Poll: How Should Hercules Fill Its Top Finance Spot?
The Hercules City Council is still looking into using an elected official to run the city's finances.
The Hercules City Council is divided on the issue of how the city should fill the city’s top finance position.
Hercules uses a finance director that is hired by and reports to the city manager. The current finance director is with Hercules on an interim basis, and the city is looking for a permanent replacement.
Councilwoman Myrna de Vera recently introduced the idea of using an elected finance director to divert some of the city manager’s hiring and firing power to Hercules residents. The city is unable to make the finance director position an elected official, but it could use an elected city treasurer. Switching to a city treasurer would also require Hercules to switch to a charter city.
The council discussed the issue at its Jan. 24 meeting.
Council members were divided on how to fill the spot with Vice Mayor John Delgado and Councilwoman Myrna de Vera supporting further investigation into the possibility of using a finance director who would report to the council instead of the city manager. Mayor Dan Romero and councilmen Gerard Boulanger and William Wilkins supported the continued use of a finance director.
Read Contra Costa Times coverage here.
Carol
4:14 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
After reading Tom Lochner's article - I now question this whole finance issue. John Delgado states that "There were inquiries made and advice given, but nothing that has been made public," Delgado said. "Whatever comments were made were client-privileged."
How does he think this falls under the category of attorney-client privilege? It was not an employee issue, it was not pending litigation, or real estate related so why was this not brought up in the counsel meetings then like it was last week? It certainly wasn't privileged then?
Why has he and Myrna not given whatever information Cabral gave them back in December 2010 to the other members of counsel and most importantly to Patrick Tang? They talk about transparency? How is that transparent? They spent over 45 minutes last week harping over this very issue - now for us to find out that they had already asked the prior city attorney for his opinion, got it, and then never disclosed it?
Why????
Glenn Abraham
8:55 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol, have we converted you? Welcome to the side of Good.
We wouldn't have to be wondering why it is that our councilmembers are up to whatever it is that they're up to, if only they'd trust us and tell us, if only they'd govern openly. The conspiracy theories which we're going to begin believing in will probably be worse than the reality. Of course, with the last council, the reality was worse than anyone had imagined. Secret administration of public business never works out well.
Carol
9:52 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Glenn, I am for open and honest communication from the counsel members - I think you and others are not understanding my point. I do believe that there are some items that MUST be discussed in private. For things such as the negotiations of real estate or lawsuits. Those are things that should not be open while being negotiated because it can hurt us far more than help. Once the negotiations are complete - then I agree we need to be told. We have a city that is governed by counsel members that we voted in. We must allow them to govern (with a watchful eye), but its not the "village" running the city, it is the men and women we elected to run it. If people dont agree then they can run and have a voice. You just cant have 25000 people running the city, it doesnt work.
I am very disappointed with counsel member Delgado and DeVera for not disclosing the ex-city attorneys findings of the finance/treasures/whatever they asked him to research. It is not only not transparent, but it wastes more taxpayer dollars having Patrick Tang look into it more, when the answer or confirmation could already be there.
Phil Simmons
10:27 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol,
Not quite so, as far as I see it. The idea that we have voted for our council does not mean our only solution is to run for office or vote them out. I do not want to vote them out. I happen to like our council and pull for their success. But laws such as the Brown Act have been established for the expressed purpose of giving the public a "seat at the table" as a means of being engaged and NOT leaving the governing to the elected officials. We do not have to be just a watchful eye. It is very much a participatory government. If all 25,000 citizens want to come to city hall and take part then they should. If they don't show up that does not mean that the concerned citizens should not participate. The council does have the final vote on issues. That is why they were elected. But the process of engagement, not just being watchful, must be respected.
Glenn Abraham
10:28 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tolstoy I: Carol, I think that I do understand your point, and I think that, in large part, you and I agree. I don't agree about the 25,000 people (the active portion of which numbers, in fact, fewer than a hundred, a manageable group) "running" the city. The council cannot govern well in an information vacuum. The councilmembers should consider public reaction before they lock us in with their decisions. The Bridge failure was a good indication of what several dozen people can do (and which they accomplished primarily through comments made on the Patch, and little more [In practice, the Patch is a mighty sword.] ), and of why the voices of informed citizens SHOULD be heard before the council freezes us in the consequences of their decisions. I'm only asking that the information be made readily available, BEFOREHAND, so that those who are sufficiently concerned about the governance of the city to learn what's going on, have an opportunity to add the value of their own knowledge and opinions and concerns and desires. Most of the 25,000 (and the number of registered voters is less than half of that, though the rest matter, too) don't care enough to pay attention to what's going on, and there's not a lot we can do about that. For those who do care, the council should make information as available as possible, as soon as possible, and offer the greatest possible opportunity for public participation.
Glenn Abraham
10:30 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tolstory II: That information vacuum is, btw, only partial. If the citizenry can be silenced through witholding of information, you can be sure that those closest to the decision (Safeway and related moneyed interests, in the current discussion) WILL know and WILL try to influence the outcome, urburdened by the weight or opposition of public opinion.
Real estate negotiations should be conducted in private, but the council should first offer the community the opportunity to influence the decision as to what that real estate (OUR land, even if privately owned) is to be used for. And, I'm not disappointed with Myrna and John for the reasons you stated; I am, though, disappointed with whichever council members it was who decided to hold the January 30 meeting in secret.
Carol
10:34 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Phil, I agree that everyone can voice an opinion, come to meetings and make sure that what happened to us in the past does not repeat itself - as much as we can, but having said that, the Brown act does exactly what you say, but there are items that cannot be discussed in the open. My BIG issue here is that no one is looking at the elephant in the room. I like our new council and support them, BUT 2 members have just done exactly what we DO NOT want them to do which is to not disclose information. We would have never even known about this issue being looked at prior if Tom Lochner had not wrote about it. So, we are trying our best to make sure their is transparency, when two of the council members are not abiding by what they preach! So, yes, I have an issue with that.
Carol
10:43 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Glenn, while I do agree with your comments about getting public input etc, I disagree with about NOT being disappointed with John and Myrna because I believe that what they did is contrary to what they have been preaching and what you are asking all members to do. The waste of time over an issue that is most likely not even possible is beyond me. I am very unhappy with both of them and think that there was no reason for them to not disclose that information when THEY made it such an issue last week. There is no confideltial or privleged information with regard to that issue so I want to know why Delgado said that.
Phil Simmons
4:42 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol,
You seem to have had an epiphany. The city needs to ENFORCE the Brown Act, which means every meeting should be OPEN to the public with the exception for the three things the Act allows to be held confidentially. Even those should be open when at all possible. They are as you stated, PENDING litigation, HR issues (non management by the way), and real estate NEGOTATIONS (not real estate plans by the way).
The city manager should hire a qualified municipal accountant, not a Financial Director or finance manager, just a qualified financial accountant with good municipal experience. The big titles just bring big salaries. Then the council should require the city manager to have the financial accountant provide a monthly financial statement in writing and a review of pending financial issues at the city council meetings, right in front of the public, with full disclosure.
Dennis Barry
5:21 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
For goodness sakes, please don't spend any money on this. We can't afford it.
Susan D.Keeffe
5:43 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
@carol,
Exactly! Now you see why I keep using the word @transparency". I'm surprised I'm still posting concerns about it. The public discussion they did have was good. I hope we hear more such open discussions. The position is urgently needed and open. They need to move on it soon.
G.C.
5:49 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I want our city Finance Director to be a CPA. Not all cities require this.
G.C.
5:50 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
At some point, we can possibly do away with the permanent city attorney. A city our size should not need such when we are out of the woods.
Phil Simmons
7:01 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
G.C.
I agree. A CPA with municipal experience would be great. We just don't need to attach some upper management title on the job. That does nothing other than cause a higher pay grade.
G.C.
8:57 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
My first boss (mean, bitter, nasty, cantankerous old coot) used to say the following. He would say to me, "Hey #*!@%! Don't make a production out of it!" In other words, can we just be done with this already. Seriously.
Carol
9:14 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
@Phil I did not have an epiphany, I still believe that there are valid reasons why closed sessions are necessary. However, this is not one of them. Am I the only one seeing something wrong here with Mr. Delgados statement? It is apparent that they brought this issue up with the old city attorney, got an opinion from him, and chose not to disclose that to anyone stating "privledge" when there is none.
I complained about this last week. They spent way too much valuable time in the meeting last week going back and forth on this very issue , Patrick Tang told them its not really possible, and now we know that both Delgado and DeVera had information that might have actually been useful in last weeks meeting - it was about the finance position they wanted so why are they not disclosing that to the new city attorney? Or the other counsel members? Instead they asked Patrick Tang to research and look into it. More waste of money. I agree we need a CPA type also, it doesnt need to be elected, and they can report to the city manager. Lets face it - Bill Wilkins was right - you can have dishonesty anywhere but I think we are all very aware, and watching so it is less likely to happen - not impossible - less likely.
I dont get it, and I am concerned. Especially with Myrna who has been very vocal about TRANSPARENCY. What other items have they not disclosed? They were the only ones on the counsel with the other scoundrels. We need any and all information they have.
Phil Simmons
10:15 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol,
In simple terms, the Brown Act is clear. It's purpose is to demand openness. It is not to require matters be closed. There are only 3 subjects that are Allowed to be done in closed session. Far to often these 3 things are stretched to the limits to find ways to add in things that can and should be open.
Here is the Preamble to the Brown Act:
PREAMBLE:
"Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created."
Douglas Bright
6:32 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Probably John and Myrna got an opinion from Cabral that they either didn't like or didn't trust and wanted a new opinion from Patrick. They didn't want Patrick's advice biased by the knowledge of a previous opinion from the last city attorney. It's like when my daughter asked me last night for an extra cookie after dinner. Her mother already told her "no", but my daughter didn't tell me that.
Carol
10:37 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Phil, I understand the Brown Act - thanks. So, the meeting they had the other night obviously from published reports was the Bond issue, and a negotiation with property - so the council was well within their rights to call that meeting in closed session.
Glenn Abraham
10:41 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
For myself, I'm not concerned about the bond issue and property negotiations being held in closed session. I AM concerned that so much had already been decided on the Safeway issue, without any public notice that I'm aware of, so that the decision is already on its way to completion before we even heard about Safeway's plan.
Phil Simmons
11:07 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol,
Please don't confuse that I mean that that nothing can be done in closed session. I have never pushed that idea. Yes the council was within their rights. That's not the point.
There is nothing in the Brown Act that says that there "are items that cannot be discussed in the open". It's intention is that there are 3 things that MAY be discussed in closed session. A real estate transaction is one of the things that MAY be discussed in close session. It sometimes makes sense to do so but not always. The waterfront negotiations are an example of real estate negotiations that have in part (not totally but mostly) been discussed in the open. There is a group called The Task Force that was put together for exactly this purpose. It was put together so that the public could vet the negotiations while being done and the actions were then reported to council, not the other way around.
The is often peripheral issues in a real estate negotiation that is often subject to a choice of open verses closed communications. For example during confidential discussions about price or terms of a deal there may be discussions such as zoning. This is often fully discussed with the public and the negotiating parties even during the balance of the negotiating. Sometimes these sort of items are kept within the closed discussions, perhaps legally, but not necessarily properly. It is these peripherals that I am suggesting should be addressed in the open.
Tolstoy...
Phil Simmons
11:07 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
There is all manner of legal positions on what may be sealed by the Brown Act. It is a political fight that has raged for almost 60 years. I am merely suggesting that the council, in Hercules, should take every possible opportunity to act in accordance with the spirt of the Brown Act (openness) and not use it for political cover and not use it as a tool to restrict public engagement.
Douglas Bright
6:39 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Well said, Phil. Perhaps the city should set up polls on their website to gauge public reaction to various city proposals so that they can get a better handle on what the public wants or doesn't want. In order to participate, you'd have to set up an account and prove residency. That way, the council can quickly and easily get public feedback on questions like "What do you think about a 60,000 sq. ft. Safeway and gas station at Sycamore Crossing?" or "How would you feel if Costco built a superstore on Parcel C?" or "Would you like it if Sycamore North became 100% affordable housing?"
Phil Simmons
8:27 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Douglas,
Following community's values and wishes is needed. In the case of SycCross it should be to follow the already publicly vetted and intended Central Plan and it's zoning.
But I have trepidations about polls. It is far to easy to create a "push poll". In the past the city has done just that in an effort to push through plans that the public did not really want. Push polls can and usually do undermine the very intent of what is being considered. I just say that the council should have on the forefront of their minds that they should approach issues looking for how much they can do in open session rather than always checking to see if something can be done in closed session. This is a very nuanced detail but it has hugh implications.
Carol
10:48 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Glenn - the Safeway issue, well I dont even know how to address that because although I would like to see a really nice shopping area etc, I think our city is on the verge of disaster and any money (within reason) is helpful. We need tax dollars. I hate Big Lots, I would prefer Safeway to Big Lots - I would prefer COSTCO to Big Lots, but thats what we got. We will not get everything we want. There will be compromises along the way. We dont have the money, or ability to get what we were promised by the Olivabalico era. That dream is gone for now. We are in survival mode. With the Bond issue now on the forefront, all of this may be a moot point if the Bond company prevails.
Glenn Abraham
11:15 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol, whether or not we need Safeway (especially in that location), there is still no reason for the council not to publicize the issue BEFORE it's a done deal. The council should not be deciding, in secret, what they think is best for us, before we have a chance to give our notion of our best interest.
Phil Simmons
11:21 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Carol,
I disagree. The dream does not have to be gone. Sometimes the hard choices are the best choices.
Think 20 years from now. Does this council and this Mayor want to be remembered as the council that took the difficult steps to build a great town that is a really special place. Or, does it want to be remembered as the council that got us a Safeway Store (which will probably be old and outdated by then).
I hope, no matter how bad things seem right now, that they help make the choices that lead to something better. That choice could include a Safeway but hopefully in the context of "The Dream".
Susan D.Keeffe
8:02 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol,
I don't think anyone is saying there can't be closed session items. It's not all or nothing. The Brown Act is very clear on what should be discussed in closed session. A few months ago Bill Kelly copied most of it on the Patch. I'm glad the subject was brought out in the open by John and Myrna That gave the newest council members who weren't present for the other discussions the opportunity to discuss it in an open way. I found the discussion very interesting. I would encourage those who missed it to watch the video and formulate their own opinions.
Phil Simmons
8:37 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I've changed my mind. We elected the council They hired the staff management. Therefore they should all just decide what they like and what they have the ability to do and just do it on the own. According to the rules they do not even have to take the advice of the planning commission.
How does that sound?
Kidding ( - :
Carol
8:43 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@ Douglas - even if (and we know they did) John and Myrna got an opinion from Cabral that they did not like or trust, IT STILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER to Patrick and the other council members - especially when they brought it up in the meeting last week. Why did they feel compelled to not disclose it and why is Delgado now saying its privileged? That is the issue I have.
@ Susan - I watched the meeting. I endured 45 minutes of them going over this very issue and I do not understand why they had prior information and never bothered to tell the new city attorney or the other members of council what they had. It makes no sense. it is not an issue that is covered by "privilege". This is relevant as they now want to bring it up again and have Patrick look into it even more - its a huge waste of money when Cabral's opinion (whether good, bad or indifferent) may actually help Patrick in speeding up the process to get the answer John and Myrna were looking for.
I question the motive behind it for both of them.
Phil Simmons
2:00 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
A bit of a re-write.
So, Sell the land for $9M (the current price expected from Safeway. Then rather than improving the land offer Safeway (or whoever the buyer is) a deal. The city will lower the extremely high (out of whack) development fees to fees that match surrounding communities and let the new owner improve the land with the assumed differential cost saving. Also, insist that the new owner meet the requirements of the zoning and Central Plan (with perhaps some comprising a little bit to encourage Safeway or Bristol Farms). The city then can split the $9M. Part to cover the balance that reduced fees do not cover for improvements to SycCross , part for whatever purpose they are looking at to support the city debt, and the remaining balance to support some of the needs for the HBL/ITC project.
This would be a win,win,win,win. Safeway gets there land improved, the city gets help with the debt, HBL/ITC its gets much needed support, and the community gets "The Dream" started.
I am sure the city understands how this can work because this is very similar to the method being negotiated with HBL for the ITC land.
Also, I am not trying to inject myself into how the city negotiates. that is a matter for closed session. I am only suggesting that HBL and Safeway both be treated well and in equal measure.
Susan D.Keeffe
5:56 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol,
Now that we understand from Bill Kelly this was from a public council meeting, there is nothing sinister to be found here. Lawyers rarely, by the way, agree about anything. A favorite lawyer response, for example, is, "it depends". We have a new City Attorney who has frequently disagreed with Cabral in the past. It makes sense to get his take on it. And the answer, of course, could be, "it depends".
Carol
9:04 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@ Phil - haha funny. I am not saying public input is not important, it is, but you will never have a meeting of the minds. There are some that want Safeway, some that don't, some that care about the waterfront, some that don't. You can't please all of the people all of the times. Someone is going to be pissed.
I would love to have it all. Beautiful developments, walking trails, quaint shops etc, but it is not going to happen now and most likely in the foreseeable future. WE NEED REVENUE. If this Bond issue does not get resolved - most everything will be out the window.
RJ
9:17 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
If you all remember, Gerard Boulanger was sanctioned and fined $500.00 in a closed session, the was a clear violation of the Brown Act, and Cabral advised then acting Mayor Myrna, however his advise was rejected by the Mayor. I also agree with Carol and have concerns of the two council members and fear of abuse under the pretense of the Brown Act.
Phil Simmons
9:24 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol,
You can't please everyone. That is for sure. That is why we elected a council They decide by their vote. But before their vote the public should weigh in. And by that I don't mean by providing a 3 minute feel good speech before a subject is deliberated. I mean with every opportunity to weigh in with all of the information available, before, during, and after deliberating a topic, not just from a few words posted on an agenda or in many cases without any background information at all.
The revenue issue is a critical one. The idea of selling assets at a low point in the market to pay the bills should be avoided at almost all cost. That is bad financial management. That is a last resort that should only happen if forced to do so. Selling assets at a low point in the market only makes sense if the proceeds are parleyed into other equally undervalued assets that might have a better future position. You don't use your 401k that is 40% down to pay your car payment even if the car is going to go back to the bank. That's not a sound business decision. If the courts force you to liquidate assets to make your car payment then you have no choice. But you shouldn't make that choice without working through every other option.
You might sell an asset in your 401k that is down 40% if the money is used to purchase something else that is down 40% but has a better chance of an improved performance.
Phil Simmons
4:44 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Susan,
The get around is the question of using the funds from the land sale for the RDA bond debt not the general fund. So, my assumption is that if the land belongs to the city it may or may not be able t be used depending on it use going into the general fund or its use going to the RDA bonds. If it belongs to the successor agency then it surely can and probably will be used.
Carol
9:31 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil, the city has no money - if they do not sell these properties - we wont have a city. There is no choice. The money is gone, why do you not understand that? The old council and city manager pissed it all away. You make a point, but it is a point that does not apply to our city.
Phil Simmons
9:58 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
So, here is an idea. The city is working on selling SycCross for about $7per foot or roughly $4M. The market value for unimproved land in this area is more like $16/ft or about $9M. How about they find a buyer that will pay the $4M and is willing to provide a product that supports "The Dream". That could even be Safeway.
Susan D.Keeffe
4:29 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
It is my understanding specific bond money cannot be used for the general fund but I may be wrong on that If I'm not wrong, then various deals going forth cannot "save the City".
Carol
10:17 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil - good luck with that.
Douglas Bright
10:38 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil - Interesting idea.
Phil Simmons
11:07 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Douglas,
Thanks, but really not very inventive. I have just watched over the past year this process unfold for HBL/ITC.
It is my way of saying that the SycCross effort is no more important than the HBL/ITC effort and the same negotiating opportunities, whatever they are, should apply to both.
Susan D.Keeffe
2:18 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol,
My only point is if Council members wish to discuss ways of preventing the past abuses from recurring they should do so in an open forum. If the discussion has been held inappropriately in closed session,then I want to hear what they have to say regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I do not feel such discussions are a waste of time. I'm delighted you watched the video. I was merely encouraging readers to also do so if they have been following this topic as a frame of reference. The beauty of a democracy is there is room for a variety of differing opinions.
Carol
3:17 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Susan
I also believe that the public has a right to know and should be informed. Some of the items will need to be done closed - then reported on to the public after. We all know that the different factions in the city - the waterfront people, the ITC people etc - all want what they want. There is never going to be a perfect solution. Someone is not going to agree with a sale, or what will be built etc. Its just human nature. My MAIN issue when I first complained at the beginning of this article was why information that Delgado and DeVera had for months - and never turned over to the city attorney or the other council members. This may have not even been an issue or even known about had both Delgado and Devera brought the subject up at the last council meeting (and spent 45 minutes on), only to ask the new city attorney to do more work/research. I heard Patrick Tang say numerous times - it can't be done right now, and needs a change in the city charter (a very costly and expensive endeavor for something that still does not guarantee honesty and integrity). But they would not let the issue go. They want to waste more time and money having Patrick do more when they already knew Cabral had done it. Now, I wonder what was Cabral's opinion. I certainly hope they bring it up at next week's meeting. For Mr. Delgado to say it was client-privileged information is beyond me. They both scream about TRANSPARENCY and they both failed. They should have disclosed it.
Phil Simmons
3:29 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol,
Wether it is about a finance manager, a zoning ordinance, or an accepted development plan as we all know and see, old habits are hard to break.
Jeffrey Boore
2:46 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
It is not true that we will "have no city" if all of these properties are not sold. They were bought with bond funds that were meant for developing the waterfront. They cannot and should not be used to cover the city's operating expenses. It would not take all of the proceeds from all of this land to cover our short term bond obligations (if we choose to pay them). These land assets must be used wisely to create a town with a future, not squandered in a panic.
Bill Kelly
3:06 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
May I suggest that a review of the council meeting on February 22, 2011 might be helpful, That is the instance when i suggested that the Council appoint the Finance Director, etc and Mr. Cabral briefly replies. He later explained to council members what would be the required process. the hang up here is a misunderstanding of the law. See section 54956.9 which clearly establishes that the Attorney Client Privilege is abrogated for purposes of the Council dealing with its lawyer except for a very narrow exception. Many people, lawyers and non-lawyers alike have a wrong impression about that point.
Susan D.Keeffe
5:19 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Bill,
Thank you for clarifying! It appears this topic was not, after all, discussed in closed session. It appears John wanted to revisit the topic as the Finance Director position is just now coming up. In that case, it seems appropriate to revisit it now with a new attorney whose opinions differed frequently from Cabral's
Annie R.
3:50 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Carol is right - there is no money. The City is in worse financial shape than anyone could have ever imagined. As Steve Duran said, "You can't get blood from a turnip."
Phil Simmons
4:00 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Not news. The city has discussed its deficit for months now and the bond debt and how to pay it has been left out of the conversation, knowingly for months as well. This was expected. How to handle it, well that is another matter.
Steve Duran will surely look under ever rock for a solution.
RJ
4:17 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
If Safeway builds in Hercules, this will not only be good for the city (tax base), but a major asset to the residents and people passing thru. I took the C.Managers advise and visited the new store in Richmond and it is outstanding. It will generate a lot of badly needed money for the services required to run the city.
Phil Simmons
4:51 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Tax-payer
Safeway stated an estimate of $500k/year in taxes. Some believe that is very high. But let's assume for the sake of it that it is correct. My guess is that the vast majority of that $500k will come in part from lost tax revenue from Lucky and another part from lost revenue from Shell. There may be some amount of new tax revenue from "off the highway traffic" but it's not like building a Safeway increases our local consumption. It is also not likely that those that live in Pinole normally access the Hercules exit and take San Pablo home. They will continue to take the various Pinole exits and purchase their gas and food there.
Susan D.Keeffe
5:45 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil,
I cannot imagine that Safeway has not already done their extensive market research study on the feasibility of the site. they are a major corporation and would be foolish to establish a store in a place that would not be profitable for them. In any case, this is not something that can result in any immediate relief. There will be community meetings, it has to go to the Planning Commission and I expect an EIR on the site as well. My guestimate is there wouldn't be anything for 2-3 years assuming they can get past the deed restriction.
Phil Simmons
5:54 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Susan,
I did not say that Safeway was not feasible. I said that the tax revenues from Safeway would come in great part from the business they would take away from Shell and Lucky. I am quite sure they would be able to do so.
You may be right about the timing.
G.C.
5:45 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I am confident that with Dan Romero on our city council, there are no Brown Act violations. This had always been one of his pet peeves, hence my vote for him.
Phil Simmons
6:01 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
G.C.
Violations verses "best use" is two completely different things. There are 3 subjects allowed by the Brown Act. Anything that fits those 3 things can be done in close session without a violation. But those things do not alway have to be in closed session.
Again, the Brown Act was created to force open government. There are 3 subjects that are "Allowed" to be in closed session.
Dan may not take things into closed session unless absolutely needed but..........
Susan D.Keeffe
6:02 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@ Phil,
Possibly. I believe competition can generate more sales. If they do it right and we have a beautiful upscale store, something at the Whole Foods level, I'm betting folks from Pinole, Rodeo, etc. will also shop there. The bottom line is its still a long ways away and it won't solve our current problems.
Phil Simmons
6:10 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Susan,
One of the main outcomes of "competition" is to take business away from your "competitors". Otherwise it is not "competition". It is growth. Yes there wil be some growth but there will be lots of competition. The net result for the city will be some blended percentage. It would be foolish to think that the $500k that Safeway has declared as the potential will be the true net.
Susan D.Keeffe
6:18 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil,
If that forces Lucky's to improve I'm all for it. And if it forces Shell to lower its prices that can't be bad. Competition always takes customers away from some and gives to others - that goes without saying. As for the $500k Safeway projected, I have no opinion as I'm not an expert in that area. At the public meetings I hope they share their market studies.
Phil Simmons
6:26 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I'm not weighing in on which stores are better. Just that the estimated tax revenue is BS.
And actually I shop at Lucky. Some of the folks that work there are quite nice and helpful. They do pretty good considering the generation of the store that they have to work with.
In any case neither are Super K-Marts.
Phil Simmons
6:44 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Susan,
I am not arguing against a Safeway at all. I am simply saying the expectations of tax revenues should be accurate. And there is a lot more to the #'s than has been discussed.
Susan D.Keeffe
6:43 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I agree. Who said their employees were not nice and helpful? The store is not as good as it was before it became Albertson's. If competition makes it better then that is a good thing.
G.C.
7:12 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
My one concern about the Finance Director position is that it seemed our city council intentionally kept an unqualified person in this position. This is why it bothered me further when no one would post the Finance Director job description (and qualifications) on the webpage. I guess I've been somewhat distrustful of folks, so my concern was that an unqualified "friend" of the council was kept in this position when we needed a CPA ASAP. This, by definition, is cronyism. I hope this is not the case.
Susan D.Keeffe
12:53 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
GS,
Another reason why the job description and qualifications should be posted. Bill Wilkins came up with some great qualifications at the last Council meeting.
Carol
1:41 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan - you stated above that nothing "sinister" has come about since Bill Kelly mentioned it in February. I disagree, while the motive may or may not have been sinister - from the article Tom Lochner wrote, Myrna and John asked for and received an opinion from Cabral prior to Bill Kelly bringing it up. I question that. I question why the document or information was not brought up last week at the council meeting when they spent oodles of time going over it and asking Patrick to do more work, when they already had some information. To me, holding onto that information and then claiming "privilege" is wrong no matter how you spin it. I did not say it was "priviledged - Delgado did. So, its contradictory to Bill Kelly. There is something wrong here with those actrions and I certainly hope the Delgado and DeVera do not try that again. If they have information that is helpful to the city from prior councils then they shoudl be turning it over. We need all the help we can get.
Susan D.Keeffe
2:17 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Carol,
I can see that your mind is made up. I disagree with you but that doesn't matter. If you think there is some sort of John and Myrna conspiracy that is certainly your right to think so but it would be great if you could present some facts. Do you have evidence they have communicated on this topic prior to the Council meeting? What would be their purpose? What evidence do you have that they are with-holding anything since they themselves asked for more information? If there is a basis for your suspicions, we all need to know what those facts are.
Toni Leance
1:57 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
@ Carol what informatio do you think they have from Cabral? I would think Cabral said the same thing as Patrick that we have a council/manager form of goverence and that if the council wants to hire the financial person they would need to change to a charter city form of goverence with a charter drawn up and a vote of the electorate taken. As a general law city the council can't hire the financial person. They can make Duran present financials and that hasn't been done and it needs to be done sooner rather than later. With Duran, Wamerdam and the financial consultant I don't know why that hasn't happened and that is a question we should all be asking but I don't think John or Myrna are trying to hid anything from the public in fact they are the ones asking for more open government.
Phil Simmons
2:21 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan,
The bases for Carols suspicion is that John Delgado said so, at least according to the quotes provide in the CCTimes article.
I would think that admission is evidence.
Susan D.Keeffe
3:32 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Carol,
I'm totally on board re transparency and honesty. I have written Tom Lochner for clarification. It sounds like you just need John to clarify his statement. The City Attorney is actually the attorney for the Council, I have learned, not the city, so a conversation between Cabral and Delgado could be considered private I guess. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it sounds like Bill Kelly says if there is a conversation between a councilman and the City Attorney it could or could not be construed as privileged communication. I don't think its a waste of time for Patrick to look into it. A second opinion is often a really good thing and as I stated before, lawyers usually do not agree on literally anything. Patrick is on salary so that isn't an issue. Its also possible they have absolutely nothing that wasn't stated and nothing in writing. It sounds like Cabral put it on the "back burner" so he probably never produced anything on it. Personally, I encourage all five of our reform Council to think creatively in our crisis, raise questions, look for new solutions and I request they do that in public council meetings. For myself, I would like to know more about charter cities and the difference with ours. Myrna asked Patrick to come back in a year or so with information on it as it sounds like it would be a major deal changing a governance structure with both pros and cons and lots of complications we don't need now.
Susan D.Keeffe
3:36 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Phil,
Just stating he had a conversation as far as I know, means little, its hearsay. It could have been a casual conversation lasting all of 30 seconds. Certainly not something to accuse him of hiding and withholding information, wasting everyone's time asking for more information, etc. This could be "much ado about nothing". I suspect it is and its more than time to move on.
Carol
3:14 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
@ Susan and Toni - the evidence is in the article. We would have never known there was any communication if he had not told Tom Lochner. He then claimed priviledge, but they (both Myrna and John) brought it up last week in front of the puclic etc. Then they asked Patrick to do more work looking into it. All the while they had an opinion - whether in writing or verbally (the article doesnt really state in what form) from Cabral from Dec 2010, and they did not give that information out last week to the council, the public, or to Patrick Tang. They want Patrick to do more research AFTER he said it was not possible. Spend more money looking into it when it may not even be necessary. To me, although I do not like Cabral, if both attorneys come to the same conclusion, then why keep beating the dead horse? We cannot have Patrick wasting time, We do not have the additional funds for that. As for what else they could have - I have no idea, is it a conspiracy, who knows, but I can tell you that it does not look good in my opinion. AND - if the shoe was on another foot - say Romero and WIlkins did this- I would be screaming about them. This is not a personal vendetta against them - it is a scream for transparency and honesty. I do not understand how they spent so much time talking about this and never even bothered to mention what they had so YES that is why it is a problem.
Susan D.Keeffe
3:43 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
It sounds like Bill needs to clarify his response on what constitutes "privileged communication" between the City Attorney and Councilmen. Perhaps Patrick could clarify as well. My understanding is if a council member has a private conversation with their attorney, the City Attorney who is now Patrick, that conversation is considered "privileged". John is a lawyer, so he probably believes he can't repeat private conversations he has with Cabral or Patrick.
Phil Simmons
4:06 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan,
I concur. My point in stating that John was quoted in the CCTimes was to make one wonder why there is some notion of something being held in close session.
The question would be "what is he doing? Telling on himself?...I doubt it . It sounds as though John was discussing all that he could, in the open. If there is a Brown Act problem in all of this I suspect Patrick will have to decide if his client is the city, the city council, or the councilmen. A question yet to be made clear.
I do understand that there may have been some opinion that Cabral had about the matter. But who cares what Cabral might have thought. He is no longer part of the equation. What matters is what Patrick brings to the table. I hope Patrick explains to the council and to the public what his finding are. I certainly expect him too.
Also, at the end of all this hoopla, I still say hire a qualified municipal accountant. Give him 30 days to play catch up. Then request/require that the city manager provide a fully disclosed financial position every other council meeting which would include the state of the budget and a reference to any and all pending financial issues.
"Simple is as simple does" (paraphrasing)
Carol
4:29 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan
I am well aware of the Brown Act rules and atty/client priviledge. I do not want Bill Kelly's clarification. He is neither the city attorney or a council member.
This issue was brought up by a current council person. Time will tell if the information given was verbal or written. If it was written, you can darn well bet I am going to flip. For the love of GOD - Patrick has GIVEN his opinion, it cannot be done. If Delgado and DeVera would have at the very least said - well Cabral had a different opinion a year ago, or Cabral had the same opinion or whatever, this would not even be an issue. But they did not do that.
This is about being honest and transparent, and utilizing the best of the city resources.
Carol
3:45 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan
1) From what Delgado said - Cabral gave an opinion about this issue. That opinion does not fall under priviledge unless it is related to a personnel issues, litigation or real estate negotiations.
2) Patrick DID GIVE AN OPINION - more than once last week. I wanted to jump at my screen because it was almost as if they were not listening to him, He said it was not possible - now the question remains - Did Cabral say the same thing? Obviously he said or wrote something. We will see if its on paper, or verbal now that the issue has come to light - you assume above "he probably never produced anything on it" Really? Then why did Delgado say that? I did not make this up. Maybe they did not agree - I dont know, but they had information that can be helpful either way and they chose not to disclose it.
3) Patrick has enough on his plate right now - he does not need to waste time on this issue. Let the city manager hire someone. Like Bill Wilkins said, whether voted or appointed, whether at the mercy of the city manager or the council - it will not get rid of people that are not honest. We have to be diligent about watching - and that is what I am doing.
3) As for the charter city issue - seems like a big waste of time and money. What we really need is a council that is honest and open and willing to work together for the good of the city. Holding this kind or ANY information back is just not a way to keep things above board.
Susan D.Keeffe
3:49 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Carol,
Don't confuse Brown Act rules with attorney/client rules. They differ.
Susan D.Keeffe
3:47 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Carol,
I think we have beaten this dead horse to death.
Phil Simmons
4:15 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Speaking of closed session discussions. Now that the Waterfront Task Force has been set aside but was once an open session process regarding a real estate transaction....
Just where is that developer agreement?
Susan D.Keeffe
4:22 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Phil,
Thank you! Enough already! And where IS that agreement???
Phil Simmons
4:43 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
I suspect the status of the agreement is an item being discussed in closed session if it is being discussed at all.
I wonder why though. Is there something they don't want us to know?
Susan D.Keeffe
4:52 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Phil,
Who knows!!!!! They need to just get it done so everyone can move forward.
Phil Simmons
4:59 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Susan,
http://youtu.be/WhNM2K8cmU8
Susan D.Keeffe
5:26 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Phil,
Thanks! That certainly puts things in perspective! And with that I'm outta this blog!!!
Don Kuehne
8:40 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
As I stated in my comments last month, there is a need to make some fundamental organizational changes at City Hall if we want a more democratic form of government. There is too much power concentrated in the position of the City Manager. Under the current structure, the top leadership team consists of the City Manger, City Attorney and five Council members. The City Council confers on the City Manger broad powers to conduct the day-to-day business of the City. He has control over people, finances, and information. This may work fine with a person of integrity but what happens if a City Manager has a hidden agenda and unilaterally makes decisions that may not be good for Hercules? There are few checks and balances in our current system to hold the City Manger accountable.
I believe that the finance and human resource functions need to be separate but not completely independent of the City Manager. This can be accomplished with an elected or appointed City Treasurer and City Clerk. These two positions should be added to the leadership team described above. The City of Pinole has an organizational structure like this.
Phil Simmons
8:57 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
The city of Pinole has a more open process in their government in general. The public, the council, and the staff actually engage.
We have a restrictive and limiting process. No amount of dividing or consolidating powers is going to stop the messes that Hercules does.
Open reporting and open conversation is all that will help. Redrawing an organizational chart with new lines and dotted lines to indicate the chain of command will not help unless the overall process is changed.
Why don't we start with that first and see if the organizational process is still a problem after that?
Don, you might not have been so hoodwinked if the city had run itself in a more open, easier, and inclusive manner. It was then and still is up to the council to engage in such changes.
http://youtu.be/SHhrZgojY1Q