement, too.

LEAN PROPOSAL
And, while you're thinking about them, you might be interested in a recent press release from the CMCEA discussing their proposal to partner with The City to adopt the LEAN management process.  Here's the press release:

That's just an image of the press release.  You can follow the link to the Costa Mesa Works website and the relevant article HERE.  And, if you wish to know more about the LEAN process, click HERE.

ONLY CONSIDERING THE APPEAL, NOT THE ISSUE WRONG!

I suspect there will be more than a few of you who show up expecting to voice your views on Councilwoman Sandra Genis' appeal of the Fairview Park Improvement Project - the issue that was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and which was discussed during a lively public meeting last Thursday night.  Be advised that the council will only consider whether to approve Genis' appeal.  Unless they change the rules, they won't be discussing the pros and cons of the plans, only whether Genis' request for an appeal is valid.  If it is granted, then there would be a "de novo" hearing - a brand new hearing of this issue before the City Council at a subsequent meeting. At 9:00 a.m. I received a call from City Hall.  This issue WILL be heard and voted upon tonight.  If it had been an appeal of a COUNCIL decision, the action would have been as I described above.  Since this is an appeal of a Parks and Recreation Commission action the council WILL discuss the subject and WILL vote on it tonight.  So, bring your arguments and your pillows - it's going to be a long, long night!

BY ALL MEANS, SPEAK UP
That doesn't mean you shouldn't show up and speak on this issue, but don't expect the council to vote on the issue at this meeting.  By all means, step up and make your voices heard.

PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE
I hope you've taken the time to read the Public Nuisance Ordinance, HERE.  I have read it, and I'm concerned about the potential for abuse and mischief by elected leaders and their appointees.  I'm concerned about Mayor Jim Righeimer's often-stated plan to use this ordinance to put substantial pressure on owners of so-called problem motels - to drive their value down to a point where the owners will just throw up their hands and sell the properties to developers.  And, if you read it, I think you'll see where that abuse could be extended to individual homeowners if they choose.  Please take the time to read the staff report - and don't forget Attachment 3, HERE, which does a good job of summarizing the issue.

It's going to be a very interesting evening at City Hall.

Tuesday's Going To Be Fun!

BANKING SLEEP
I'm going to bed in a few minutes and will sleep straight through until Tuesday around noon to bank sleep in anticipation of what promises to be one very memorable evening at City Hall.


INSIDE AND OUT

Not only will the City Council meeting be packed with controversial items, sure to guarantee a very focused crowd in the chambers, the there will be a Public Safety rally outside beginning at 5:00 p.m.  Read what I wrote about it last Friday HERE.

READ ALL ABOUT IT
The agenda, HERE, is full of interesting stuff, so just take a deep breath and let me plow through it for you in the order it's presented.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar, which is supposed to include items that won't require separate discussion and vote so could be passed on one vote, has taken on a very different look in recent months.  This one is no different, with sixteen items listed for consideration.  From the top:

LIQUOR LICENSES
#1 -  This is the reading folder and has no staff report, but does include transfer activity on eight (8) liquor licenses.  Every time I see entries like this I wonder why we permit there to be so darn many businesses in this town that sell liquor.  It certainly must contribute to the fact that our police staff rack up huge numbers of DUI arrests every year.

WHY?
#2 - This one, with no staff report, is a procedural item about the reading of issues.  They've been doing this for years, so I wonder why it's necessary?

LEGAL FEES
#3 - This is Warrant 2489, HERE, which includes some very interesting items, including yet another whopper of a check to our contract attorneys, Jones and Mayer, for more than $128,000, including a charge for the Benito Acosta appeal.  Further on down we find a charge from Woodruff Spardlin & Smart for $17,645.85, also for Acosta.  He's the gift that keeps on taking.  We also find $7,378.00 to Management Partners for the last two weeks in July - we assume for the services of Tammy LeTourneau, who is making a career of being a consultant to our city.

STARTS AND ENDS STRANGELY
#4 - This is Warrant 2490, HERE, which begins with an interesting entry - $37,968.16 for "Misc. Procurement Card Purchases".  I find myself want more detail for nearly $40,000 in miscellaneous purchases.  We also find $6,998 to Keyser Marston Associates for consulting services and $6,049.80 to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for legal services - they provide our negotiator.  Perhaps the most interesting entry, although not about much money, is $102.00 to reimburse Margaret Chang for 4 birth certificates for 4 homeless people.  And, among the several 60th anniversary celebration charges scattered throughout this warrant and the previous one is $6,875 to "We The Creative" for PR materials.  Funny, that check was cut September 6th - fully a month after the scandal broke and well after folks requested records on bills.

HOUSING AUTHORITY BUDGET
#5 - This is establishes a $90,000 annual budget for the Housing Authority for this fiscal year, HERE.

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TO GENERAL PLAN
#6 - This is the proposed Housing Element Update for the 2000 General Plan, HERE.

WEST 19TH STREET PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR COSTS
#7 - This is for more than $500,000 in costs for the West 19th Street Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Project, HERE.

AQUATICS ALL-YEAR ROUND
#8 - This is a proposal to reinstate the Aquatics Programming Year Round at the Downtown Aquatic Center, HERE.

MODEL TRAIN SHORT EXTENSION
#9 - This is renewal of the agreement with the Orange County Model Engineers, Inc. (OCME) for use of a portion of Fairview Park, HERE.  This group, who currently holds a 25 year agreement that expires this month.  The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends an extension ONLY until December, 2014, despite the fact that the OCME has been an outstanding tenant in the park and have provided a very positive image for our community.  I suspect the good folks who form that organization are just a little uneasy with this turn of events.

REPEAL PART OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
#10 - This repeals a section of the Municipal Code based on a recent Redondo Beach legal ruling that has determined that our Section 10-354 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and may no longer be enforced, HERE.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY BUDGET
#11 - This is the $125,000 6-month Administrative Budget for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, HERE.

ROPS REPORT
#12 - This is the review and approval of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the last six months of the fiscal year, HERE.

LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN
#13 - This one is the Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) for the Successor Agency, HERE.

NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT DATA SOFTWARE
#14 - This is for the purchase of new Fire Data Mapping and Administration software for the CMFD, HERE.  With the new deployment model, having accurate, timely data will be essential for efficient operations of the New Fire Department.

WHEN GOOD INTENTIONS TURN BAD
#15 - This one is a doozy!  Take a few minutes to plow through the staff report, HERE.  The shorthand version is - the city loaned Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation a bunch of money to purchase affordable housing units decades ago.  Those units are about to go into default and the only way to protect the city's interests are to appropriate $350,000 from the General Fund to pay off the loan, take title to it via the Costa Mesa Housing Authority and find someone to run the places.  Good grief!

INCREASING SINGLE FAMILY REHAB LOANS AND GRANTS
#16 - This modifies the Single Family Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program policies and procedures due to increasing costs of materials, HERE.

OK, take a deep breath, grab a cup of coffee (or Diet Coke, Jim and Steve) and we'll move on to the "real" business for the evening.

PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE
The first Public Hearing of the evening - who knows when that will begin - may be the most controversial.  This is the now-infamous Public Nuisance Ordinance that has been juggled around between the council and the staff until they think they've finally got an ordinance that will be effective and (probably) not sink the city with lawsuits.  You can read the staff report HERE.  Among other things, it is presumed that this ordinance will facilitate regulation of rehabilitation homes that have begun popping around town like poison mushrooms and also enable more enforcement efforts for so-called "problem motels".  However, it seems to me after a quick read of the ordinance and Attachment 3, HERE, that this is still way too broad and has the potential for mischief by folks in charge.

CIVIL PENALTIES
One of the things that got my attention is the penalties section of the new ordinance.  Section 20-12, Civil Penalties, reads as follows:

(a)    Commencing the day following the expiration of the period provided in the notice to abate, a fine of up to $1000 (one thousand dollars) may be imposed until the violation is corrected. Fines shall be set by city council resolution.

(b)    Unpaid fines shall be collected pursuant to Section 1-48 of this code.

(c)    Any fines collected for failure to maintain a property acquired through foreclosure or deed of trust shall be solely directed to the city’s nuisance abatement program.

YIKES!

The way I read that, if you are found in violation you could be fined up to $1,000 PER DAY until the violation is corrected!

FAIRVIEW PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT APPEAL
The second Public Hearing, Councilwoman Sandra Genis' Fairview Park Entryway Concept Plans Appeal, HERE, is likely to pack the auditorium with folks who are not happy with the plans recently approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.  If Mayor Jim Righiemer's recent Meet The Mayor event on Pacific Avenue is any indication, the nearby neighbors are not happy with this plan.  You can watch the video clips recorded by Righeimer's presumed personal videographer, Barry Friedland, at his Costa Mesa Brief YouTube site.  You can see the first 35 minute segment HERE and the second 47 minute clip, in which Righeimer describes the neighborhood as "third world" - twice - at around the 8 minute mark, HERE.  I don't know whether he captured the entire evening, but the second one seems to end early and I'm told by those in attendance that the first segment left out part, too.  And, the second segment had big difficulties with the sound and Friedland forgot about backlight, so Righeimer and Ernesto Munoz are only shadows at the end of the second one. 

LIVE/WORK AT SUPERIOR AND 17TH STREET

There is no Old Business, but there are three New Business items on the agenda.   The first one is an urban plan screening request for a 20-unit live/work development at 1695 Superior Avenue, at the intersection of Superior and 17th Street.  You can read the staff report HERE, which includes links to other relevant documents.

A CURIOUS REQUEST
The third New Business item is a curious one.  The staff report is HERE. It's a request for a payment to an outfit called Cognify, Inc. of $52,274.63 and authorize previous payments of $34,387.51 made beyond the original professional services agreement of $49,900.  So, what the heck happened with this one?  I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we somehow managed to overpay this outfit without authorization and the CEO of Cognify, Mace Wolf, is a contributor to Mayor Righeimer's campaign, right?

WHEW!
So, that's it for that meeting.  It's going to be a long night...  I'll try to report the results as quickly as possible, but no guarantees.

BIA Takes A Second Bite Of The Apple

BIA, PART 2
This afternoon, in a crowded conference room on the second floor of City Hall, members of the Planning staff and the public had a chance to hear from representatives from the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California for a second time on their views/preferences as the City of Costa Mesa moves forward with the General Plan Update.  It's not clear to me why they got two shots at this, but the meeting was fruitful.  They had yet another chance to hear residents voice their opinions, much to their probable chagrin.

DEVELOPERS
This was the second time we've had a chance to hear from these same folks - I covered the first meeting last May, HERE.   The same players from the BIA attended this meeting - Chief Executive Officer  Michael Balsamo and Victor Cao, their head of governmental affairs as well as a couple of local developers.

STAFF AND RESIDENTS

Three staff members - Gary Armstrong, Director of Economic and Development Services, Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director and Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner attended.  I was among more than a dozen residents who attended this meeting, most of whom have attended the other meetings dealing with the General Plan and who have been frequent speakers on the issue.

BIA "PREFERENCES"
Balsamo discussed the content of the letter he sent to Armstrong earlier this month that outlined what amounts to a wish list from their organization as the City moves forward with considerations on the General Plan Update.  Here are the items he included in his preferences for the city to consider:

• Maintain and enhance existing Overlay Zones and Specific Plan.
• Consider use of a Specific Plan or Overlay Zone for the Harbor/Newport Blvd Corridors that promotes a moderate increase in density up to 50-60 dwelling units per acre at appropriate locations.
• Streamline entitlement process through use of by-right development and staff level administrative review.
• Provide assistance in parcel consolidation when possible.
• Reduce parking requirements in order to promote smart growth and alternate modes of transportation.
• Realign open space requirements and park in-lieu fees using most recent  market and demographic data and in accordance with State Law.

RESIDENTS TAKE EXCEPTION
As you might expect, members of the public were curious about some of those ideas, particulary the density numbers and the parking issue.  As it stands right now, south of the 405 Freeway density of no greater than 20 dwelling units per acre is permitted and this city has an on-going and pervasive parking problem throughout.

DENSITY AND RENTALS
Many of the residents spoke to the issues outlined above, and several others, too.  Among them were the current imbalance between rental units and owner-occupied housing.  The city is upside down, with a 60/40 ratio of renters to owners.  Former councilman Jay Humphrey, who attends many of these meetings, reminded the BIA folks that Costa Mesa is the 36th most densely-populated city in the country - not county or state, but in the entire nation.  It's hard to imagine increasing housing density in any areas of the city with that bit of knowledge banging around in our heads.

WESTSIDERS - "STOP PICKING ON US!"
When the BIA folks suggested that not every area should be targeted for increased density, members in attendance from the Westside reacted as you might expect - with no small degree of rancor.  Their view is that the Westside is just fine, thank you very much, so quit picking on us to "fix".

RIG AND FITZY'S FAVORITE SUBJECT
The conversation frequently turned to the issue of "problem motels" - something Mayor Jim Righeimer and Planning Commission Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick have chosen as their cause of the moment.  If you've read this blog for awhile, you know this issue has been simmering for several years.  I agree that something needs to be done to clean up several of the motels that have become havens for drug use and prostitution, plus are "affordable housing" for many down-and-out families.

RIGHEIMER'S SCHEME
It was during one of these discussions near the end of the 80 minutes we were together that I told the BIA folks of the mayor's recent and frequent exposition of his plans to put pressure on motel owners to either change their ways or sell out.  Currently, many of those units are cash cows - Righeimer's favorite term - bringing in mountains of cash for the owners who are not disposed to either maintain them nor follow established rules.

SQUEEZE THE OWNERS
Righeimer's plan, as mentioned many times in public forums recently, is to adopt some new ordinances - a "Nuisance Ordinance" and an "Excess Use of Resources Ordinance" to squeeze the owners into compliance.  His thought, as he described it many times, is to change the owner's perception of the value of their properties by imposing fines and other sanctions - fees for public safety calls, for example - to de facto force the value downward.  That might make it possible for developers to acquire those parcels at a rate that would pencil out if converted to - you guessed it - high density housing!  As Righeimer has so eloquently put it - "We have to be willing to trade drugs and prostitution for higher density."  I didn't, and still don't, think those are, nor should be, our only options. And, I'm sure not eager for the mayor to get us embroiled in more legal action with that kind of approach.  He has acknowledged that his plan "might lead to more litigation", and it doesn't seem to bother him at all.  He's a one-man retirement plan for local law firms, for goodness sake!

"WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT!"
An interesting, relevant, sidebar... when I told the BIA folks the above, Balsamo's reaction was one of surprise, then he said something like, "We didn't ask for that".  I understood his reaction, since there's a very good chance the mayor may have some serious legal issues to deal with if he, in fact, is planning to force long-time, profitable, tax-paying business owners out of business.  Then, again, he's the lawyer's best friend....

SEPTEMBER 12TH
According to the City web site, HERE, the next General Plan meeting is Land Use Part 2, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.at the Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue (Lions Park) on Thursday, September 12, 2013.

SEPTEMBER 18TH
The next one, a Circulation Element Workshop, is from 6 - 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at 99 Fair Drive, next to Police Headquarters.  More on each of those as the dates approach.

*****

COMMENT REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Remember that you MUST register before you post a comment.  Those submitted by un-registered folks will be deleted without being read.  Click HERE for the information about registration.

Budgets, Nuisances And Curious Choices

ANOTHER LONG NIGHT
'Twas another long, long night at Costa Mesa City Hall yesterday.  Once again the City Council meeting ran past midnight - 12:35 to be precise.  It was an even longer day for the council, which preceded the regular council meeting with a two and a half hour closed session that began at 4:00 p.m.

THE THUMBNAIL VERSION
The short version of events - the staff reports for the meeting were fully 3 inches thick - we have a balanced budget (that included $650,000 for Fairview Park lights); we don't yet have a Public Nuisance Ordinance;  we're switching insurance brokers; we're changing the rules for Field Use allocations; Tom Hatch got his raise; some CDBG fund recipients got a nice surprise; somebody else is going to be managing our money and the most qualified person WAS NOT selected to fill a vacancy in the Pension Oversight Committee.  That may be enough information for most of you, but here are the details.

A VERY POSITIVE BEGINNING
After beginning thirty minutes late due to the Closed Session dragging out for two and a half hours, the meeting began with a much-deserved recognition of Costa Mesa High Schoolers.  The young women of Costa Mesa Cheer were recognized for their prodigious accomplishments this past year - they were ranked 6th internationally for their activities.  Mayor Jim Righeimer was joined by Costa Mesa High School Principal Dr. Phil D'Agostino presenting awards. D'Agostino stressed that the average GPA for the cheer squad was 3.83!  An astounding number for any group of high school scholar/athletes.  This photo shows those who attended last night.  The seniors were at "Senior Recognition Night" at another venue.  Congrats to the ladies.

GENIS...During Council Member Comments Sandra Genis encouraged community members to get involved in the update process for the city's General Plan.  There's a "visioning" meeting tonight at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) beginning at 6:00.  She also expressed concern about item #13 on the Consent Calendar, although she didn't pull it for separate discussion.  She was concerned that the prolific use of consulting companies to perform building inspection services has led to a lack of continuity and consistency in the way projects are inspected and suggested more in-house inspectors should be hired to retain that continuity.  She also addressed concerns made by residents about the Banning Ranch development, indicating that virtually ALL the traffic from that project would be directed onto Costa Mesa streets.

LEECE...
Wendy Leece gave a report on the Relay For Life event held last weekend.  She attended the 27th anniversary celebration of Someone Cares Soup Kitchen, emphasizing how many Costa Mesa residents - including many residents of the Tower on 19th (formerly Bethel Towers) use it.  She also stressed the need for residents to be safe during the July 4th holiday Fireworks season - it's no longer just one evening in our town.  She also expressed concern about Righeimer's commentary in the Daily Pilot on Hatch's raise that was published BEFORE the council had actually voted on it.  Contract City Attorney Tom Duarte basically said "no big deal".  I spoke with him later on this subject and he said he'll have to study the timeline, indicating that council members cannot discuss "strategy" discussed in closed sessions.  That's not how I read the Brown Act, so he's going to get back to me.

MENSINGER...
Steve Mensinger asked Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz about the status of a radar speed sign on Susan Street in response to the public outcry about the tragic accident that took the life of an Estancia High School graduate over the weekend.  Munoz said the sign will be acquired using grant funding, but nothing is in the pipeline yet.  Mensinger also mentioned the Fairview Park tour Saturday morning beginning at 8:00 a.m.

MONAHAN...
Gary Monahan said he'd keep his comments short and brief - I smiled - and congratulated ALL graduates this spring.


RIGHEIMER...
Righeimer spoke about how he and Mensinger did ridealongs with the CMPD Monday night when, in cooperation with the Orange County Probation Department, snatched up seven violators and sent them back to jail.  As he extolled the virtues of the officers involved I found myself thinking, "It's about time you began to appreciate the work our police force does to keep this city safe!"  Righeimer, apparently now "Mister Law and Order", said, "If you're on probation in Costa Mesa we're going to check on you.  If you're not straight you're going to jail!"  Tough talk from a guy who has no clue about law enforcement. 

HATCH...
During his time CEO Hatch introduced our new Economic and Development Services Director/Deputy CEO, Gary Armstrong.  He also mentioned the impact of the 60th Anniversary celebration that will be held in 10 days.  He spoke of the Fireworks "challenges" - I'm beginning to hate that word - and of the new Fire Department re-deployment that began Sunday with the advent of two leased paramedic units.  This is the very beginning of Interim Fire Chief Tom Arnold's plan to improve emergency response service in Costa Mesa and save a bucket of money, too.  Hatch also mentioned the General Plan process, indicating the "visioning" meeting tonight and the Public Hearing next Monday, June 24th, at the Planning Commission meeting.

MONAHAN'S RUDENESS SET THE TONE

There were fifteen (15) items on the Consent Calendar and only two were pulled for separate discussion.  Monahan pulled #11, the proposed re-issue of the RFP for someone to handle our insurance brokerage services.  This has been dragging for months - the original RFP was issued last August.  After a brief discussion the Executive Vice President of our current provider, Alliant Insurance Services, stepped up to provide information about his organization and their services and seemed concerned that the council was about to change horses after more than two decades.  Monahan, in a bit of rudeness seldom seen from the dais, basically spit in his eye - telling him flat out that they had not done a good job for the city.  The man was left almost speechless.  The council, on a 3-2 vote (Genis and Leece voted no) chose to select Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services to provide the services.  I must tell you that this seemed more than a little strange...


HATCH'S RAISE AND THE BROWN ACT
Wendy Leece pulled item #15, the new contract for CEO Hatch, for discussion.  Actually, she was concerned about the timing of Righeimer's Daily Pilot commentary providing all the details of the proposed contract amendment last week before the council had a chance to vote on it tonight.  I mentioned contract City Attorney Tom Duarte's response.  I've not heard back from him yet.  Seems peculiar that the details discussed in a closed session would be divulged BEFORE the council had a chance to consider and vote on them.  I'll report back when I hear back.  The contract was approved on a 5-0 vote.  The issue was never about whether Hatch deserved a raise.  In fact, one speaker stepped up and said he should have had it a year ago!

CHANGING THE FIELD USE ALLOCATION POLICY
The council voted on all the other items on the Consent Calendar in one vote, 5-0.  So, for example, they approved the Parks and Recreation Commission's request to change the Field Use Allocation Policy without discussion.  This will be floating back before the council and I suspect there will be A LOT of discussion by the various user groups that are impacted by this change at that time.

PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE
At 7:45 we finally got to Public Hearing #1, the Public Nuisance Abatement Policy.  An hour and a half later, after many speakers addressed this issue with concern and the council flogged it, the decision was made to NOT consider this a "first reading" because the proposed ordinance needed too much work.  It will return to the council for the real "first reading" the first meeting in August.

OVERLY-BROAD
Many concerns were expressed by council members and the public about the overly-broad language in the ordinance.  It's clear that one of the intentions of this ordinance is to provide a tool to "manage" drug and rehab homes and problem motels - I'm OK with that because we have too few tools in our toolbox for that purpose - but many expressed concerns about the possible mis-use of this particular version on regular residents.  I actually heard the term "gestapo" uttered by a staff member during the discussion!  I think the council did the wise thing by voting, 5-0, to shove this back to the staff for a major rehab before moving forward.  We'll write more about this when it returns this summer.

CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS
Following a much-needed fifteen minute break the council re-convened at 9:30 for another contentious issue, Public Hearing #2, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Service Grant Allocations.  You can read the staff report HERE.  This item had been continued from an earlier meeting during which it became clear that some members didn't want to use these funds for some of the organizations recommended by the ad hoc committee charged with evaluating and recommending the amounts.  Mensinger, for example, preferred to put these dollars into infrastructure improvements, citing that it was "borrowed money".  Geez!  Anyhow, Hatch had modified the recommendations, chopping funding for several of the organizations and recommending only about 2/3 of the available funds be used, with the remainder going back to capital improvements.  At that time there was vagueness about the amount of money actually available from the government.  That issue was resolved and we were told there was actually more money available than anticipated.  One might have thought that revelation would soften the positions of certain council members - NOPE!

RESTORING NEEDED, VALUABLE FUNDING
So, the upshot is that, on a 3-2 vote (Mensinger and Righeimer voting NO), the council voted the CEO recommendations on Attachment A except they added $41,000 when they chose to restore the $20,000 for Collette's Children's Home, the $10,000 for Alzheimer's Family Services Center and provide $19,000 to Youth Employment Services and $10,000 to Elwyn.  Genis led the charge with crisp reminders of the obligation the council had to the previously-approved Consolidated Plan and Monahan and Leece went along.  In fairness to the opposition, they had proposed to consider funding  YES and Elwyn via the General Fund in the budget considerations later, but there was no guarantee that would happen.  This was a good move by the council.  Oh, yes.. Righeimer had earlier excused himself while the potential funding for Mercy House - he's a board member - was considered.  The council approved the CEO's recommendation on that one, 4-0.

QUICK DECISION
Next up was Public Hearing #3, dealing with CDBG and HOME funding.  They took ten minutes and approved the staff recommendation on a 5-0 vote.

THE BUDGET!
At 10:50 the discussion of the Municipal Budget began, with Hatch and Director of Finance and Information Technology, Bobby Young, carrying the ball.  You can read that staff report HERE.  It includes a fifteen (15) item list prepared by Hatch with his recommendations folding in the comments by council members during two previous study sessions on this issue.  As the discussion proceeded and decisions had to be made about where to find funds for some of those items, Mensinger suggested one source might be Hatch's $1 million contingency fund.  Righeimer slapped that one back with gusto, indicating they were NOT going to use the Contingency Fund before the budget was even approved.  I smiled.

FAIRVIEW PARK LIGHTS
Nine residents stepped up to address issues in the budget - most of them concerned about spending $650,000 for lights in Fairview Park parking lots.  This issue, alone, generated a lot of heat and not much illumination (sorry, couldn't resist).  One of the most laughable parts was when Mensinger had the staff play a video clip he apparently made as he drove through the south part of Fairview Park one night, alternately turning on and off the headlights on his truck to demonstrate how dangerous it was at night in the parking lot without lights.  On, Off... On, Off... On, Off.  I found myself wanting to scream to him, "Well, don't turn your lights off, you dummy!" - but I didn't, although I do confess to muttering it to myself.  Eventually, the council voted on this part of the budget all by itself, and it passed on a 3-2 vote, with Genis and Leece voting NO.

FINALLY PASSED AT MIDNIGHT
Eventually, it was decided to look for funding for items 9, 10 and 11 - all capital projects - in the fall, after we see how the budget year is progressing.  Items 12, 13, 14 and 15 might find funding from savings from the Jail outsourcing, although Genis expressed concern that those savings should actually be plowed back into law enforcement needs.  The council passed our Fiscal Year 2013-2014 budget of $132,280,839 on a 5-0 vote as the clock struck midnight.  It seemed somehow appropriate.

RELIEVED, THEY MOVE FASTER
Following a seven minute "new day" potty break, the council passed Public Hearing #5, the Appropriations Limit, 5-0.  They also made short work of Old Business #1, the three-year contract for managed investment services when they voted, 5-0 to award the contract to Chandler Asset Management, Inc. to help Young and his staff manage our assets.

PICKING THE RIGHT GUY?
New Business #1 was the selection of a replacement for Shawn Dewane, who resigned due to scheduling conflicts, on the Pension Oversight Committee.  This is the group that has been meeting WEEKLY since it was formed - it will meet again tonight.  The staff report, HERE, contains the applications for those who had previously applied, but had not been selected, from which the council was expected to choose a new member.  So, logic might suggest you'd look them over and pick the most qualified person, right?  Guess again!

PERFECT CANDIDATE
Leece did just that and suggested the council appoint Thomas J. Lightvoet to the committee.  Looking over the information provided he looks to be the most highly qualified candidate - by far!  In fact, if you were to attempt to build the perfect resume for this kind of a volunteer assignment, his would be the one you'd come up with.  He's worked for one of the most prestigious investment consulting firms in the country.  He owned his own pension advisory business.  He was a trustee of the Orange County Employee's Retirement System for decades. 

PHEW!
However, when Righeimer heard that name he reacted like he'd just stepped in dog poop!  He didn't even attempt subtlety when he threw that nomination back in Leece's face.  His reaction surprised even me, and I'm used to seeing him in these little fits of pique.

INSTEAD...
Instead, he offered up Ronald Robertson, a 25 year resident and small business owner (construction-related) whose adult children all went to the same school Righeimer's girls attend.  Robertson, who may be an absolutely great guy, has NO experience that is relevant to the assignment on the Pension Oversight Committee.  He was chosen on a 5-0 vote.  Imagine that!

WESTSIDE DEVELOPMENT SCREENING
Finally, the council spent the next 20 minutes or so discussing New Business #2, the screening request for a Westside live/work development, before adjourning to the meeting of July 2nd at 12:35 a.m.  Yawn!