On The Agenda – April 20, 2010
High-Speed Rail is here! At 5PM you get to hear a presentation on the subject from the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Afterwards, they’ll take your questions. What they do with your questions is entirely up to them. Maybe you’ll get answers, maybe not. There will be another community meeting April 29 from 5PM to 8PM at the Senior Multi-Service Center to “…solicit input and begin CHSRA’s community outreach process in Fullerton.” Doesn’t it feel good to be part of a process?
After the presentation, council has a closed session with the labor negotiators.
There are some certificates, commendations, and proclamations to make before getting into any serious business.
On the consent calendar, items 1 through 7, we find the minutes, financial statement for period ending February 28, Appropriation of funds to comply with state obligation requiring… Wait a minute! Is someone trying to sneak something in as a consent calendar item? Let’s look a little closer at item 3.
The title is red flag: “APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO COMPLY WITH STATE OBLIGATION REQUIRING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES TO MAKE A PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND” So, on the surface the Land Czar’s agency is obligated to pay for some of the havoc they have created by blocking regular tax funds from going to education by declaring BLIGHT. $6,670,864 on or before May 10, 2010 and everyone is happy. There is a pending court case that could eventually halt the payment but I wouldn’t hold my breath over it. It just makes another strong case against having a redevelopment agency in the first place.
Item 4 is for the FAA’s 15-year lease of some of the airport’s tower. The lease is for $26,550 for the first 5 years with a CPI clause that could raise the rate every 5 years thereafter.
The OC Auto Theft Task Force (OCATTS – isn’t that cute!) is item 5. I’m not sure how OCATTS gets its funding but the staff report states that the detective’s salary, benefits, work vehicle (take home car?) and overtime are 100% reimbursed through the OCATTS fund.
Item 6 is a resolution that declares council’s intention to consider the designation and adoption of an underground utility district on State College from about Kimberly Avenue to Santa Fe Avenue. But why the district? Because there are currently overhead power, phone, and cable lines and doing this would bury them. This is somewhat tied to the grade separation work. I think it is a way to take advantage of the construction chaos and do it all at the same time while it is already tore up. Maybe not. Either way, I am glad I don’t have a business or live in that area! The staff report says there are no proposed costs associated with this resolution; however, I think a public hearing resulting from this project will have a direct cost associated with it. Another question to be asked is this: Is the City of Fullerton creating a District or altering the boundary of a district? If so, where is LAFCO?
The police want to accept a donation in item 7 of $750 from the Elks Lodge for the Police Explorer Program. Sounds good… But can’t the council pass an ordinance authorizing department heads to receive donations under a certain threshold? Then we don’t need the staff to sit in the council chamber the extra few minutes to hear this. Maybe just move it to the consent calendar.
Item 8 is a staff update on the Gilbert Community Center.
Item 9 is the All the Arts for All the Kids Heart Project that, if approved, will allow for sculptures to be placed on public property in the downtown area. The All the Arts for All the Kids Foundation wants 25 heart sculptures around the area. I think the reason it is actually on the agenda is because the City Manager wants to waive all of the permit fees. Since they will have to abide by standard city conditions and obtain permits through the normal process like anyone else, I suppose it isn’t a big deal. But what if another non-profit comes in and wants to put art on the corner, will we waive their fees? Will they be allowed to do it? What criteria does the City use to make these determinations? Or is this really a backroom deal that now needs council’s blessing?
Lastly, we have Item 10. I saved the best for last and placed it in it’s own post to follow this. Wait until you hear what our Land Czar wants now…
AGENDA FORECAST
MAY 4, 2010
• Public Hearing – 5 Year Consolidated Plan
• 10/11 Preliminary Budget
MAY 11, 2010 – Adjourned Regular Meeting – 5 pm
• Public Hearing – Coyote Hills
MAY 18, 2010
• March Financials
• Capital Projects
• Proclamation – Relay for Life Month – June 2010
• Closed Session – Property Negotiations – Fox Block
• Fox Block Extension of ENA
• Personnel Management System Changes
• St. College Grade Separation Change Order
• Service Recognition – Kathy Dasney, Former Parks Commissioner
Until next month, please feel free to add comments to this. If you have the inside scoop, shoot me a comment or email me through the Contact page on this website.
On the suject of HSR, and the arrogance with which they operate, here is a tidbit from the Senate Budget Subcomittee meeting last week.
Sen. Simitian: People want someone to actually evaluate that, not say thank you for sharing, we appreciate your input and go off and ignore them. They want you to evaluate with an open mind. Think about it how that might or might not work. if it can’t work explain why, if could work but it’s not the best choice and then move on with the conversation. That what people expect and they have a right to expect that. My expectation is that going forward that wherever these conversations take place is that people aren’t going to be spun or sold. they’re in a position have information shared with them and then when they offer a concern or a proposal that it’s going to be heard and responded to in a way that is sincere and real. Does it mean everyone will get what they want, of course it doesn’t. Does it mean that everyone will be happy, regrettable it does not but I think that’s what I was looking for.
Diridon: I think I might have been misunderstood because I wasn’t commenting on spinning or selling, I was talking about engineers coming to conclusions before the alternatives are studied and that’s illegal.
Simitian: I understand that, My concern is, I want to be very clear that the High Speed Authority should not think that if they just do a more artful job of marketing their product that’s what community engagement means. That is not what community engagement means. That’s the concern that I have, it’s a desire to listen as well as share information and then genuinely consider and respond. That’s what people want and that’s not an unreasonable expectation.
I think it’s best that council has to approve donations in a public meeting. It might seen like a waste of time, but it’s important for everyone to know where donations are coming from and where they are going.
Couldn’t that be wrapped up in the consent calendar??? So far as I can tell, donations discussed in council meetings serve as simply dog and pony shows.
It is good to know who gave what when and to whom, but do we really need a separate agenda item with council debating and talking about it? I think we could do without it. Think about how much overtime staff is paid to be there for those long meetings. Then consider how much city staff time has been wasted on accepting a $750 donation: answering the phones (20 minutes?), talking to your supervisor or banging out the email (10 minutes), calling back the donor and explaining the process (20 minutes), updating your supervisor (10 minutes), supervisor calls department head and explains (20 minutes), someone tells clerk’s staff to put it on the agenda via a staff prepared memo (20 minutes), staff waiting for department head to sign it (15 minutes)… It costs money to accept free money. Streamline the process.