In order to provide government transparency regarding my service as your City Councilwoman, below is my voting record for your review. I ask for your patience as we update this page periodically.
*****************************************************
- a study of various tunnel designs including a cut-and-cover tunnel which Coronado residents voted against in a prior advisory vote (see below),
- a study of various non-tunnel "options" which do not require such extensive and expensive study,
- consultants,
- engineers,
- local lobbying firm
- state lobbying firm, and
- federal lobbying firm.
*****************************************************
Thursday, July 8, 2010 [Updated July 9, 2010]
(1) Voted YES to certify the San Diego County Registrar of Voters'
election results for Proposition H (Coronado tunnel project). Results are:
~3,458 NO votes
~ 1,704 YES votes
~ Over 52% voter turnout
~ Tunnel project defeated by 67% of the voters.
Motion passed 5-0.
(2) Voted YES to take the following steps to shut down the tunnel project:
Direct city staff to:
~ Terminate the tunnel project as quickly and cheaply as possible,
~ Not to renew the lapsed contract with local lobbying firm Ledford Enterprises,
~ Prepare a resolution to dissolve the Coronado Tunnel Commission.
Motion passed 5-0.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010 [Updated June 1, 2010]
(1) Voted NO on tunnel check # 10078604 dated 05/20/2010 to Carpi & Clay
for "Advocacy fee-April": amount $2,625.00. It is my understanding that this
lobbyist firm, along with two other lobbyist firms, is working for the
Tunnel Action Team, an entity that I recently requested information about
in order that information on the Tunnel Action Team may be disclosed to
the public in advance of the vote on the Coronado tunnel Proposition H on
June 8.
Councilmember Al Ovrom, primary council representative to the
Tunnel Commission, explained that the Tunnel Action Team
has been meeting for a "long, long time." It is nothing new.
The Tunnel Action Team is an invitation only-type group
that has been called by the past city manager [Mark Ochenduszko]
and interim city manager [Jim Benson] to meet on a regular basis
in the city manager's office to "update the city manager" [paraphrase]
on the tunnel project. The members of the Tunnel Action Team are
the city manager, assistant city manager, Mr. Ovrom and "any others with
whom the city manager wanted to meet." Councilmember Ovrom
believes that the Tunnel Action Team is not subject to the Brown Act so
that they can meet in secret without transparency to the public and
without accountability to the taxpayers and voters of Coronado. This
means that the Tunnel Action Team does not have to give notice
of its meetings, does not have to allow the public to attend and hear/see
what is going on with the tunnel project, and does not have to report
written minutes or video recordings of the meetings for public review.
Mr. Ovrom said he hopes that the new city manager will continue to
be a part of the Tunnel Action Team.
(2) Voted NO on any and all other tunnel checks.
(3) Requested that a discussion of the Tunnel Action Team be put on the
next earliest agenda of city council.
(4) Voted YES on an encroachment permit for outdoor patio area for a
restaurant business at 126 Orange Avenue. While I understood the position
of those opposed to the outdoor patio area, I took a pledge to support
small business owners and I will keep doing so while serving on council.
It is important to support Coronado business in this dreadful economy.
As a council, we supported the Tourist Improvement District (TID)
by unanimous vote (5-0) so to me it's important to stay consistent
in the policy of promoting Coronado business, especially in this
dreadful economy. Measure passed 5-0.
(5) Voted YES to issue a business permit to Crown City Ice Cream,
a tricycle-powered family ice cream business. To be brief and to the point,
I was in favor of the permit even though I understand the position of the
opponents of the permit. I think that the issue of potential ice cream wrapper
litter will be rendered moot by the garbage collection on the tricycle, the
garbage collection by the Crown City Ice Cream workers around the
tricycle, and the garbage cans on the beach and in other public areas.
I was satisfied that the restrictions mentioned in the staff report
are appropriate. I think that a Crown City Ice Cream tricycle
will contribute to the unique atmosphere of Coronado.
Measure passed 5-0.
(6) Voted YES on consent agenda to temporarily display
the public art piece "Californiascope" on Tidelands Property
as sited by the Port on the bayside of the Community Center.
Measure passed 5-0.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 [Updated April 5, 2010]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V4000765 dated 03/11/10 to
Ledford Enterprises for tunnel February retainer:
amount $4,000.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10077669 dated 03/11/10 to
The Ferguson Group for tunnel February program
amount: $5,250.00.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10077669 dated 03/11/10 to
The Ferguson Group for tunnel wastewater program:
amount $1,750.00.
(4) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(5) Voted "no" on the increased community pool fees structure
to double the user fees for the community pool because:
(a) it is part of the ill-fated "Cooperative Pool Model" which
is doomed to failure by city council action according to city staff
on page 166 of the city council agenda available online,
(b) it puts the cart before the horse since all department fees
should be considered all at once and the community pool
should not be unfairly singled out at this time, (c) it
micro-manages the Recreation Department by dictating a
fee increase without considering foreseen and unforeseen
consequences, (d) testimony from city staff said that the
Aquatics Task Force assumes that the community pool user
drop-off rate due to the fees increase will be zero, which is illogical
and contrary to basic economic principles and human nature,
(e) testimony from city staff said that there are no guarantees
that the one rental group that moved from the community pool
to the school pool will even stay at the school pool, (f) city council
unanimously decided NOT to require the four highest paying
community pool rental groups to move to the school pool,
(g) the remaining three highest paying community pool
rental groups are not likely to go to the school pool and stay
there because there are fewer lockers, fewer showers, fewer
parking spaces and other items at the school pool compared to the
community pool, (h) the community pool fees increase should
NOT be tied to the school pool fee rates because it disadvantages
the Coronado taxpayers by ultimately increasing the taxpayer
subsidy to the community pool in obvious ways, (i) the
fees increase did not have community input as demonstrated
by the treatment of the members of the Coronado Masters Swim
Association, a high-paying rental group that has a 35-year
history at the Coronado community pool, and (j) this is part of a
larger current trend in the city to make services less accessible
to the residents while continuing to pay for local lobbyists,
state lobbyists, federal lobbyists, other increases for other
professional services along with capital projects, which trend
is out of sync with the majority of Coronado citizens and NOT
in the best interests of the majority of Coronado residents
and business owners. Vote was 4-1.
(6) Voted "yes" to increase the city manager's authority to
contract for goods and services to $30,000. I would like to
review this in a year to see how it is working because according
to city staff the two cities most like Coronado only give the
city manager authority to $10,000. Also, increasing the
authority of the city manager, who is unelected and
unaccountable to the voters, actually decreases the
accountability of the elected city council members, who are
directly accountable to the public. Vote was 5-0.
(7) Voted "yes" to (a) keep the Pomona roundabout temporary
because it increases public safety according to credible
testimony by Coronado residents, (b) fix the immediate problems
for pedestrians, and (c) fix the bad effects on the two neighbors
around the circle because we can increase public safety
without decreasing quality of life for our residents. I also
argued strongly to keep the roundabout on the council's
annual radar for review while NOT giving the roundabout
a source of funding or a start date because it is the
prudent thing to do since we have not seen the worst of
this economic depression and city council voted 4-1 to
put the city into an operating deficit of $120,000.00 (with
myself dissenting because it's unacceptable to me that
a city of our means chooses to fail to live within our means).
In the end, my city council colleagues agreed with me and the
roundabout will be placed into the capital plan unfunded and
without a start date. Vote was 5-0.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 [Updated April 5, 2010]
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 [Updated April 5, 2010]
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 [Updated April 5, 2010]
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 [Updated January 24, 2010]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V4000590 dated 12/16/2009 to
Ledford Enterprises for tunnel November retainer: amount $4,000.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V400614 dated 12/30/2009 to
Ledford Enterprises for tunnel December retainer: amount $4,000.00.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076435 dated 12/30/2009 to
Federal Express for tunnel documents CNR: amount $40.68.
(4) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076513 dated 12/30/2009 to
Ferguson Group for tunnel December program: amount $5,250.00.
(5) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076513 dated 12/30/2009 to
Ferguson Group for tunnel November reimbursement: amount $320.89.
(6) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076513 dated 12/30/2009 to
Ferguson Group for tunnel wastewater reimbursement: amount $106.96.
(7) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076513 dated 12/30/2009 to
Ferguson Group for tunnel wastewater December portion: amount $1,750.00.
(8) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(9) Abstained from voting for check # 10076424 dated 12/30/2009 to
Barbara Denny in the amount of $254.22 because it is for my benefit, to reimburse
me for my three night stay at Silicon Valley Holiday Inn while I attended an annual
conference hosted by the League of California Cities (LOCC). The LOCC is the
powerful non-profit group, based in Sacramento, which advocates for and
lobbies for California's approximately 400 cities.
(8) Voted "no" on continuing the tunnel study via a change work order.
City staff estimated that it will cost several hundred thousand dollars more
to complete the tunnel study. The tunnel study was continued by vote of 4-1,
with only myself voting to stop the tunnel project.
(9) Voted "yes" on placing the tunnel issue on the June 2010 ballot because it has been
over ten years since the voters have had their say on this important issue. The vote
was 5-0 to place the tunnel issue on the ballot.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 [Updated January 24, 2009]
Meeting cancelled. No meeting.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 [Updated December 27, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076021 dated 12/03/09 to Farnum Electric
for tunnel traffic count: amount $3,775.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076094 to the Ferguson Group for
tunnel November program: amount $5,250.00.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10076094 to the Ferguson Group for
tunnel wastewater November program: amount $1,750.00.
(4) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 [Updated December 27, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check #
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 [Updated November 18, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V4000489 dated 11/04/09 to local
lobbying firm Ledford Enterprises for tunnel October 2009 retainer:
total amount $4,000.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check #10075699 dated 11/04/09 to The
Fergusson Group/410735 for tunnel October program: amount $5,250.00.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10075699 dated 11/04/09 to The
Fergusson Group/510781 for tunnel w/w portn oc: amount $1,750.00.
(4) Voted "yes" to allow eight homes into the city Mills Act program for
historic preservation without a "cap" (limit) on the partial tax breaks given
to the homeowners based on a mathematical calculation determined by the
County of San Diego and based on square footage, rental value and other things.
This is a great day for historic preservation in Coronado. Congratulations to
all the historic homeowners now in our Mills Act program. This is a great
day for historic preservation in Coronado. Also, congratulations to all
of Coronado since everyone benefits with the existence of our historic homes
because in reality: (a) city-wide property values remain high thereby
ensuring strong tax receipts well into the future because people want to live
and buy homes in our unique community, (b) TOT (transit occupany tax)
receipts and local businesses stay as strong as possible because Coronado
remains a unique community that attracts day trippers and long term vacationers,
and (c) the Mills Act program is the only real tool we have to set policy that conforms
to the wishes of 90% of our constituents who do not want Coronado to change.
We want to preserve our village atmosphere and island charm. Since Coronado
is unusual in that we receive 58% of our property tax receipts back from Sacramento,
our state capitol, we can well afford to forego future property tax receipts that result
from the demolishing of our historic homes and replacement of them with
McMansions and faux Tuscan villas. There are plenty of other lots in Coronado upon
which to build McMansions and faux Tuscan villas. A realistic cost-benefit analysis
points to the conclusion that we must preserve our historic homes through a properly
administered, fair and reliable Mills Act program if we want to keep Coronado Coronado.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 [Updated November 3, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel portion of check # 10075364 dated 10/21/09 to state
lobbying firm Carpi & Clay for September advocacy fee: total amount $2,625.00.
(2) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(3) Voted "no" to extend tunnel project review contract between Coronado and
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation).
(4) Voted "no" on the proposed school pool model because I could not approve
the general concept of pool customer-switching in the report that city council received
from the aquatics task force. As I stated on the record during city council deliberation after
I removed this item from the consent portion of our agenda, to be brief and to the point:
(a) I do not want the school pool to fail.
(b) Swimming is important for the health of our citizens, young and old. [I am
testament to this fact as a competitive swimmer since the age of six and a lap
swimmer until today. Also throughout my college years, at my college pool I
worked as a lifeguard and taught swimming.]*
(c) Coronado community pool is well-run by our city and led by Recreation Director
Linda Rahn and her staff. I disagree with the criticism that our community
pool is equal to the school pool because they both "lose" money and are thus
both "failures." Our community pool, like all community pools, is provided to our
citizens as part of our budgeted recreation program to fill a public need.
The school pool is in trouble, yet it is not the intent of this small community
to subsidize a second Olympic-sized pool, especially in this dreadful economy.
(d) Thank you to all the aquatics task force members for their hard work and
dedication to the task with which they have been charged.
(e) I received and read the report on the pool model with great interest.
(f) Unfortunately, I cannot approve the report for two reasons.
(g) First, I am disappointed that the report contains no actual dollar
amounts which means that I am unable to approve it without knowing
exactly what are the financial consequences -- intended and
unintended -- of approving the concepts in the report.
(h) Second, I am concerned that by merely performing a "shell game" of
switching customers from the community pool to the school pool
there will occur the unintended consequence of driving swimming
pool customers out of Coronado altogether. For example, the report
proposed that the following teams who currently rent space and time at the
community pool will be switched to rent space and time at the school pool:
Masters Swimming, CNSA, OMBAC Women's Polo, Navy Training.
Due to negative design factors of the school pool, including but not limited to
the inadequate number of showers in the men's and women's locker rooms
(two in each room) and inadequate parking, it is foreseeable to the point of
being likely that some or all of these four groups will leave Coronado altogether
for a better pool arrangement that meets their needs in the same way that our
community pool does now.
(i) My expectation for the school pool is out-of-the-box thinking that involves
developing new customers for the school pool, not merely taking customers
from the community pool and switching them to the school pool where they
will be unhappy for obvious reasons. For example, I would like the school pool
leaders to take the initiative and contact the YMCAs in South Bay and
Mission Valley who, like our Recreation Director and her staff, have a
demonstrated track record of success in pool management. The reason for
contacting the area YMCAs is to gather information and develop a plan to
attract new customers to boost school pool revenues. To my knowledge, no one
from the school pool has reached out to the YMCA to date for this specific reason.
(j) I would be pleased to formally "receive" this report today, but I cannot
formally "approve" it for all of the above reasons.
Therefore I voted "no" on the motion to approve the cooperative model for the
school pool.
*[Bracketed information added.]
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 [Updated October 27, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V4000436 dated 10/08/09 to local tunnel lobbyist
Ledford Enterprises, LLC for September 2009 cell phone $20.00 and retainer $4,000.00:
total amount $4,020.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check # V4000450 dated 10/08/09 to Southwest Strategies, LLC
for tunnel legal ads: amount $551.00.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10075246 dated 10/08/09 to SANDAG, Inc. for
tunnel modeling scenarios: amount $9,720.00.
(4) Voted "no" on tunnel check #10075285 dated 10/08/09 to Ferguson Group, LLC for
tunnel September 2009 program: amount $5,250.00.
(5) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(6) Voted "yes" to allow all of the first seven houses on our waiting list into our Mills Act program for historic preservation.
As I stated on the record, the Mills Act program is the only tool city council has to set policy to satisfy 90% of our voters who do not want change in Coronado. As an elected official, I continue to walk door-to-door around our island community. I know for a fact that our residents like our community the way it is. They do not want Coronado to change.
By embracing the Mills Act, I seek to keep our city-wide property values strong and to increase the TOT (transit occupancy tax) because the existence of our historic homes ensures that Coronado stays a place where people want to live and buy a home, as well as a destination for day-trippers and vacationers who shop, dine and stay overnight on our island.
The reality is that historic preservation keeps Coronado a unique island community.
This "halo effect" phenomenon of strong city-wide property values and increased TOT with a proper Mills Act program (no cap) is clearly and unequivocally documented in the quantified study of properties in cities in San Diego County by University of San Diego Economics Professor Norwall.
The argument that Norwall's study is invalid and inapplicable, in whole or in part, to Coronado because the economics professor did not come to Coronado to study our city in depth is false. Naturally and logically, we can apply Norwall's "halo effect" and other economic principles to Coronado. The reason is that in addition to our outstanding climate, nearby beaches, city services, schools and low crime rate -- qualities shared to varying degrees by the San Diego area cities in Norwall's study -- our property values and TOT revenues are obviously enhanced by saving and preserving our historic homes.
If you have travelled extensively and lived in different locales, you recognize through personal experience the validity of the "halo effect" as demonstrated by Professor Norwall.
If you haven't had the opportunity to travel and live in different places yet, you will also recognize the validity of the economic professor's "halo effect" because it is simply common sense and sound logic.
The argument that the Mills Act "loses" money for the city is false, too. It is not mere semantics (or word play), but basic accounting principles (a real conceptual difference) that recognizes that the city does not "spend" money by embracing the Mills Act and giving partial tax breaks to historic homeowners based on the San Diego County calculation.
It's impossible for our city to "lose" or to "spend" money that it doesn't have.
We can and should always live within our means.
More accurately, Coronado foregoes an increase in property tax revenue that the city would collect in the future if those same historic homes were sold, torn down and replaced by:
- McMansions, and
- faux (fake) Tuscan villas
of the Orange County ilk.
In reality, by adopting the policy of embracing the Mills Act, instead of "losing" cash money Coronado gains something of greater value -- enhanced city-wide property values and increased TOT revenues -- precisely because we keep Coronado unique.
As I stated on the record, there are plenty of other lots in town on which to build McMansions and faux Tuscan villas. The right thing to do is to save and preserve our historic homes that make Coronado unlike any other southern California town.
I am confident that 90% of our Coronado voters do not want our town to change into Anytown, Orange County. Unfortunately, that is exactly what will continue to occur in Coronado unless we embrace the Mills Act for historic preservation now.
The argument that "no one really knows how much" the Mills Act program will "cost" our city is equally false. The reason is that our historic preservation experts agree that at most, only 200 homes will ever be able to qualify for the partial tax break available through the Mills Act program. There is a list of several qualifying conditions that must be met before a home can be declared historic.
Age of the home (75 years) is merely one of those qualifying factors. Not every home that becomes 75 years old will be eligible to be deemed "historic" because not every home was designed by a major architect, built by a major builder, played a part in our town's special history, and so forth.
The reality is that we have a finite inventory of historic homes -- merely 200 -- and our inventory is dwindling at an alarmingly rapid pace because our Mills Act program is broken since our waiting list is a discouraging 17 years long.
Furthermore, of the 200 homes in Coronado that could possibly ever be declared historic, far fewer will ever be designated historic. The reason is that historic designation is voluntary and extremely personal to the homeowner. Not every owner of a potentially historic home will seek historic designation, and then a Mills Act contract for a partial tax break as incentive for the expensive upkeep of their historic home.
The fact is that it is a very personal decision that we must support as a matter of city policy by embracing the Mills Act instead of forcing historic homeowners to sell their homes because the historic upkeep is unaffordable without a partial tax break incentive.
By not embracing the Mills Act, we adopt a policy of encouraging the sale of our historic homes and facilitating their demolishing to pave the way for the building of more McMansions and faux (fake) Tuscan villas.
By not embracing the Mills Act we adopt a policy of changing Coronado, which is against the will of our people.
Unfortunately, these homes -- when they are not well-placed -- tend to block the air and light from the surrounding homeowners whose well-defined, traditional, legal right to use and enjoy their property is violated by overbuilding.
I am engaged in an ongoing dialogue with Senator Jim Mills, author of the Mills Act for historic preservation. I agree with Senator Mills that his Act is perfectly suited to Coronado and will bring about the result that 90% of our voters desire -- preservation of our charming, small-town, island way of life.
It's a fact that unlike any other city in our entire region, Coronado gets back 58% of its collected tax revenues from our state capitol of Sacramento. We can and should embrace the Mills Act, live within our means and provide outstanding services to our taxpayers -- all while keeping Coronado the island we know, love and call home. It's the right thing to do.
For all of the above reasons, I embrace the Mills Act and want to grant the maximum number of historic homeowners entrance to our Mills Act program for historic preservation. That is why I voted "yes" to allow all of the first seven houses on the waiting list into our Mills Act program.
The reality is that not only can Coronado afford the Mills Act program, but Coronado simply cannot afford not to embrace the Mills Act.
I am very pleased to report that the vote to save all of the first seven historic homes on the wait list was 5-0. Your city council members embraced the Mills Act and set the policy of keeping Coronado the unique place we love to call home.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 [Updated October 13, 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 000370 dated 9/10/09 to local tunnel lobbyist Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for tunnel retainer $4,000.00 and cell phone charges $31.00: total amount $4,031.00.
(2) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 0744677 dated 9/10/09 to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for "Tunnel Solar Tower": total amount $828.24.
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 0074923 dated 9/23/09 to Federal Express Corp. for "Tunnel Ferguson Group": total amount $39.56.
(4) Voted "no" on tunnel check # 10075038 dated 9/23/09 to The Ferguson Group, LLC for lobbying services for month of August 2009 $5,250.00 and $1,750.00: total amount $7,000.00.
(5) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(6) Voted "no" on allowing alteration to the historic estate at 1127 F Avenue. This historic estate with 6,000 square feet of indoor living space was designed by renown architect Richard Requa. It includes not only the buildings with indoor living space, but also the gardens and open spaces for outdoor living.
In reality this entire estate -- including the buildings, gardens and open spaces -- was declared historic by our Coronado Historic Resource Commission and should be preserved intact without alteration. Public testimony at this city council meeting by a former member of the prior Historic Resource Commission that approved the historic designation of this estate confirms this reality.
Based on our clear rules and law governing historic resources, our Historic Resource Commission twice denied altering the property by removing gardens and open spaces and replacing them with new structures.
Our own City Staff agreed with our Historic Resource Commission's two decisions and advised City Council to deny the proposed alteration to 1127 F Avenue.
I voted "no" on allowing the alteration because under the governing law:
- years ago our Historic Resource Commission declared the entire estate historic -- buildings, gardens, open spaces;
- recently our Historic Resource Commission twice denied alteration;
- currently our City Staff agreed that no alteration should be allowed; and
- it was the right thing to do.
Tuesday, September 16, 2009 [Updated September 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on approving tunnel check # 074513 dated 8/27/09 to tunnel engineering firm PB Americas, Inc. (Parsons Brinckerhoff) for tunnel study for month of July: total amount $277,940.00.
(2) Voted "no" on any other tunnel checks, including those in the amount of $134.20, which are included in the total amount of $278,074.20 listed on page 34 of the agenda packet as the amount of money spent by the City through Fund 410 for the limited period of tunnel project spending before us for consideration. This means that there is/are check(s) in the amount of $134.20 that are not listed to the tunnel project, called the SR75/282 "Trans Corridor Project."
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 [Updated September 2009]
(1) Voted "no" on approving tunnel check # V4000303 dated 8/13/09 to tunnel lobbyist Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for $4,000.00 for July 2009 retainer for lobbying services and $36.00 for cell phone charges: total amount $4,036.00.
(2) Voted "no" on approving tunnel check # 10074051 dated 7/30/09 to tunnel engineering firm PB Americas, Inc. (Parsons Brinckerhoff) for tunnel study for May/June 2009 in the amount of $53,553.00.
(3) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(4) Abstained from voting on check # 10074237 which accrues to my benefit as City Councilwoman for my attendance later this month on city business at the League of California Cities event in San Jose, CA in the amount of $139.20 for airfare and $500.00 for event registration: total amount $639.20.
(5) Voted "no" on the motion to raise golf course fees because I think the matter was not ripe for decision due to various valid points raised on the record by members of the public. Some of those points include the annual pass, out-of-state golfers' fee, tournament fee, senior discount and no-refund policy.
Instead of changing the city staff recommendation "on the fly" and without all of the pertinent facts at this city council meeting, I think that the process should have gone like this to avoid unintended consequences: the matter should go back to the knowledgeable golf advisory committee for input on the issues we raised here. Then the committee forwards the result of their work to the city staff for fine-tuning based on that public committee discussion. That will result in a better plan which, of course, will come back to city council for decision-making.
Therefore, I voted "no" on this motion because it circumvented the public process.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 [Updated August 2009]
(1) Abstained from voting on check # 10073522 dated 7/01/09 which accrues to my benefit for business cards for B. Denny, City Councilwoman: amount $88.44
(2) Voted "no" on approving tunnel check # V4000246 dated 7/16/09 to Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for local lobbying services for tunnel project: amount $6,038.00 and any and all other tunnel checks
(3) Voted "no" on the city executing a change order to a tunnel engineering contract for engineering study services with PB Americas, Inc. (Parsons Brinckerhoff) in which the engineering firm wanted $131,092.00 more for its services along with a series of transfers of funds to/from various tasks listed in the contract: amount $131,092.00
(4) Voted "no" on the city entering into a tunnel lobbying contract for national (Washington, DC) lobbying services for the tunnel project and others with The Ferguson Group, LLC: amount $89,000.00 per year
(5) Voted "no" on any and all other tunnel checks.
(6) Voted "no" on raising the city attorney's legal fee because in order to keep true to my campaign promise to cut down on the city's legal bills, I think that city council should not raise city attorney fees -- especially in this dreadful economy and given the negative impact on our city budget by the proposed state take-away.
(7) Voted "no" on splitting three lots into five lots at 1507-1525 Tenth Street because the increase in density, crowding and traffic congestion that necessarily results from such lot splitting seriously detracts from our Coronado village atmosphere.
Unfortunately, Coronado is experiencing the negative effects of overcrowding after the Prop J debacle in which the city council unanimously voted to spend Coronado taxpayers' money to sue Coronado taxpaying voters in court to overturn on a legal technicality the passing of Prop J by Coronado voters. Prop J reasonably limited lot splitting in one residential zone.
In order to remain true to my campaign promise to reduce island overcrowding by reducing lot splitting, I voted "no" on splitting these three lots into five lots.
(8) Voted "no" on motion regarding Mills Act approval for 465 Palm Avenue because the motion did not satisfactorily address the needs of the homeowner-applicant, who unfairly was moved from next up on the Mills Act program approval list to number 27 by a subjective vote of the prior city council.
One of the many problems with Coronado's current Mills Act program is that it fails to conform to a "first in/first out" (FIFO) schedule for approval of Mills Act contracts between the homeowners-applicants and the city. Instead, from time to time city council performs a subjective reshuffling of the historically designated houses on the list. Among other things, this subjective reshuffling is undeniable evidence that Coronado lacks commitment to historic preservation.
Preservation of historic houses through the Mills Act program is necessary to preserve our unique village atmosphere and to keep city-wide property values strong. There is strong, objective proof that a proper Mills Act program keeps city-wide property values strong in all towns in California. Coronado is no exception to this rule.
Coronado will benefit immensely from a reliable and predictable Mills Act program that consistently preserves historic homes by the objective FIFO method, instead of subjectively reshuffling the houses on the Mills Act program approval list on a regular basis.
The facts are that Coronado has a very large and very valuable inventory of taxable properties, both residential and commercial, in the Village, Shores and Cays. And Coronado receives back 58% of its collected tax revenue from Sacramento, unlike most cities in California who receive about 25% of their collected tax revenue back from the state capitol. Therefore, Coronado can well afford to make a serious commitment to historic preservation in the Village by operating the Mills Act program as it was intended to run by its author, Senator James R. Mills.
Unfortunately, the reality is that Coronado has a rapidly dwindling inventory of historic homes. Coronado is at serious risk of becoming Anytown, USA with the demolishing of each and every historic home at this current, rapid pace.
In order to remain true to my campaign promise, I intend to save our unique village atmosphere and keep our city-wide property values strong by saving more historic homes.
As I stated on the record, it is my considered opinion that the homeowner of 465 Palm Avenue indicated clear, unequivocal intent at our open, public city council meeting to demolish this home if his application was not granted by city council. The applicant was understandably and reasonably upset by arbitrarily being pushed down the waiting list by the prior city council who rearranged the waiting list.
Five city council members unanimously agreed that the passing of this motion would likely result in the demolishing of this historic home.(*) The motion passed 4-1.
I think this Spanish style home in its prominent location is worth saving to save our unique island atmosphere and enhance city-wide property values and TOT revenues. Therefore I voted "no" on the motion.
(*) As I predicted, the homeowner recently applied to demolish this Spanish style home in its prominent location. As such, another important part of what makes Coronado a unique place to live and vacation will vanish forever from our island community. Incrementally, such demolishing of historic homes changes our unique island community into Anytown, Orange County -- which is exactly what our voters do not want.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 [Updated July 2009]
(1) Abstained from voting for tunnel check # 0073200 dated 06/17/09 to PB Americas, Inc. (Parsons Brinckerhoff) for April 2009: amount $79,408.00 and any and all other tunnel checks
(2) Abstained from voting for checks for the benefit of myself because council members cannot vote to approve checks that benefit themselves or their family members:
- Check # 10073072 dated 06/17/09 to Blackie's Trophies & Awards for name plate for B. Denny: amount $13.05
- Check # 0073090 dated 06/17/09 to Complete Office (Grove) for supplies for B. Denny: amount $77.91
- Check # 0073090 dated 06/17/09 to Complete Office (Grove) for pencil holder for B. Denny: amount $9.78
- Check # 10073145 dated 06/17, 09 to IPM Lithographics, Inc. for memo pads for B. Denny: amount $103.31
- And any and all other checks to my benefit
Total start up costs for Councilwoman Barbara Denny: $204.05(*)
(*) I have since been advised that my start up costs are somewhat less than $204.05 because some office items for use by other/all council members were listed as benefitting me.
(3) Voted "no" on renewal of contract for local tunnel lobbying firm of Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for FY 2009-2010: amount $49,200.00
- Richard S. Ledford, President, Ledford Enterprises, Inc., 110 West C Street, San Diego, CA 92101
- Contract goal(s): To promote the tunnel project in order to find funding for the tunnel
(5) Voted "no" on a requested $75,000.00 grant from City of Coronado to the School Pool on the following
grounds:
(a) I respectfully disagreed with City Staff's finding of a "valid municipal purpose" for the grant because I found that the
municipal purpose for providing aquatic services to the broad, general community already is provided by our Community
Pool. As such, the School Pool provides a duplication of the aquatic services provided by the Community Pool to the
general public. For a community of our small size to provide duplicate aquatic services by supporting more than one pool
in this dreadful and uncertain economy is too much of a burden to ask of our taxpayers. Remember, the State of
California is in the process of trying to legally "take" (or perhaps borrow) money from all cities in order to balance the
ruinous state budget. Currently the reality is that we do not know exactly how much money the State of California
will "take" from Coronado until it actually occurs. Therefore I could not vote to give $75,000 of City funds to support
the School Pool.
(b) I did not take issue with the structure of the grant agreement or the language of the grant agreement because after
I found that there was no "valid municipal purpose" for the grant, the grant agreement document became irrelevant for
the purpose of my decision.
(c) Furthermore as a threshold matter, the Original Agreement intentionally excluded the School Pool from the itemized
list of projects. Also, the community expectation stated on the record at the time of the School Pool planning
phase was that no City funds would be spent for the School Pool operation. The widespread intent and expectation that
no City funds be spent on the School Pool continues to flourish strongly today in the mainstream of our broad, general
community. This unique history surrounding the School Pool made this particular grant request different from any other
grant request received by City Council. As such, I could not vote against the will of our broad, general, mainstream
Coronado community by voting for the grant request. To vote for the grant request would be to nullify the Original
Agreement and the mainstream community intent surrounding it. Therefore I voted to deny the grant request.
(d) This decision was extremely difficult for me because of my long history of aquatics. I began swimming competitively
at age six, worked as a lifeguard, worked as a swim instructor and continue to swim laps virtually daily. I continue to
encourage the School Pool Foundation and the Schools to work out a solution which does not include spending
City money on the School Pool because that is the intent and expectation of our broad, general, mainstream
community. As an elected member of City Council, my job is to vote according to the intent and expectation of the
people of Coronado while continuing to protect and preserve our City's financial health. It is a delicate balance which
involves difficult choices on serious issues, like this request by the School Pool for a grant of $75,000 of City funds.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 [Updated June 2009]
(1) Abstained from voting for tunnel checks as follows:
- Tunnel lobbyist check # 00145 dated 06/04/09 to Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for May 2009 cell phone charges: amount $38.00
- Tunnel lobbyist check # 00145 dated 06/04/09 to Ledford Enterprises, Inc. for May 2009 retainer fee: amount $6, 000.00
- Tunnel engineering check # 10072964 dated 06/04/09 to PB Americas, Inc. for May 2009: amount $49,555.00
- Any and all other tunnel checks.
(2) Abstained from voting to spend Transnet funds on tunnel engineering study in City Capital Improvement Project budget for FY 2009-2010: amount $19,000.00 and any and all other tunnel expenditures
(3) Voted "no" on tunnel expenditures in City Budget for FY 2009-2010 as follows:
- Engineering studies, budget unit 100374: amount $183.457.00
- SR75/282 project fund, budget unit 410735: amount $580,000.00
- And any and all other proposed tunnel expenditures
Kindly contact Barbara with any questions or comments.
