The Case Of The Shrinking Agenda

REMAINING TWO SOBER LIVING ISSUES CONTINUED!

You will recall that I mentioned that the Planning Commission meeting Monday had an even smaller agenda than originally planned.  Well, it got shorter before the meeting actually began when the two remaining Sober Living Home appeals were snatched from the agenda, by the applicant minutes before the meeting began.  Seems he figured out that he needed legal representation at the meeting, even though he had been notified of the schedule on October 6th.  Chairman Rob Dickson announced the request for extension and asked the applicant, Richard Perlin, to explain the reasons.  The commission agreed to continue the hearing to a date certain - November 14th - and Perlin jumped up AFTER the vote was taken to opine that his attorney might not be available on that date.  Commissioner Stephan Andranian expressed what appeared to be the opinion of the other commissioners when he said the applicant had plenty of time to acquire legal representation and he was not willing to consider re-voting to extend this process further.  The November 14th date stood.

440 FAIR DRIVE CONFUSION
And, the meeting took an even weirder turn when several members of the public showed up hoping to address the proposed development at 440 Fair Drive even though that item was NEVER on the published agenda!  Seems the plan was to include it when the deadline for notification of neighbors approached, so notices were sent out, but the issue never made onto the agenda.  This resulted in several members of the public even angrier than they already were about this project.

GANAHL LUMBER EXTENSION
That left only one item on the agenda - Public Hearing #1, the request from Ganahl Lumber for a retroactive extension on the plan to move their business next door to a site next door.  That one was dealt with quickly as consultant Peter Naghavi explained the process and the delays with several layers of bureaucracy.  He said they will be ready to go before the end of the year.  The commission passed the extension, 5-0.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Earlier, during Public Comments, a half-dozen members of the public stepped up to the podium.

Beth Refakes told the commission that the recent candy drive for the children of the 1/5 Marines was very successful and thanked the public for the support.

Steven Chan addressed the commission on the issue of the noise coming from the recently-opened night club, Holiday, near his home.  He called for the resignation of Chairman Rob Dickson for what he perceived as his unwillingness to follow state law when approving the project.

Then up stepped defrocked Planning Commission Jim Fitzpatrick, to thank the commission for all their hard work.  He told them he took time out of his busy day (twice) to express his gratitude for their efforts.  He also expressed disappointment in the residents who dared to criticize the commissions actions, which he described as having lack of emotional control.  Funny, he should re-read some of his recent Facebook posts if he's looking for lack of emotional control.  Fitzpatrick is one pathetic individual - a chronic underachiever.

Tamar Goldmann told the commission she and her neighbors were very disappointed and angry about the way the 440 Fair Drive project is being handled, particularly in the confusion about the noticing.

Richard Russell, a supporter of the current council majority, praised the commission and told them to stick to their guns in the sober living appeals.

An unidentified person also addressed the sober living issue, observing that there seems to be a concerted effort to make life difficult for the small practitioners - like the ones originally scheduled for this meeting.  She referred to what appeared to be preferential treatment given to a local realtor and campaign contributor in a similar situation not long ago.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
During Commissioner Comments Andranian inquired about the noticing procedures with 440 Fair Drive.

Tim Sesler, who apparently removed the marbles from his mouth for this meeting, whined about the criticism leveled at the commission by speakers.  He said it was unethical and immoral.  He said it showed a lack of stability and professionalism.  Yes, sir... little Timmy, making friends whenever he opens his mouth.

Colin McCarthy also addressed the noticing issue.  He said, "We've come a long way."  Maybe, but there's clearly much room for improvement.  He then praised Sesler for his recent commentary in the Daily Pilot on the pension issue.  Of course, Sesler was wrong in so many ways that it's almost not worth the time to comment.

Dickson addressed Chan's concerns and said he's not going to resign.  He also addressed the overwhelming workload in the Planning Department and thanked the staff for their efforts.  He encouraged folks to call the Planning Department front desk at the number shown on this image.

Interim Development Services Director Jay Trevino addressed the noticing issue, indicating that the staff is working hard on improving the situation.

The meeting lasted exactly 54 minutes, finishing before 7:00 p.m.  Easy to do when 75% of your agenda gets tossed out!

Budget Study Session Draws A Crowd

VENUE CHANGE A GOOD MOVE
The Budget Study Session held by the Costa Mesa City Council Tuesday evening drew a pretty good crowd for a change.  It's a good thing technological complications forced the change of venue from Conference Room 1A to the Council Chambers because there would not have been enough seats to accommodate the more than three dozen residents, staffers and the council members in the conference room.

LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR...

Because of the venue change the meeting was televised and streamed live by CMTV.  It will also be available for later viewing, both on CMTV and via the streaming video system at the City web site.   If you did not already watch it and are interested I suggest you use the streaming video and just skip around to the segments that you want more information about.

FEW SPEAKERS
Rookie Mayor Steve Mensinger began the meeting promptly at 5:00 p.m. and opened it up to Public Comments.  In the Study Session environment speakers only get 2 minutes, and the total time allotted for all speakers is only 15 minutes.  As it turned out, that was not a problem.  Only three people stood to address the council.

Flo Martin, long time resident, educator and former Daily Pilot columnist reminded the council of the need for intelligent debt management, citing her personal experience with mortgages, car purchase, etc.  She also reminded the council that Newport Beach has made a dramatic, meaningful move to rein-in their pension debt with a 19 year plan to pay it down and will likely save $23 million in the process.  She suggested Costa Mesa seriously consider doing something similar.

Mary Spadoni told the council about a new program the Newport Beach Police Department has that

is interconnected with the Nixle notification program that links directly to police department data bases, and suggested Costa Mesa look into it - and provided council members with literature on the program.  She also concurred with Martin about the pension situation, and mentioned that Irvine was implementing a similar plan with even greater expected results.

Tamar Goldmann was the final speaker and echoed both Martin and Spadoni regarding the pension situation and suggested that more budget dollars should be put toward police hiring.

HATCH HANDS OFF TO DUNIVENT
At precisely 5:07 p.m. CEO Tom Hatch then kicked off the agenda - two items dealing with the current budget - and then handed it off to Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent.  A reminder here - the council cannot vote on anything during a study session.  They can only give direction to the staff on issues.

Dunivent began with the first item on the agenda, HERE, the discussion of Financial and Budget Policies as recommended by the staff and the Finance Advisory Committee.  I'm not going to quote him on this plan - the staff report has plenty of good information and the detailed discussion of the policies is contained in this 7 page attachment, HERE.  He discussed the following:

• General Revenue Management
• Operating & Captial budgets
• General Expenditure Management
• Fund Balance/Reserves/Cash Requirements
• Debt Management

POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF POLICIES NEXT WEEK
The discussion on this segment, the back-and-forth between Dunivent, Hatch and the council members, took about 30 minutes.  Katrina Foley arrived near the end of this segment.  The staff will return at the next council meeting on the 17th with the policies fine-tuned and ready for the council to consider for adoption.

A PAUSE, THEN THE BUDGET REVIEW
As an aside, at this point Mensinger seemed to be having trouble following what was going on - he was ready to adjourn the meeting, but was reminded that the best was yet to come - the Mid-Year Budget Review.  Hatch again deferred to Dunivent for this discussion.  You can read the staff report for this segment, including the links to the seven (7) attachments, HERE.


FUND BALANCE, VARIANCES, AND MORE
The initial discussion got a little convoluted, trying to explain fund balance, variances, etc.  The upshot was that we are projected to have a little over $9.6 million in the fund balance due to greater revenues than anticipated and fewer expenditures.  Of that amount, $3.2 million represent "carryovers and encumbrances" - monies already earmarked.  For the remainder of about $6.3 million the staff recommended $2 million placed in reserves; $4 million in Capital Projects and the remainder in unassigned fund balance, where it could be spent later.

PRIORITIES
The Finance Advisory Committee had reviewed the draft and the draft policies.  They recommended the following priorities for use of the net budget variance:

• First priority should be to increase reserves if reserves are below target.
• Second priority should be to assess the prepayment and accelerated payoff of debt.
• Third priority should be to allocate additional funds to capital facilities.

During the discussion it was pointed out by Foley, who had attended the meeting where this was discussed, that the "debt" discussed above was NOT the unfunded liability debt.  It was also clear from the discussion, particularly by Gary Monahan, that he didn't necessarily agree with those priorities.  That particular discussion next week should be very interesting.

HATCH'S SLUSH FUND
You might find Attachment 6, HERE, of interest.  This is titled "2014-15 Allocation of General Fund Contingency Account as of 01-27-15".  This is a list of the money spent out of CEO Hatch's Contingency Fund - the $1 million the current council has been giving him to spend as he (and they) see fit - generally without a subsequent vote of the council.

As you scroll down the list you'll find some interesting numbers.  Foley, for example, wondered about the $42,000 and $19,000 spent on mailers and mailing to promote the Charter last year.  She wondered if the proponents of that failed ballot measure might want to hold a fund raiser to reimburse the city for the costs.  I think she was asking that tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure.

There was also a discussion of the $47,000 for portable field lights and snack bar improvements (for the Jack Hammett Sports Complex Snack Bar)  It was an interesting exercise.

90 MINUTES AND GONE
Finally, just after 6:30 Mensinger got it right and adjourned the meeting to the next council meeting on Tuesday.  Watch the video or the televised discussion on CMTV.  The replay is not yet on the schedule, but you can check HERE to find it later.  You can look for the streaming video on-demand HERE.

Mensinger Assails Goldmann

COURTEOUS CRITICISM... 
On June 21st Tamar Goldmann - long-time Costa Mesa resident and renowned Orange Coast College instructor, HERE - published a letter in the Daily Pilot, HERE, in which she criticized the current Costa Mesa City Council for decisions they've been making.  It is not the first such criticism offered by Mrs. Goldmann, who has become a frequent speaker before City Council meetings over the past couple years, nor do I expect it to be the last.

...WITH CLARITY AND PRECISION
Consistent with her personality and training, Mrs. Goldmann delivers her message - whether in person or in writing - with respect, courtesy and clarity.  And, for her trouble, she is frequently interrupted and/or chided by members of the council simply because she disagrees with them.  Her most recent commentary evoked precisely that kind of a response from non-elected councilman and presumed council candidate Steve Mensinger in the pages of the Daily Pilot today, HERE.

A MAN OF SOME "RENOWN", TOO
Mensinger, is also "renowned" by those of us who watch council proceedings - for not paying attention to issues at hand, for his inability to grasp and use the English language and for the difficulty he sometimes has adding numbers like 5+2, for example.  He IS also renowned for tinkering with his cell phone or his Ipad, sending and receiving text messages or emails and surfing the web, while business is being conducted.
WHO?
Back to the business at hand, Mensinger's criticism of Mrs. Goldmann's criticism.  In his first paragraph he identifies Mrs. Goldmann as his "friend", then consistently misspells her name throughout the piece.


SPIN ATTEMPT FAILS

In his second paragraph he quotes Mrs. Goldmann as saying crime is up in Costa Mesa, but doesn't refute her allegation and confirms that "property crimes are up 11%" after saying "violent crime is actually down".  Well, old Steve has not been paying attention, as indicated in the recent rash of violent crimes described HERE.  I'm not sure the older couple on Baker Street who were attacked recently or the young man who was shot in the chest coming to the aid of his father on Cabrillo Street or the jewelers who were robbed at gunpoint a week ago would see things his way.

BUY HIGH, SELL LOW...
Later he attempts to justify the recent decision by the City Council to squirrel away a half-million dollars "just in case" one of the "problem properties" (motels) should come available for purchase.  I guess, based on the comments made from the dais recently, the plan would be to buy a motel, then sell it at a loss to a developer.  Did I mention that Mensinger and his buddy, Jim Righeimer, are developers?

COULD HIRE MORE COPS INSTEAD
That $500,000 would be enough to fund hiring a few more police officers at a time when we sorely need them.  Councilwoman Wendy Leece outlined this from the dais and on her blog OC Public Square, HERE.  Mensinger and his majority on the council have refused to permit Police Chief Tom Gazsi to hire replacements for departed officers or for those officers who will be retiring in the very near future.  It takes at least fifteen months to identify, qualify and train a new police officer and it's becoming VERY difficult to attract "lateral" officers to our department because of the uncertainty of our compensation plans and the hostile work environment this council - including Mensinger - have created.  Despite that, Gazsi has launched a three-part recruitment effort that includes some "hedge" language, just to get the ball rolling.

SAFETY FIRST!
Mensinger, in response to Mrs. Goldmann's comments, tells us that he and the council are "repairing the crumbling infrastructure, repaving pot-hole-laced streets and replanting barren sports fields.", indicating that "These are the type of things that will continue to attract more young families who want to make Costa Mesa their home."  Well, that may be true, but any family - young or old - FIRST wants the city to be SAFE.  Costa Mesa is NOT a safe city today - a fact supported by the numbers.  But then, unless Mensinger takes his shoes off to aid counting, he may not understand those numbers.

WHAT I SAID...
Near the end of his letter Mensinger says, "Tamar makes her living as a teacher, where precession and clarity are essential.  I believe her commentary misses the mark in these areas."  That emphasis is mine and demonstrates precisely what I said at the beginning of this post.  I suspect Mensinger meant "precision", but we'll probably never know.

THE "HEAD FAKE"
In his final paragraph Mensinger tells us the council majority will "address the needs of all the residents, not just the wishes of organized labor."  What he fails to tell you is that this council majority has focused on meeting the partisan political aspirations of the Orange County Republican Party as orchestrated by Scott Baugh and implemented by his pal, Righeimer.  In this effort Mensinger has become a willing dupe - a term I don't use lightly.  His comments are "disingenuous" (see HERE) at best.

PRAISE USED AS A DISTRACTION
As I've observed in the past, when Mensinger begins a comment with glowing praise of an individual - as he did in his letter in the Daily Pilot - that person had better be careful of what's coming next.  That friendly arm on your shoulder is only used to pull you closer so he can slide the stiletto in between your ribs and twist it over and over again.  Beware of the big, sappy grin - that's how it begins.

Hangin' With Tamar

REMEMBER TAMAR GOLDMANN?
Readers here will recognize the name, Tamar Goldmann, from several previous entries.  I've mentioned her in the context of her tenacious, yet cordial, comments presented to the Costa Mesa City Council.

COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL
I first noticed Tamar as she spoke to the council a few years ago.  She approached the speaker's podium almost as though she was trying to sneak up on it and, once there, she quietly, respectfully - almost timidly - said her piece and stepped away.  She made me smile.

MORE ASSERTIVE
Since that time events have caused her to become more assertive.  It's clear from her comments over the past recent months that she is less patient with this particular council, although never disrespectful.  Those of us who follow the antics of the male majority on the council can certainly understand why she - or anyone else - might be losing patience with them.

RECOGNIZED BY HER PEERS
Well, recently Tamar Goldmann - a long-time educator at Orange Coast College - was presented with OCCs Hanging of the Orange award, bestowed upon faculty and staff members who have gone "above and beyond" their regular duties on campus.  You can read all about it HERE.  She's shown here receiving the award from Doug Bennett, Executive Director of the Orange Coast College Foundation

  KUDOS
Congratulations to Tamar, and to her patient husband, Dan.  I'm proud to know you...

Q & A - Tamar Goldmann To City Council

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
A few weeks ago Costa Mesa resident, educator and frequent speaker before the City Council, Tamar Goldmann, addressed the council with a long list of questions dealing with the outsourcing scheme in our city and some that are, in some way, related to that subject. Ms. Goldmann has shared the reply she recently received from Interim Communications Director Bill Lobdell with me and I'll share it with you.

THE QUESTIONS
The following is the list of questions Tamar Goldmann submitted to CEO Tom Hatch:

1. How much of this year's budget--in dollars and by percentage of total budget is estimated to be spent on pensions?
2. How much of this year's budget--in dollars--is devoted to staying current on the interest accruing on the unfunded pension?
3. How much of this year's budget (in dollars, in addition to this year's routine pension payment) is going toward reducing the unfunded pension liability?
4. Has OCEA offered or agreed to a 2-tier retirement system within the last three years?
5. Have the fire or police department ever offered or agreed to such a plan?
6. We have been reading about six bargaining groups. Besides OCEA, fire, and police, what are the other three?
7. Have any of the groups offered to increase their pension contributions?
8. What other concessions have been made by employees, e.g., furlough days?
9. Please publish the 100-item list of cost-saving suggestions that employees produced.
10. Which departments have been reviewed for possible outsourcing within the past four years, and what was the determination for each one?
11. How many employees have voluntarily left city employment since November 2010?
12. Which positions have been eliminated, and how have their responsibilities been filled?
13. What has been spent since November 2010 on rearranging and refurnishing/refurbishing City hall?
14. What is the running total for outsourcing expenses broken down by

a. Legal fees

b. Management companies: Growthpoint and Management Partners (I'll check the names and get them right)

c. Staff time

THE ANSWERS
Last Week Lobdell provided the following response: (Lobdell's replies are shown in blue) He didn't answer all of them, but came close.

1. How much of this year's budget--in dollars and by percentage of total budget is estimated to be spent on pensions?

14,674,741 - 14% page 64&65 of adopted budget, excluding capital projects.

2. How much of this year's budget--in dollars--is devoted to staying current on the interest accruing on the unfunded pension?

Unknown at this time, as no analysis has been completed.

3. How much of this year's budget (in dollars, in addition to this year's routine pension payment) is going toward reducing the unfunded pension liability?

Unknown at this time, as no analysis has been completed.

4. Has OCEA offered or agreed to a 2-tier retirement system within the last three years?

Technically it is Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. and yes, it did in 2010. However, the plan hasn’t been implemented yet. Details are still being negotiated.

5. Have the fire or police department ever offered or agreed to such a plan?

Offered yes, but not agreed to.

6. We have been reading about six bargaining groups. Besides OCEA, fire, and police, what are the other three?

Technically it is Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. not OCEA, but the others are the 3 management groups= Police Managers, Fire Managers, City/Division Managers

7. Have any of the groups offered to increase their pension contributions?

Yes, in 2010, all groups increased their pension contributions on a temporary basis.

8. What other concessions have been made by employees, e.g., furlough days?

Most groups took furlough days in 2009 & 2010. CMFA (Fire) reduced their health flex bucket instead of furloughs.

9. Please publish the 100-item list of cost-saving suggestions that employees produced.

Click here. Suggestions are attached to the end of the report.

10. Which departments have been reviewed for possible outsourcing within the past four years, and what was the determination for each one?

We have not reviewed an entire department to be outsourced.

11. How many employees have voluntarily left city employment since November 2010?

FY 09/10

Resigned/Terminated: 9

Retired: 42

FY 10/11

Deceased: 1

Layoff: 27

Resigned/Terminated: 15

Retired: 34

FY 11/12 as of early October

Layoff: 4

Resign: 13

Retired: 5

My total above comes out to 150. It’s not perfect, this is my best estimate within the time frame given. This is for FT authorized positions only. This only takes into account employees who have actually left since July 1, 2009. It does not account for any positions that were vacant prior to July 1, 2009 and subsequently officially eliminated.

12. Which positions have been eliminated, and how have their responsibilities been filled?

More than 150 positions have been eliminated in the past three fiscal years throughout city government (many are detailed in various council reports that you can get online). Responsibilities have been dispersed to remaining staff and/or services/programs have been cut or reduced.

13. What has been spent since November 2010 on rearranging and refurnishing/refurbishing City hall?

The City spent $8,000 for carpet in the finance department after a flood in late 2010 or early 2011. We hired some movers to bring the Housing and Community Development Department to the second floor. Nothing major.

14. What is the running total for outsourcing expenses broken down by

a. Legal fees.

This will take some time. If you’d like the information, please submit a California Public Records Act request.

b. Management companies: Growthpoint and Management Partners (I'll check the names and get them right)

GrowthPoint wasn’t involved in outsourcing. As for Management Partners, to break out the outsourcing will take some time. If you’d like the information, please submit a California Public Records Act request.

c. Staff time

Not quantifiable. We have not specifically kept track; it is a matter of priorities for management.

NOTE: When you go to #9 and click on that link it will take you to the staff report submitted by then-Finance Director Marc Puckett to the City Council for it's meeting of April 14, 2009. At the bottom of that staff report you will find a list of attachments that looks like this: (This is an image, not a live link. Go to the link above)

The list of questions Ms. Goldmann refers to will be found in attachments 3, 4 and 5. In fact, the entire list of attachments provides an excellent reminder of how things were in our City two years ago. Take some time and review the charts.