On the Agenda – February 2nd, 2010

At first glance the agenda looks a little short, like someone forgot to add a few items to it, however, don’t be fooled!

Let’s take a look at the list of issues on the table.

In closed session, council will be negotiating with the employee associations (or unions, if you prefer).  Item 2 of the closed session is labeled as “PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT” and is regarding the Director of Community Development as well as the Director of Administrative Services.

When they finally let us in for the meeting, the good-ol boy’s will be presented with their favorite and most difficult duty – Miss Fullerton Contestants.  Let’s see if the guys can keep their hands to themselves.

North Orange County Community College District and FAST (Ne Elite Level Swimmers and Coach) will also be presenting.

After everyone gives Council a piece of their mind in the Public Comments, we hop right into the Consent Calendar which includes last meeting’s minutes, acceptance of donations to the police department, and grant funding for tree planting at Laguna Lake.

Next , item 4 addresses the Richman Court Relocation Assistance Program.  If anyone has any experience with relocation plans from either prospective, please jump in.  I would imagine that this program will get equally screwed up as most government programs, but that is just another useless opinion.  This will use $118,000 from the federal HOME Investment Partnership Program funds

The appointment of representatives to advisory bodies comes in on item 5.  I’m not sure who can be appointed but this looks like an opportunity for some crony to get their hands into another honey pot

Coming in as item 6 on the agenda is a discussion of moving the Public Comments to the END of the meetings.  I guess they want to make their decisions prior to hearing from us.  This has BAD IDEA written all over it.  I think council should be well aware of the community’s sentiments regarding an agenda item BEFORE they discuss and vote on anything

If you felt jaded by Bankhead’s self appointment as Mayor (with help from his old friend Doc Jones and Shawn “I must recues myself” Nelson), you need not worry.  The topic will come up again as item 7 and we will get to hear again about how the mayor get’s the job.  It seems pointless to have the debate when the same people who were on the council when Bankhead was made mayor –again- are still on it.  Why would they feel differently now about how the mayor is chosen?

There is a “comprehensive” list of projects that the City would like to get funded through federal sources.  Item 8 is a list of capital projects that are submitted to Fullerton ’s federal representatives for funding consideration as part of the annual federal appropriation cycle.  Here is the kicker: staff recommends that Council ask Ed Royce for federal money specifically for the Boy’s and Girl’s Club/Senior Center.  Maybe the Club and the Senior Center should be relocated to make room for the Orange County Fliers and their new stadium.   The other item on the list (that’s right, there are just these two items) is the slope stabilization on Harbor Boulevard .  But why does the slope need stabilization you ask?  It would appear that someone at City Hall allowed the slope to be graded as it currently is when Harbor Boulevard was realigned and reconstructed twenty-plus years ago.  I’m not sure when it was done, but I am quite certain that a 1:1 slope with no sidewalks, trails, channels, or retaining walls was a bad idea in anyone’s book.  At one time Harbor Boulevard was Highway 101 and received funding from state and federal sources.  Maybe the city can blame the state or feds for the slopes.  Maybe the U.S. Army Corps (USACE), which operates the damn, can chip in.  I know USACE has done collaborative work with other local agencies, why not Fullerton .  Hey Royce!  Can you call someone at the L.A. District to get some help?  Or maybe FEMA…  Maybe not.

Sorry for the rant.

Item 9 is concerned with tow services provided to the City.  Local businesses and homeowner associations may be impacted by new municipal codes covering impounds made on private property.

Lastly, item 10 is a resolution of support for the City of Placentia .  This has to do with OCTA’s bright idea to get all of the grade separations going at the same time for fear they might loose federal funding.  As legitimate as that fear might be, tying up several miles of north-south routes is a terrible idea.  There are several possible solutions which I haven’t heard considered yet.  Let’s see if OCTA can figure this one out.

On February 16th in the Police Department’s Mural Room at 5:00 PM their will be a study session on the Housing Policy Review followed by the regular meeting at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers.

If I missed or glossed over something, please let us know.  If I’m wrong, let me know.  Otherwise, stay tuned for any breaking developments…

10 Replies to “On the Agenda – February 2nd, 2010”

  1. I have no doubt that those good ol boys on Fullerton’s city council have no choice but to keep their hands on themselves while they ponder the next Miss Fullerton.

  2. From the California Brown Act:
    C. Public Testimony
    Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the
    public to directly address the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body.

    With respect to any item which is already on the agenda .. the public must be given the opportunity to comment before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)

    Public comment on agendized items must come BEFORE or during council discussion of the item. This is California law.

    http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf

  3. I’m a bit puzzled. The way you have expressed your thoughts is that the federal funding being requested for the Boys and Girls Club as well as the Senior Citizens center is to move them in favor of the Fullerton Flyers.

    I haven’t heard anything that has hinted that either the B&G, or the Senior Citizens Center are going to be moved.

    And even so, why should federal funds by used to move to entities which provide much needed services for the community for the privately owned Fullerton Flyers?

    As a parent whose kid has enjoyed the affordable and well supervised activities and nationally recognized leadership programs provided by the B&G, I wish more locals would get behind the club and start to donate heavily. Were this to happen, they could make up the shortfall in private foundation grants (which has happened to NPO’s across the nation in this economic recession).

    Really, it’s a swell place. And Admin himself has a long history of not only supporting, but shaping the B&G.

    1. Perhaps poorly worded on my part.

      Neither is moving, so far as I know. The Flyer’s comment was in reference to some “backroom” discussions that I have heard about with Red. Agency and Flyer’s management. NO FACTS, just rumors.

      I agree that the B&G Club is great! My thoughts were that the B&G Club of Fullerton and the Fullerton Senior Center are both local organizations which should be funded locally. The slopes sliding onto Harbor could injure the public and at the very least impede traffic around the Saint Jude Medical Center.

      But I could see a strong argument made for the former places to receive the funding.
      Thanks for pointing it out and giving it legs where I did not.

  4. The idea of moving the “Public Comments” section to the end of the meeting is just reprehensible – but a classic maneuver right out of the Buck Catlin playbook (Hi Buck!).

    The idea is to dissuade comment by making people wait an interminable period of time ’til they can speak. This is the way it used to be – and it worked! When it was moved to the front of the meeting the Council had to listen to the gripes of their constituents. It isn’t always pretty, but it was most convenient for the citizenry.

    Only a donkey like Jones would contemplate something this stupid. But how did it get on the agenda?

  5. Old Recaller,

    According to CA state law, public comments concerning agenda items must come before or during discussion of the item.

    Don’t let them try to get away with anything less than that.

    1. Mike, the proposed change is for general public comments regarding items not on the agenda. I don’t think the law you pointed to applies.

      But it’s still a bad idea for the reason that Old Recaller stated.

  6. just a guy,

    So let me get this right. Public comments on agenda items are permitted at 5:00 pm – then the council goes into closed session.

    Then the regular council meeting at 6:30 pm – beginning with presentations etc.

    So there is 2 plus hours between Public Comments on agenda items and the council’s consideration of the agenda item.

    That is preposterous! It is not conducive to honest public participation in the business of the city.

    Oh yeah, .. forgot .. that is their intent. Silly me to think that your council would be any different than the Banana Republic of Santa Ana.

  7. Mr. Tardif, you are not getting the point.

    “General” public comments are for non-agenda items, specifically designated so. Nobody’s right to talk about an agendized issue is threatened.

    Rather the idea is to disuade a person from getting up and addressing a concern by making that person wait two, three, four hours – until the end of the meeting.

    And that’s preposterous, too.

  8. Joe – That is not what Christian’s article says and it is not what Beverly White’s letter says.

    As a matter of fact, her letter is not accurate in that it does not differentiate between Public Comments on agenda items – and General public comments

    Christina said: “Coming in as item 6 on the agenda is a discussion of moving the Public Comments to the END of the meetings. … I think council should be well aware of the community’s sentiments regarding an agenda item BEFORE they discuss and vote on anything.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.