Sunday, February 26, 2012

Important Meetings On Tuesday Ahead

Next Tuesday, February 28th, is going to be an interesting day in Costa Mesa.


As mentioned in my last post, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board will meet for a Closed Session at 9:00 a.m. at the Sanitary District Headquarters to discuss the "compatibility" issue involving Jim Fitzpatrick. You can read about that agenda HERE. We could speculate all day about what MIGHT happen, but won't know until they come out of that Closed Session and report. It's possible that it could get nasty, but we'll just have to wait and see.


Tuesday afternoon the Costa M
esa City Council will hold a Special Study Session at 4:30 p.m. in Council Chambers instead of one of the conference rooms. Note the time... It is anticipated that there may be a big turnout for this meeting. A reminder - unless they change the rules, there will be a maximum of 15 minutes TOTAL for public comments in study sessions. I don't know if Mayor Gary Monahan will adjust that if there is a large turnout hoping to speak on these two issues or not.

There are two items on the agenda - the final report from the Costa Mesa Homeless
Task Force. You can read the staff report HERE. The attachment included is the draft of their actual final report - 137 pages - which you can read HERE. The task force has spent a year working on this issue and have made some progress. However, ultimately the larger solution is going to require the expenditure of significant dollars to find ways to provide homes for the homeless. I suspect the conversation on this issue is going to be very interesting Tuesday.


The second item on the agenda is the Mid-year Budget Review for Fiscal year 2011-2012. You can read the staff report by Bobby Young, Finance and Information Technology Director, HERE.


Sales Tax revenues are up over 5% from the same time last year. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues are up over 4% and Property Tax revenues are up only 0.13%

General Fund Expenditures appear to be about what was anticipated. Young tells us that no request for increases in appropriations is anticipated for the remainder of this fiscal year. He also tells us that a reconciliation of the contingency fund will be presented at the study session.

However, it sho
uld be no surprise to learn that the Self Insurance Fund Expenditures are up - way up. This is where the dollars for litigation-related expenses come from. We have not seen current numbers from Jones Day - the high-priced legal firm handling the OCEA lawsuit - for a month or so, but they've been conducting depositions recently and that activity will have the meter spinning. Young tells us that they will be requesting an additional appropriation from available fund balance to cover these costs for the remainder of the year, but he doesn't say how much. I'm really going to be interested in how this particular discussion plays out Tuesday.

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Robin said...

Read the staff report, it's very interesting...

Costa Mesa is over budget because of (drumroll......................) LEGAL FEES!

2/26/2012 10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous gertrude said...

Art Perry and Jim Ferryman are up for reelection in 2012.

If they decide to use taxpayer money to attempt to oust Fitz, they will face strong opposition in the election.

Amazing the egos of the old guard.

2/27/2012 06:33:00 AM  
Anonymous New Day Coming said...

Hang in there Fitz. You have more friends than you know.

These actions by the Board are causing them to loose friends and for you to gain them.

This is one issue where people will act.

2/27/2012 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Don't be so sure, Steve...

2/27/2012 07:04:00 AM  
Anonymous really said...

Gertrude you raise my blood pressure. Fitzpatrick is the one causing money to be spent by refusing to give up one of his seats. Stop spinning the story....

and New Day Coming - Fitzy's actions of refusing to relinquish one of his two seats has strengthen my support for the other board members. Seems a lot of people agree with me. Fitzy and friends idk

2/27/2012 07:20:00 AM  
Anonymous English Fail said...

New Day Coming aka Steve, It is "lose" not "loose." Unless you mean loose with the facts or you have loose friends, which may in fact be true.

2/27/2012 07:41:00 AM  
Anonymous grudgereport said...

so now the spin is that if Fitzy won't resign HE is causing taxpayer money to be spent to appoint Arlene ? Absurd. Fitz does not have to leave, Arlene does not have to be appointed, all can go on as it has been. This whole thing was not brought up (after a year and a half of Fitzy being on Board) just because the other Board members finally got around to it. There was strategic planning involved, a decision by Perry to spend whatever it costs, to move now and avoid having to run for re election against Arlene. But too late, this will take months. Surprised no one is speculating about all the Brown Act violations that may have occured while planning this, at least serial Brown Act violations. ready,aim, backfire.

2/27/2012 07:46:00 AM  
Anonymous gertrude said...


This is about no bid trash contracts and that the Board is using tax payer money to try and quite Fitz.

Don't be fooled

2/27/2012 08:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Brothers in Bullying said...

Hang in there Fitz.

We have a permanent positions for you at pop warner or bullying people around town.

Run up all the attorney's fees you want- our master has made sure there's no cap.

2/27/2012 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous really said...


I know the whole story, this is about a conflict of interest with one person holding two positions.

2/27/2012 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous grudgereport said...

Really: you are correct, on the surface, this is about a conflict of interest, one person holding two positions. But, it is really about a POSSIBLE, not absolute, conflict of interest, there are differing legal points of view from lawyers whose opinion carry no weight. Only the AG can say if it is a conflict, followed then by a superior court trial. There is also all the underlying intrigue of Arlene S. and her possible appointment to Board if positon becomes vacant. Those who argue against council spending money DEFENDING a lawsuit seem to have no problem with this Board spending money, ratepayer money, INITIATING a lawsuit. (no matter what it costs according to Perry.) Since there is NO legal opinion saying this is a conflict let a private person such as Arlene bring it up with her own money if she feels she will prevail. Logic does not always prevail in legal rulings but it would seem logical that if a council member can hold both seats then a planning commissioner, whose vote is able to be appealed to council, would be in a weaker position than council member and would be eligible also. It certainly is not a burning $40K question in my mind to get an opinion on this. The voters of CM elected Fitzy, should the sitting Board act to remove Fitz with our money on an issue they are not certain of winning?

2/27/2012 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous really said...

I think this deserves a 2nd post...Cross Righeimer and his anointed ones and you will pay....
Riggy won't just be satisfied changing this city into his own personal vision though a Charter, not when San and Water are their own mini municipalities with employees and pensions, and lots and lots of cash.
There is a reason Fitzy is pushing that agenda ,and Ethan Temianka is gearing up to oust Trudy on Water.
The "old guard" who let this Carpet bagger take charge better beware what they unleashed upon this city. It's not the Costa Mesa you once knew. The " Dog days are over".......and you better run. You can either play nice with Fitzy or get picked off one by one........Ask the ex -Parks and Recs commissioners. Fun times ahead.

2/27/2012 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous sadie1 said...

Saide1 to grudgereport - take your thoughts out of the equation and consider the facts: A legal opinion was rendered at the time Fitzpatrick was elected to both seats which stated holding both seats could pose problems. Fitzpatrick choose to accept both seats anyway. Board members attend a training seminar, specifically to educate board members about issues board members should be aware of and are told of a similar case deemed to be a conflict of interest. The board decides to investigate the issue further seeking a legal opinion from an expert in the field. The expert agrees the offices are incompatible. If Fitzpatrick gives up his seat there is no more issue. No more money spent. These are the facts. Fitzpatrick is the one who chose to accept both seats causing a conflict, not the other sanitary district board members, not Arlene. If the board does appoint Arlene then you should voice your opinion about that at that time, but the two are separate matters.

2/27/2012 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous gertrude said...

Sadie is naïve. This is about Fitz wanting to end evergreen and no bid trash contracts.

Fitz asked that the Board to seek a legal opinion on why Gary Monahan can serve and not a Planning Commissioner. It is a grey area. Rather than a low cost, maybe no cost, the Board refused. They got the answer they were looking for to retaliate for challenging No Bid Trash contracts.

In researching and talking to others, typically a private citizen takes this action and spends the money.

Fitz must have really upset the apple cart.

Doesn’t Perry and Ferryman know they are up for election, and this will cost them the election? What Ego’s

Note to Sadie, there is only one legal opinion because the Board refused to get an opinion on the Legislative Exemption in Health and Safety Code 6480. How convenient.

There is nothing compelling the Board to spend tax payer money other than a Board desire to remove Fitzpatrick, not put the Trash Contract out to bid, appoint Arlene and allow her to run as an incumbent.

Keep telling yourself this is about a compatibility question.

Sadie is a part of the old guard “Liars” Club

2/27/2012 01:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know Fitzy, I heard a rumor today that YOU are the one writing all of these blog entries! Wow, I guess that makes perfect sense since you don't have a job and all. How pathetic!

Speaking of pathetic...I received your email this morning. You know the one, the one with the subject line that says "Need help at the Costa Mesa Sanitary District". Seriously? How sad. I guess you think you can rally support from all of your "friends" huh? Well, h e l l o?! This is such a perfect example of how ridiculously stupid you relly are. Hey, just a thought, you might want to think twice about all the "friends" you have in that massive database of yours. I'm not so sure they like you as much as you think they do....

2/27/2012 01:49:00 PM  
Anonymous AWM said...

I hope the san dist is not as corrput as the city and wastes money on legal fees to "explore" the legality of keeping Fitzy on the board...

Fitzy is just like the crooked boys on the council.

2/27/2012 02:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home