FORA Extension

The extension of FOR A is on a lot of minds lately. Since the last Council meeting where the City Council debated the contents of a long letter to the State legislature, the bill extending FOR A was passed out of committee in Sacramento and could be approved as soon as Thursday out in the Assembly.

I thought it important to repeat a few of the points I brought up before the City Council because many of them have to do with issues beyond the extension of FOR A.

First, let’s remember that the former Ft. Ord is about the size of San Francisco City and County, 28,000 acres. Of that acreage, a bit over 18,000 acres have been set aside as permanent natural habitat through agreements with FOR A  and the Sierra Club. Now it appears some 14,000+ acres of that land will be designated as a National Monument to secure its natural status forever.

The remaining acres include all of CSUMB, parts of Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Seaside, the County of Monterey and Marina. These areas are represented by the Highlands and Bayonet Golf Course in Seaside, the East Garrison project in the County and the Dunes, the Marina Airport, MPC and Marina Heights in Marina plus various other areas.

Next, the blight that we are so concerned about is all within someone’s current jurisdiction. In Marina, most of the blight we see is owned by the City of Marina at this point. There are areas that are entitled for development but the land itself is still owned by the City till the developers have enough interest in building to actually purchase the land and demolish the buildings. The same is true in Seaside, the County and CSUMB. It should also be noted that it is the proceeds from the land sales that fund the demolition of the old buildings.

In fact, Marina had a chance to remove all the blight in the Cypress Knolls area but Councilman Brown changed his mind after choosing a developer, causing more delay’s that could last for years. In the meantime, the blight is not only an eyesore but both an environmental and public safety hazard.

Finally, the purpose of FOR A was, and is, to replace the jobs and the economy that was the Army before the base closed. That means some 34,000 jobs and the housing that goes along with it. FOR A, the Cities and the developers have been working to fulfill this mandate but they have weathered challenge after challenge plus an ever changing economy just to get where we are today. Has everything been accomplished since they began? Of course not. Are there challenges and issues that should be resolved? Yes, but these are local issues and they need local input, not solved on a State level.

So I support the extension of FOR A and I hope the State legislature agrees and gives FOR A the 10 year extension that Assemblyman Monning along with his co-signers, Assemblyman Alejo and Senators Blakeslee and Cannella have proposed. Then let’s all get back to the serious work of bringing jobs to our community.

More later

A "Balanced" Smoke Screen

The Tuesday Council agenda about a balanced budget may sound great on the surface, but here are the details that you, the public, should be aware of.

Let’s be clear. The City of Marina has a structural deficit. In fact, two years ago it was about 4 million dollars annually. However, our citizens did their part and voted to tax themselves to cover about half the deficit (Measures M & N). It was up to our City Council to do the rest. Since that time, not one dime of new revenue has been raised by this City Council.

Instead, this Council majority has tried to balance the budget on City employees’ backs - all its employees. A multitude of opportunities were presented to this Council to approve new revenues, but - in each and every case - the Council could/would not deliver. Prime example: why not review the recommendations of Councilman O’Connell’s own budget advisory committee from two years ago.

So now Councilman O’Connell has raised the issue of a balanced budget resolution: a great campaign issue.  But Councilman O’Connell forgets he does not need a resolution to accomplish this goal: Simply bring in new revenue or make the hard choices to cut the City’s core services. He has had this opportunity for the past three budgets, yet the Council has continued to approve “out of balance” budgets and draw down on its reserve funds.

The resolution requires proportional budget cuts. If public safety is 80% of the budget, then 80% of the cuts need to come from public safety- per his resolution. Instead of the Council deciding what to cut, he is mandating the City Manager recommend them; however, the Council can restore any spending by a super-majority vote. This process will not avoid endless straw votes - rather it will just reverse their direction. Instead of voting to cut, they will vote to restore this or that position or program.

My suggestion to Councilmembers:  rather than waste staff time by creating the resolution, doing the research and changing the municipal code, simply ask the City Manager, prior to the typical budget cycle, to submit the budget to council, in whatever form desired - balanced or not. Then make hard decisions necessary to accomplish the goal with full public transparency and participation.

More later

Termination

As you all likely know by now, our City Council majority terminated our City Manager’s contract this past Tuesday night as expected. I have talked about the process that they used to do this in previous blogs so I will not go into much of the process again here. However, it was clear from the testimony that the reason for the termination had nothing to do with performance, nor with budgets.

There was an agreement to be made but the majority was unwilling to do so. As a result the City will spend tens of thousands of dollars on additional attorney fees, an arbitration process and, in the end, pay the City Manager the amount outlined in his contract. If it ends up with a trial, damages could be added on as well. It is likely that this entire process as done by this Council majority could cost the City a half million dollars or more from our general fund. All unbudgeted.

From what I am hearing on the street and from the phone calls I am getting, the public is outraged by the process and by the fact the Council is unwilling to honor a contract with a valued employee. This includes many in the Council Chambers on Tuesday night that were unaware of the circumstances and process the Council was following.  So what is in store for the rest of our City’s employees?

It is clear that this Mayor and the Council majority have created a hostile and intimidating work environment for all of our employees. Remember, many of these employees are working to cover more than one job due to our overall staffing shortages and budget issues. Are they next in the barrel? Are they to have the Council tear up their existing agreements and dictate new terms or be terminated?

This unfortunate episode will further undermine the credibility of our Council, put our City employees on the defensive and further erode our City’s ability to provide the core services we demand.

Very simply put, none of this needed to happen. If the Council had acted in good faith, met face to face to with the City Manager or even simply followed the terms of his contract we would not have had to go through this ill fated and expensive process.

More later

Public Hearing

There will be a lot of news stories and headlines over the next few days regarding the Marina City Manager’s public hearing on Tuesday night. I think it is important to remember a few things going into this meeting.

First and foremost, let’s all step back and take the personalities out of the mix. Mr. Altfeld could be the best or the worst City Manager in the City’s history- it really does not matter at this point. What does matter is the process to which the Council follows, and this is the concern that I have.

If the City Manager (or any City employee) has a contract that outlines the process for disputes on salary, severance and other items that was agreed upon by all parties, then it should be followed. This should be true for all of us. If we have a contract with our employer, we expect it to be honored. This is what brings us peace of mind, comfort and order to our relationship with our employer.

So if there is a disagreement and the contract stipulates that you negotiate until you reach an agreement or an impasse, then you follow the contract terms. If you reach an impasse then you go to arbitration. If after arbitration you still cannot agree then you can terminate under the terms of the contract. This is not the path to which our City Council majority has chosen to travel; rather they have decided to go from negotiation to termination in defiance of the contract terms.  According to the closed session agenda they seem to knowingly be headed for arbitration, even litigation, after the employee is terminated.

If arbitration is after termination and arbitration determines the employee should be reinstated, how does that happen in this case? It would seem to me that the result would be a very expensive settlement to the City because the process was not followed. We are all aware of the City’s finances, so how do we afford this? Doesn’t it simply make sense to follow the terms of the contract and avoid this expensive process? Remember, the City is paying for the Attorneys on both sides of this case, plus the City Attorney’s fees and ultimately court costs and a potential settlement amount.

Finally, what will we have saved through this process? We will still need to hire a City Manager, perhaps at a lesser salary and with fewer benefits but we would have spent tens and maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars on this ill fated process. It all comes back to the contract.

The question is simply, what is a contract worth? That answer is important to all our City employees at this point. They have an agreement with the City. If our Council majority chooses not to honor it, who is safe from their wrath?

More later