Surprise: council votes are sometimes 5-0

A divided City Council has been at the center of attention lately, including comment in this column devoted to the many 3-2 votes pitting the John Anderson, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing majority block against the Jan Horton-Jim Winder minority faction.

The split votes deal with important issues: an ethics ordinance, council member conflict- of-interest policies, the eastside sewer situation, a police services study and other matters.

But the battling governing body members also agree on a few topics, and, surprisingly, the consensus comes on weightier items than approving the minutes or warrant register.

Here’s a look at some issues garnering the hard-to-attain 5-0 votes in past weeks:

--Two unanimous actions—a Jan. 19 vote “to explore various mechanisms to construct a new library in the Town Center” and a March 16 vote on allowing a request for proposal for a library building program to proceed—indicate council support for a new facility.

Financing for a new building might come from two sources: funds accumulating in the library capital improvement budget since the loan for a 1992 renovation was paid off in 2005 and bonds backed by property tax revenue from the city’s Redevelopment Agency.

The Agency sold bonds in 2005 for a new fire station that has yet to be built, and more could be sold, supported by the $20 million in the increased property taxes collected in the Town Center and Savi Ranch redevelopment project areas each year.

A building program document “will generate a feasible cost range” for a new library, according to a report prepared by Library Director Melinda Steep. The 32,400 square-foot facility completed in Tustin last year cost $29.3 million, including furnishings.

--Unanimous votes relating to the Veterans Memorial certainly weren’t controversial, but the balloting proved the often-feuding officials can at times act in the city’s best interests.

A well-intentioned idea to rename the section of Valley View Avenue between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Imperial Highway as Veterans Way was deftly turned aside as costly for the city and the 20 residences and businesses with Valley View addresses.

Instead, the council directed staff “to develop directional signs to call attention to the memorial,” which was dedicated at Veterans Park last year. A prior council voted to change the park’s name from Valley View Sports Park in 2005.

Council also approved adding bricks to honor veterans and active duty military personnel to the memorial’s Walk of Honor and a commemorative plaque for Sue Fenwick, “whose efforts were instrumental in the construction and erection of the memorial.” Information on purchasing bricks is available at www.ylvma.org.

--A quick council “consent calendar” vote approved a fourth one-year contract extension for trimming city-owned trees with no price increase from the current $37.35 per tree fee.

Applying tea party ideas to local politics

One of the last tasks for longtime Yorba Linda resident and classic car hobbyist Rick Pullen as retiring dean of Cal-State Fullerton’s College of Communications was to preside over a celebration of the campus newspaper’s 50th anniversary.

The Register’s Yorba Linda and Placentia reporter Jessica Terrell and I were among the 280 guests. Jessica was editor of the Spring 2009 Daily Titan, and I was at the helm of the Fall 1965 twice-weekly Titan Times.

At dinner, I sat next to popular LA Times columnist Steve Harvey. He asked me about the level of “tea party” sentiment in Yorba Linda, so I mentioned the April 15 Community Center rally, which drew a large crowd and two City Council members.

Later, Harvey’s query raised questions in my mind: Will the tea party mantra of limited government and lower taxes play a role in this year’s council election? Would tea party council members change current city policies?

Yorba Linda has the second-highest Republican registration of Orange County’s 34 cities at 57 percent, exceeded only by tiny Villa Park’s 65 percent. Newport Beach is third with 55 percent. While not all Republicans are tea party enthusiasts, Yorba Linda Republicans usually favor conservative candidates.

Tea party voters have shown they won’t blindly accept a Republican label, and they’ll oppose GOP incumbents whose votes expand government powers and raise taxes and fees. Obviously, a tea party council member might take a different approach to city issues, including Old Town redevelopment and the Black Gold Golf Course.

For example, a tea party tactic in Old Town might privatize projects by selling the city’s 50 lots to individuals and companies for development to eliminate the political squabbling associated with the government deciding what will and won’t be built on public and private downtown properties.

New development would adhere to council-adopted zoning and design guidelines, with tax or other incentives motivating new and old owners to complete projects within a specified time period.

Privatizing the city-owned Black Gold Golf Course could prove more difficult, since, according to officials, the property, as a golf course, is worth less, at current market prices, than the outstanding $18 million in bond debt.

However, a tea party council member would insist on a pay-as-you-go operation, with expenses covered by current revenue. And tea party adherents would stop loaning city reserve money to the course and require Black Gold to resume paying interest on loans totaling $4.7 million.

Of course, tea party philosophy is more easily applied to state and federal issues. In municipal matters, where the impact of less government and fewer tax dollars is immediate, an “it’s my backyard” attitude might prevail.

But maybe true tea party candidates will seek council seats this year. Filing begins in two months

Taking a look at City Council's 3-2 votes

The increasingly acrimonious rhetoric at recent meetings of a City Council divided 3-2 on major issues mirrors controversial councils of the 1990s and warns of a hard-hitting campaign for two open seats on the governing body this Fall.

Add a verbal slugfest between partisans for the John Anderson-Nancy Rikel-Mark Schwing and Jan Horton-Jim Winder factions taking place on local blogs and Web sites, and the result is one of this city’s most hostile political climates ever.

But, as is often the case, one side or the other does not possess all of the virtue or all of the vice with respect to municipal decision-making, despite what avowed and potential candidates and their enthusiasts want the city’s 42,930 registered voters to believe.

In a “let’s clear the air” spirit, here’s a rundown of some admirable council actions detailed in past columns, with the names of council members who supported them:

--The Anderson-Rikel-Schwing vote for a police services study was long-needed and represented well-spent dollars. An independent consultant put solid numbers on costs involved in forming a Yorba Linda-only department compared to contracting with the county Sheriff, Brea or another city.

The value of the 40-year-old pact with Brea was affirmed, and many financially valid suggestions for improvements were presented. In sum, the report’s recommendations could put law enforcement in this city on a firmer footing for the foreseeable future.

--The Anderson-Rikel-Schwing vote for an ethics ordinance also met a longtime need for this city’s elected and appointed leaders. Consequences for specific behaviors, including taking campaign money from sources that depend on council’s votes, are plainly stated.

Overall ethics will be further strengthened when “whistleblower” protection and “best-practices” policies are adopted, hopefully with a unanimous vote, in upcoming months.

--Horton-Winder support for raising east-end sewer rates so the fees paid by homes and businesses generally east of San Antonio Drive are no longer subsidized by city general fund money was the proper position, even though the proposal wasn’t adopted..

Of course, the best decision would be for council to raise the eastside rates to the annual $66 paid by westside residents to the Yorba Linda Water District, and then turn over the sewers to the district, which has the expertise and equipment for reliable oversight.

--The 3-2 vote to finance this year’s July 4 fireworks show pitted Rikel, Schwing and Winder against Anderson and Horton, who opposed a modest expenditure for the best-attended and most-watched city event.

If that means a bit less spent on the $1 million Kikuyu grass program for the Black Gold Golf Course or fewer dollars set aside for council members’ retirement accounts, that’s a more than acceptable tradeoff to preserve the city’s Independence Day celebration.

Town Center: Horton's conflict-of-interest

Maybe you thought issues associated with the two-decade effort to redevelop the Town Center couldn’t get more complicated. Or more controversial. Or more mind-numbing.

But they have, especially regarding when Councilwoman Jan Horton can cast her vote on Old Town redevelopment, since her residence is within 500 feet of three potential project areas on the eastside of Lakeview Avenue, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard.

The law, as administered by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, is clear. The “one-penny rule” disqualifies Horton from voting if there’s any impact—positive or negative—on the value of her Cedar Avenue home, estimated to be worth $810,000.

Of course, Horton could vote if she proves a redevelopment decision would have zero financial effect on her property, which she tried to show by submitting two appraisals claiming development on two nearby sites wouldn’t alter the value of her home.

The two sites include Lakeview Avenue at Altrudy Lane, proposed for higher-density residential, a fire station or commercial, and the Stater Brothers market, suggested for “simple remodel” or “complete teardown and reconstruction.”

There’s no dispute that development on a third site—the vacant “strawberry field” between the Altrudy property and Stater Brothers—would impact Horton’s home.

However, in an April 6 response to Horton’s “request for advice,” the FPPC dismissed the appraisals for various reasons and said the reports “cannot be relied upon” as proof redevelopment decisions on the sites won’t impact the value of her property.

Under a “segmentation” process, Horton could vote on projects located more than 500 feet from her residence, unless the projects are “inextricably linked to the entire plan.”

A 2007 letter from the FPPC stated: “some decisions may be too inter-related to be considered separately. If the resolution of one decision will effectively determine the result of the other decision…Horton must disqualify as to both.”

Discussion at the April 20 City Council meeting regarding the cost of seeking FPPC advice added controversy to the issue. Horton has said several times she retained her own legal counsel to query the FPPC, but the City Attorney also has been involved.

Horton said she’s paid her lawyer more than $5,000, with the city spending $8,400. Mayor John Anderson said the city outlays violate a 1997 council policy, and, with Councilwoman Nancy Rikel, said Horton should reimburse the $8,400 to the city.

However, a later Horton statement disputed Anderson’s interpretation of the 1997 policy and said the City Attorney bills “are the result of city-generated costs, not at my request.”

Readers seeking more details—or a sure cure for insomnia—can visit www.fppc.ca.gov and read 35 pages of lawyerly legalize on the Horton situation (click on “advice letters”).