Monday, October 03, 2011

More Tuesday Night Fun Ahead

By the time most of you read this it will already be Tuesday and we'll all be looking forward to the next installment "As The Worms Turn", or whatever we're calling this soap opera that the governance of Costa Mesa has become. Will Steve Mensinger text to his pals from the dais and get called on it? Will he bark back at critics and interrupt Wendy Leece because he disagrees with her? Will Jim Righeimer lose his cool again? Will Eric Bever actually show up again? What kind of bombshells will be dropped during Council Member Comments at the very end of the meeting? These are things that make it all worth watching.


The agenda for the council meeting Tuesday night - 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers - p
romises some interesting discussions. One just never knows how long these things will take anymore.


And, as has been the case lately, the Consent Calendar - normally near the front end of the meetings, but not guaranteed, since Mayor Gary Monahan seems to like to exercise what little power he has left by juggling the agenda items in recent weeks - provides us with some interesting reading. (See below) The first two items, the Warrants, numbers 2388, HERE, and 2389, HERE, show us how the city is spending more than $3.1 million of our tax dollars. Thanks to the staff in the City Clerk's office for turning those spreadsheets sideways so we can actually read them without laying on our sides.

Items number 9, 10 and 11 are three more Requests For Proposals recommended by the staff to be released to the public for bidding. #9 is the RFP for Animal Control Services, HERE; #10 is for Street and Storm Drain Maintenance Services, HERE and #11 of for Graffiti Abatement Services, HERE. Unless a member of the council or the public asks for separate discussion of these items they will simply be approved along with the remainder of the Consent Calendar.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Consent Calendar is Item #
12, HERE, in which Monahan has formally suggested that CEO Tom Hatch provide his comments immediately following the Public Comments section in the agenda, instead of having them fall at the end of the meeting. Such a change requires a vote by the council. Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea, especially since in the past few months there has been a lot of palaver during Public Comments, where council members and Hatch have addressed speaker's concerns immediately. Heck, sometimes council members interrupt speakers because they don't agree with what they say. So, if this gets the meeting back under control - and those interloping council members will follow the rules - then I think this is a good idea. A better idea might be to have Hatch give his comments following the Consent Calendar, since that segment of the agenda has generated many comments from the public in the recent past.


Since there are no Public Hearings scheduled for this meeting there seems to be no GOOD reason to further juggle the schedule - but one just never knows these days.

The two Old Business items are second readings of two new ordinances. The first re-defines "granny units", HERE, and just may generate some discussion. The second amends our sign ordinance, HERE, and probably will not generate much controversy... we'll see.


Just when you thought we might see a short meeting, it's time to guess again. The only item under New Business titled, "Selection of a Qualified Firm For The Upgrade, Operation and Maintenance of the TeWinkle Park Athletic Complex", HERE. You'll recall I mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Commission already considered this issue and heard from th
ree respondents to the request for Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) at a special meeting in August.


At its meeting in September the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to recommend to the City Council the formation of a Task Force - 9 members - to assess this situation and to perform public outreach. It is my understanding that this recommendation will be part of the discussions Tuesday night. If, in fact, the title of this agenda is correct, it seems very premature to actually "select" a vendor when no public outreach has been conducted and no public comments have been heard. In my opinion, the selection of a vendor - if we indeed decided to outsource the management of this facility - should only be made once public outreach is conducted and the preferences of the public, including the neighboring communities, is known. And, since the recommendation for the task force includes members of the public, some kind of a recruitment must take place for those positions. It will NOT surprise me if this council has decided to move ahead without public input. And, such haste makes me curious... why is it necessary? What's the rush?


So, all you folks from Mesa del Mar and College Park - if you're interested i
n this issue and how it will affect your neighborhoods - attendance at this meetings seems to be essential. For example, proposals made to the Parks and Recreation Commission earlier included the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site. It seems to me that element may make a very significant change to the character of the facility and may have a very significant negative impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. Each of the three vendors will apparently be in the house Tuesday to make their pitch all over again - or to answer questions.

This meeting has the potential to be an early evening - unless lots of people decide to show up to speak on items of interest to them. Since the RFPs in question potentially represent the loss of dozens of Costa Mesa employee jobs, I suspect there may be a few employees present. I guess we'll see.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous Max said...

Alcohol sales at youth baseball games? Nothing like spending quality time with your children while buzzed.

Commercializing our baseball fields will not make them better. The only person that wins is the contractor and council member cronies at taxpayer expense. These corporate welfare handouts are wrong because they hurt our real deal private businesses.

10/04/2011 09:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Bitterenemies said...

In regards to TeWinkle Park, I thought that the task force, that has yet to be developed, would be deciding if outsourcing was a good idea. I also thought that this group would choose the private firm if outsourcing was determined to the be the best option for TeWinkle Park. I was also under the impression that if any staff were laid off, the court injuction would not allow the outsourcing until the court makes a decision on the legality of outsourcing.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Isn't is also a waste of the these firms time if it is determined that outsourcing cannot take place?

I have been to the Big League Dreams Park in Chino Hills and alcohol is a big part of their marketing plan. Alcohol is how they make their money.

The residents should decide the best use of TeWinkle Park. It belongs to the people of Costa Mesa, not the four men on the council.

10/04/2011 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Alex said...

So the council wants to do a government motors thing and help start a business at TeWinkle. TeWinkle Corporation will then want to prevent everyone from bringing in their own food and drink (so they can make a profit). They will subject us to a bunch of junk advertising and charge admission to watch games there. Currently this is a free public park. The council will not be making my life any better by doing this. This is a horrible idea. I can't believe I voted for some of those turkeys in the past.

10/04/2011 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Alex said...

I just looked at the Big League Dreams Park website and find it disgusting. They even have fake spectators? That's gonna ruin the whole experience of a fun community softball game. You don't play for money or glory, you play for fun.

10/04/2011 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Mike M said...

We hosted a corporate even at Big League Dreams in Palm Springs a few years back... the arcade was run down a bit, and it seemed more geared toward the adults than kids. A great place for that type of event, but not for kids' baseball. I grew up at that park playing ball, as did a lot of others. Just another sad sign of the times. It's all very 'Back to the Future-ish' - the corporatizing of EVERYTHING!

10/04/2011 03:20:00 PM  
Blogger feral390 said...

I'm done with attending these meetings, these corrupt turds don't listen and don't care about anything or anyone but their own selfish twisted dreams. They'll hear from me in November 2012. (If the city is still standing)

10/04/2011 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Alex said...

feral390, I agree feral. Just because they say they are conservative and are for families doesn't mean anything. They are ruining a perfectly good sports park. Me being a conservative doesn't make me like any of their decisions any more. I won't be voting for Colin or any other person remotely associated with Righeimer.

10/05/2011 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Colin said...

Booze + Little League Parents = Bad Idea. Why do we have to sell alcohol all over the place in CM ? Adult venues I guess, but at kid's games ? Or mixed crowd games ? Doesn't really sit right with me.

10/06/2011 05:17:00 AM  
Anonymous brad shefmire said...

Here is one towns horrendous experience contracting with big league dreams
"Big League Dreams facing big problem with fields"
"I'm sure glad I'm not married to (Big League Dreams executives), because they never make a mistake and are never wrong," Gilbert City Councilman Don Skousen said. "If something isn't right, they'll say it certainly wasn't them.
"Anyway, we know there is a problem. Whether it was done by their maintenance or our contractor, I don't know," he said. "We have to fix it - no questions about that." Fixing the problem won't be cheap. It could cost the town up to $100,000 to redo the grass and infields, adding to the $18 million worth of increases already tacked on to the original project estimates of $22 million.
Google it....

10/06/2011 12:17:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home