Thursday, December 29, 2011

The city's best and less-than-best for 2011

Best and less-than-best of 2011:

Most significant City Council decision: Naming 14 sites for a possible 1,027 units of higher-density, multi-family housing paved the way for balloting in 2012 on 11 of the sites in the second-ever Measure B vote on allowing densities above 10 units per acre.

Best City Council decision: Transfer of the city’s east-side sewers to the Yorba Linda Water District without money changing hands is a refreshing example of collaboration between tax- and fee-funded jurisdictions with separately elected governing bodies.

Second-best City Council decision
: Seeking formal bids on the law enforcement contract held by Brea since 1970 is fiscally sound and will answer long-held questions about costs

Least “open” decision-making process
: The posted Nov. 1 council agenda didn’t state a vote to end the pact in 18 months might take place. The controversial 3-2 vote could have occurred after better public notice.

Best example of leadership: The retiring schools Superintendent Dennis Smith’s 12 years of effective management included two successful bond issues, an unprecedented building and renovation program and earnest attention to achievement and new technology.

Most disappointing déjà vu moments: Current council members who were once called “naysayers” by members of a past council now often label opponents as “contrarians.”

Most unflappable city official: City Manager Steve Rudometkin calmly steers municipal business through swirling political waters stirred by personal and agenda-driven disputes. If he retires (again), here’s hoping the long-time resident will seek a council seat.

Longest campaign in city history: Principals in the 2010 council election persist in berating each other, taking time from city business to focus instead on old grudges.

Loneliest council voice: Three-term Councilman Jim Winder leaves office next year due to the city’s term limit law without serving as mayor or mayor pro-tem since 2008, as the majority of council members continue to depart from a once-traditional “rotation” policy.

Most unpleasant City Council option: Paying $4.9 million out of $21.4 million property tax income to school and special district funds to keep the Redevelopment Agency alive.

Best reform: A “whistleblower” policy, effective since Feb. 17, outlines a procedure for city employees to report improper actions, with a relief process against retaliatory measures.

Best Old Town votes: Council decisions to eliminate a pedestrian bridge and parking structure as Town Center projects were wise, but nixing a cultural arts venue arguable.

Most frugal campaigner: This year’s financial filings showed Tom Lindsey as the only council member without campaign debt, spending $1 less than $25,283 in contributions. The others still have unpaid, self-made loans, hoping for payback from future donations.

Most prudent City Council decisions: Rejecting a Friends Christian High School request to buy the now-leased 32-acre site or add an option-to-purchase and eliminating the five-acre Vista del Verde “tank farm” site as a potential equestrian facility.

Next week: predictions for 2012.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Presents or coal: who's getting what this year

Cheerily wrapped presents or bare lumps of coal: here’s a look at who’s getting what this holiday season:

--Residents who believe government should play a major role in redeveloping Old Town will receive early next year the opportunity to offer input into the selection of companies who will submit plans for retail development, a key component of a new Town Center.

An “anticipated selection process” will allow public participation during an informal presentation and workshop by developers and formal interviews by the City Council, according to a report by Community Development Director Steve Harris.

The city received proposals from six retail developers which will be winnowed to three or four firms who will submit detailed, comprehensive development proposals, Harris noted.

The most valuable retail parcels are expected to be the land fronting Imperial Highway, including property now occupied by the library, since council decided to locate a new 50,000 square-foot library costing about $30 million on an interior street in Old Town.

--Long-serving Councilman Mark Schwing received an early but welcome gift from his council colleagues: the mayor’s chair in 2012. Since Schwing is expected to seek a fifth term next year, a ballot designation as “mayor” will be a significant campaign boost.

Jim Winder’s one-vote 2008 victory was aided by his “mayor” listing on that ballot, and many of John Anderson’s 2010 campaign signs stated “Re-elect Mayor John Anderson,” which, with a ballot “mayor/deputy DA” occupation, added fuel to his first-place finish.

Schwing was elected to council in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 and 1996, losing in 2000 and 2002 before placing first out of nine candidates for three 2008 seats. The three-term limit law took effect days after he was installed in 1996, so he can serve two more terms.

--But a lump of coal again was left for Winder, who’s been overlooked by two different council majorities during his three terms. He won the most votes in 2000, but he wasn’t named mayor until April 2003, when he was given a shortened eight-month term.

Winder’s only full year as mayor came in 2008, after his single stint as mayor pro-tem in 2007. He holds the record for the least time in the two jobs for a council member elected to two or more terms. Jan Horton is the only council member never to serve as mayor.

--The Placentia-Yorba Linda school district’s gifts to stakeholders in the form of ever- increasing test scores, including state-mandated testing, SAT scores and big bumps in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate results, are well-reported.

But I’ve never seen in print a figure I ran across while perusing material compiled for a trustee meeting, in a chart telling the number of students who didn’t pass the California High School Exit Examination.

The chart noted 29 students from the district’s class of 2009 potential graduates failed one or both parts of the CAHSEE, dropping to only 16 for the 2010 class.

Even more interesting is the very small number of students “who elected to receive intensive instruction and services” to help pass the exam: 2 in each 2009 and 2010.

Next week: annual year-end review.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Archives, Foundation share Nixon library space

Conflicts between the National Archives and the Richard Nixon Foundation regarding the Nixon Presidential Library & Museum--often described as Yorba Linda’s “crown jewel”--are well known, with disputes about exhibits and speakers told in many media accounts.

And the exit of Director Tim Naftali after a five-year effort to rebrand the library as a federal facility under the National Archives and Records Administration from its past status as a private institution run by the Nixon Foundation also attracted press attention.

I attended Naftali’s recent farewell “conversation,” in which he touched upon archives-foundation relations, noting in response to one question that disagreements were only “natural” due to the unique-among-Presidential-libraries beginnings as a private entity.

Naftali’s brief comment made me curious about the library’s division of responsibilities, since separate areas are controlled by the archives and the foundation, so I asked to see the archives-foundation agreement, which Deputy Director Paul Wormser e-mailed.

The 22-page pact, signed July 2007 by the United States Archivist and Nixon Foundation chair, painstakingly outlines the transfer, joint use and operational detail of buildings and grounds at the 8.4-acre site, once approved for condominiums by the City Council.

Basically, the archives controls about 62 percent of the building space, including the separate archive structure, and the foundation 38 percent, plus outside grounds areas.

Here are a few major agreement points:

--Archive-controlled areas include the museum exhibition galleries, auditorium, former lobby (now called the Great Room), the downstairs research room and other non-public areas, such as archival storage and processing rooms totaling about 70,000 square feet.

--Foundation-controlled areas include the grounds, including graves, birthplace cottage, helicopter, parking lot, as well as the lobby, gift shop, café, East Room and other space, about 43,000 square feet in the buildings.

--The parties can use each others’ areas for activities and programs, except the galleries are not available for event space or rental.

--Admission fees are collected by the foundation, but split 50-50 between the archives and foundation on a monthly basis. Both parties must agree to any changes in the fees.

--The gift shop is operated by the foundation, with some archive and Presidential library items available for sale, along with the stock provided by the foundation. Revenue from merchandise collaboratively developed for exhibits is divided between the parties, while “The foundation retains final authority over what is sold in the museum store.”

--Site security is provided by the archives, except the foundation pays for extra security needed for foundation activities and programs. Inside maintenance and utilities are split on a space ratio, but the archives handles roof and exterior wall upkeep.

Interestingly, if the National Archives “ceases to operate the Library Areas as a Presidential archival depository relating to the Presidency of Richard Nixon, the exclusive right granted” in the agreement “shall terminate and all rights and privileges…revert to the foundation.”

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Some pertinent details on police service issue

Count on it: whenever a controversial issue arises in city politics, anonymous committees circulate misleading information, web site commenters contribute partial truths and error-ridden e-mails are forwarded throughout the community ad nauseum.

The latest example of distorted reality is the developing ruckus over City Council’s 3-2 vote Nov. 1 “to serve notice” on Brea “of termination of the police services contract” in 18 months and seek proposals for service from “surrounding agencies,” including Brea.

Unfortunately, my 500 or so weekly words aren’t enough to swat down all the phony “facts” now in circulation, so I’ll focus on pertinent details of the issue, gleaned from several reliable sources.

First, police services for the 2011-12 fiscal year will cost the city general fund $11.6 million, up from $11 million the previous year. Other funds, grants, fees and fines add $377,000 for an overall public safety cost of $11.98 million, as listed in the city budget.

According to a police-prepared comparison chart, Yorba Linda will pay $179 per resident on police services 2011-12, while Brea will pay $364 and La Habra, Placentia and Tustin, with stand-alone departments, $257, $257 and $301, respectively. Figures for Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel and Lake Forest, with sheriff contracts, are $215, $160 and $177.

Second, an independent Law Enforcement Service Study, presented at a January 2010 council meeting, explored costs of other policing options and concluded, “Generally …Yorba Linda probably would be best served by continuing its services with Brea.”

The 71-page report by Ralph Anderson & Associates put the annual cost of a stand-alone department at $13 million with an added “transitional expense” of $3.4 million for a total first-year outlay a bit above $16.4 million.

The estimated annual cost of a sheriff contract was $12 million, with the warning, “This is only a consultant projection” and “does not reflect a commitment” by that department.

However, a formal proposal presented by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens at the Nov. 1 council meeting put the price at $10.1 million and a $1.5 million start-up for $11.6 million total.

Of course, legitimate questions arise over the potential for “low-ball” estimates to win a contract and the difficulty of making “apples-to-apples” comparisons, which can lead to understandable differences of opinion regarding the best service provider.

The Anderson study didn’t cost-out an improbable pairing with Anaheim or Placentia, but opined about a Joint Powers Authority with Brea: “It is doubtful that a JPA would create any cost savings over and above the current contract…What it could do is create a different form of governance and control over…operations.”

Third, termination of the Brea contract wasn’t needed to obtain formal proposals from other agencies, as Hutchens’ 25-page pitch was dated Oct. 14 and submitted before the Nov. 1 vote.

Fourth, officers received 3 percent raises for 2011-12 and 2012-13 but began paying 2.25 percent of salary for retirement in 2011-12, jumping to 4.5 percent in 2012-13. The long-established (since 1966) Brea Police Association has endorsed candidates in past council elections, as has the firefighter union.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Agenda fails to mention police contract vote

Recent actions by our elected City Council members and school trustees present an interesting contrast in styles, particularly regarding advance notification and taking community input on key decisions.

First, let’s look at council’s 3-2 vote Nov. 1 to seek formal proposals for police services from “surrounding agencies,” including the county Sheriff and Brea, and, significantly, “to serve notice” on Brea “of termination of the police services contract” in 18 months.

Of course, council is responsible for providing essential services at a cost within the parameters of the city’s financial resources, and requesting bids for police service is one of council’s fiscal duties, especially since past councils rarely explored other options.

Also, if council finds verifiably equal or better police service obtainable at less cost from another source, then severing the Brea agreement might be a rational decision.

But since public safety--a matter council members and residents properly consider the city’s most important task--is involved, ample public notice before decision-making is necessary, and the posted agenda for the Nov. 1 council meeting lacked specific detail.

The agenda listing--“update on potential future options for provision of law enforcement services”--didn’t mention a possible termination vote. And a separate five-page report by City Manager Steve Rudometkin recommended continuing contract renewal negotiations “incorporating previous council concerns.”

Rudometkin added, “Should the contract renewal discussions not yield results acceptable to the council by February 2012, staff will then seek further direction....” Rudometkin’s recommendation was put into a motion by Tom Lindsey, supported only by Jim Winder.

Although one of two “alternatives” Rudometkin listed near the end of his report noted “council may also want to make a determination as to whether to trigger the 18-month termination notice,” the issue should have been put on a well-publicized future agenda.

Council’s 3-2 vote wasn’t illegal, but more specific public notice was warranted, even if the action is part of a ploy to wring price concessions from Brea. A short delay to allow greater community input before the termination vote would have been wise.

Second, let’s look at how Placentia-Yorba Linda school trustees handled the possible sale or lease of a four-acre yard between the district Educational Services Center along Yorba Linda Boulevard and City Hall.

The district has applied to rezone the land from residential to commercial, since the latter zoning is more valuable “in this area,” Superintendent Dennis Smith told me in an e-mail.

Trustees approved an 11-member Surplus Property Advisory Committee to recommend a future use for the property, allowing “community input in order to make the best possible decisions relative to the use of excess school facilities,” stated Assistant Superintendent Doug Domene in a report.

By the way, in response to my query about whether the group would tackle future projects of a similar nature, Smith noted, “The committee will only be presented information regarding the…yard property. Once their recommendation has been presented to the board…their responsibilities end.”