COURT THEATER COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2010 SPECIAL MEETING Announcement

MEETING AGENDA

COURT THEATER COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 8, 2010

SPECIAL MEETING:  5:00 P.M.

Notice is hereby given that the Court Theater Committee will hold a Special Meeting on February 8, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California.  Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at 394-8041 Ext. 121.

The Special Meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m.  The agenda shall be as follows:

1.       Call to Order

2.       Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting of December 21, 2009

3.       Approval of Treasurer’s Report

4.       Old Business

          A.     Court Theater Project Update

          B.    Bunco Fund Raiser Update

1.     Finalizing menu

2.     Finalizing table set-up

3.     Raffle prizes

4.     Finalizing supplies (dice, timer, score pads, etc.)

C.   Wine and Cheese Affair Update

1.     Response from wineries

2.     Sponsor list

5.       New Business

6.       Other

7.       Adjournment

Planning Commission Meeting Cancelations Clowns and Commentary

Trying to make some sense of it all,

But I can see that it makes no sense at all,

Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,

‘Cause I don’t think that I can take anymore

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

From Stuck In The Middle With You-Stealers Wheels

This was in my in-box a day or so ago

Please be advised that the February 9, 2010, regular Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. 

If you have any questions, please contact the City of Livingston Planning Department. 

Filomena Arredondo

Administrative Assistant – Planning

City of Livingston

1416 C Street, Livingston CA 95334

(209) 394-5540 – Phone

(209) 394-4190 – Fax

Well the Planning Commission Meeting was canceled. Guess there were no “urgent urgencies”. It’s not like the City couldn’t scrape up a quorum if it had to. Last I checked, there were still two Commissioners and one Alternate available. That would add up to a quorum if need be.

What’s up with the Planning Commission? some of you might be wondering. One Commissioner’s term expired last December and two others resigned. That created three Vacancies. A notice for applications was posted. The deadline for applications came and went: then the deadline was extended because only three people applied.

Which resulted in controversy, brickbats, and “ad hominines” tossed about at the last Council Meeting. (Like what else is new? Council Meeting. Political Circus. Same thing).

You see, some people out there (including Team Espinoza) are clearly of the opinion that the three applicants should have been put on the Planning Commission “just because” they were the only ones to apply and that extending the deadline was “wrong”. Three empty slots. Three people applied. Case closed.

As for my opinion,…….I’m kinda “stuck in the middle” on this one.

On the one hand, I have a big problem with the “logic” of seating someone on the Planning Commission “just because” s/he filled out and turned in an application. Doesn’t sound like “sound policy” to me. After all, just because someone can fill out the one page application doesn’t mean s/he is qualified to be on the Planning Commission. (Or any other Commission/Committee for that matter)

On the other hand, although I don’t disagree with the decision per se, I would have liked it better had it been discussed first in a Council Meeting.

But then again, with the way things have been going lately, there probably would have been even more controversy, brickbats, and “ad hominines” thrown around.

And instead of getting out of there at half past nine, we probably would have been there till almost midnight. (Sigh)

Political circus. Council Meeting. Same thing.  

I’m just failing to find the humor in it all….

Don’t you love farce?

My fault, I fear.

I thought that you’d want what I want…

Sorry, my dear!

And where are the clowns

Quick – Send in the clowns

Don’t bother, they’re here.

Send In The Clowns-Judy Collins

 

FEBRUARY 2, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

FEBRUARY 2, 2010

CLOSED SESSION:                                 6:00 P.M.

 REGULAR MEETING:                              7:00 P.M.

 

Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on February 2, 2010, at the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California.  Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121.  Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection at Livingston City Hall, 1416 C Street.  The Regular Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.  The Closed Session will be held in accordance with state law prior to the Regular Meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m.  The Closed Session will be held in the City of Livingston City Hall Conference Room located at 1416 C Street.  The agenda shall be as follows:

Closed Session

 

A “Closed” or “Executive” Session of the City Council or the Livingston Redevelopment Agency may be held in accordance with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items:  personnel matters, labor negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators, conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation.  The Closed Session will be held in the City Hall Conference Room located at 1416 C Street, Livingston, California.  Any required announcements or discussion of closed session items or actions following the Closed Session will be made in the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California

1.  Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation.

     Government Code Section 54956.9(a).

a.  Merced County Farm Bureau v. City of Livingston, et al., California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151754 [consolidated with Valley Advocates v. City of Livingston, et al, Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151757].

b.  Fernando Davalos et al, v. City of Livingston, et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000669.

c.      Paul Creighton v. City of Livingston, et al, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:08-CV-01507-OWWSMS.

     d.  Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. City of Livingston, et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000752.

     e.  Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. City of Livingston, et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000292.

 

Regular Meeting  

CALL TO ORDER                                            Next Resolution Number:  2010-3

                                                                        Next Ordinance Number:  586

Pledge of Allegiance.  

Roll Call.  

Closed Session Announcements.  

Changes to the Agenda.

AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS

1.     Presentation of Proclamation Designating February 2, 2010, as “Rotary Day.”

2.     Presentation of Recognition Plaque to Ralph Meraz.    

3.     Presentation of Recognition Award to Police Officer Zeus Baldevia.

    4.  Presentation of Future Farmers of America.         

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

     Supervisor John Pedrozo Announcements and Reports.

     City Council Members’ Announcements and Reports.

     Mayor’s Announcements and Reports.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS   

CITIZEN COMMENTS

This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item NOT otherwise on the agenda. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, and identify themselves.  Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes.  In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening. For items which are on the agenda this evening., members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council as each item is brought up for discussion.

CONSENT CALENDAR  

Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine or non-controversial and will be enacted by one vote, unless separate action is requested by the City Manager or City Council Member.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council or City Manager request that specific items be removed.

5.  Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to Receive Grant Funding from the Land and Water Conservation Program for the Livingston Sports Complex for Construction of Restrooms and a Picnic Shelter.

 `   6.  Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 585, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Livingston Amending Title 2 (Government Organization) Chapter 3 (Citizens’ Service Committee) of the Livingston Municipal Code Relating to the Organization and Duties and Responsibilities of the Citizens’ Service Committee.

     7.  Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Approving the Employment Agreement Between the City of Livingston and Douglas D. Dunford for Employment as Police Chief.

     8.  Resolution Authorizing Designated Signatures for City Bank Accounts.

9.  Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on November 17, 2009.

10.         Approval of Warrant Register Dated January 14, 2010.

    11.         Approval of Warrant Register Dated January 27, 2010.         

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

12.            Resolution Approving Submittal of a Grant Application to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) for a Proposition 84/Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant to Support Recreational Additions to the Livingston Sports Complex.          

13.     City Council Guidance on Rental of City-Owned Home.    

    14.     City Manager Announcements and Reports.

 

ADJOURNMENT

Just a Short Recap of the January 5th 2010 City Council Meeting: Round 4

“I don’t know who is trying to prove what to who and you’re not doing us all any good”-Mike Torres.

 

“Claaaas!….Claaaas!…Claaaaas!…SHUUUUTUP!.. Thank you”-Sister Mary Elephant: Cheech and Chong

 

I know..I know…I started out with a 2 part series and it morphed into 4 parts. Well…It was a long council meeting. And by the time it was finally over, I was feeling just a bit like poor “Sister Mary Elephant”.

 So, we will wrap this up with a short post about the final[1] Item on the Agenda that night.

 

11. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing a Policy Regarding Attendance at City Council Meetings by Members of the City Council.

 

Which, if adopted, would require “absent” Council persons to forfeit some of their stipend.[2]

 Team Espinoza said the issue was brought by the citizens[3] during the debate about water rates because they (the citizens) thought meeting were being canceled for one reason or another and they (Team Espinoza) tried to get an exemption for emergencies[4] This whole thing is over the water rates, and until they go down one member of Team Espinoza would donate his/her paycheck to the Community Network to help folks who can’t pay their water bills.[5]

Team Vierra said there is more to being a council person than just two Council Meetings a month: there are many “non-council” hours spent doing things in and for the community. And then there are those other meetings in other locations [6] that they attend on Livingston’s behalf.

 

The Public was probably tired of all the sniping[7] that had been going off and on throughout the night because they said.

 

“I don’t know who is trying to prove what to who and you’re not doing us all any good. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You need to take a step back and look at the big picture about what you are here for. There’s a Cat and Dog Fight, no doubt about it. I have seen 12 year olds that can get along better than you guys.”

 

And this priceless gem:

“I’m appalled. Are we here for a peeing contest, seeing who can shoot the farthest? You need to get along. We don’t want you to be 12 year olds.”

 

Well….The End Result was a Motion/Second by Team Espinoza  to change a few things (like which kinds of “excused absences” would not cause a council person to get his/her stipend “dinged”) and bring it back again in its new form to the next meeting for one more “go round”.

 

This Motion by Team Espinoza Failed 2/3[8]

 

I’ll let you “add up the scores” for this night’s “verbal boxing match”, uh, City Council meeting. While you are doing that and considering the implications for our community, I’m going to get back to working on “How They Voted: 2009”. As for this post, it is time for the final…

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Thank you J.

---

[1] Finally! (at least for this meeting)

[2] See “Absence Makes the Heart Start to Wonder” http://thegardeningsnail.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/absence-makes-the-heart-start-to-wonder/

[3] Translation: Don’t blame ME. It’s not MY idea. I’m just passing it on!

[4] Illness, Illness in the family, Death in the family, etc. Which, if you think about it would pretty much “defeat the purpose” of what was originally discussed back in December.

[5] OK? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against a council person pledging to donate their paycheck per-se, it’s just that I thought the Agenda Item was about “what to do about absent council persons.” By the way. Would It be considered rude to ask for verification of the monthly donations? Just asking.

[6]And let’s not forget “Special Meetings” and Planning Commission Meetings, and Court Theater Committee meetings, and County Board of Supervisor meetings, and School Board meetings and MCAG and any other meeting in which a decision would affect the City of Livingston and its citizens.

 

[7]Yes..I’ve left a lot out this round. I’m tired. Want more? You can hear more by listening to the Audio. Might have to go to City Hall. Might have to fill out a form. Might have to wait a day or too. But heck! It’s free!

 

[8] Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Upcoming Events Sponsored by the Livingston VFW

Have Breakfast with the VFW January 31^st

 The Livingston/Delhi Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary Breakfast will be served on January 31, 2010, at the Livingston Veterans Memorial Hall, located at 1605 7^th Street, in Livingston.  

Adults can eat for $6.00, and the children under 12 for eat for $4.00.

Breakfast consists of Pancakes, French Toast or Biscuits and Gravy; served with Eggs cooked to order, Hash Browns, Sausage or Ham and Coffee and Juice.

Breakfast will be served from 8 am to 12 pm.

 

If you need more information on the Breakfast, Family Hamburger Night, or if you would like to become a member of the Post or Auxiliary, contact Denis or Sue Wells at (209) 394-2059.

 

Family Hamburger Night January 28^th

 

VFW Hamburger Night will be held on Thursday January 28, 2010.

 The Livingston/Delhi Veterans of Foreign Wars #8327 & Ladies Auxiliary will be opening the Livingston Veterans Memorial Hall to the public for Family Hamburger Night in January.

Meals will be served from 6-8 pm at 1605 7^th Street, in Livingston.

The public is invited, and you do not have to be a member to attend.

You will be able to enjoy hamburgers, cheeseburgers, fish sandwiches, chicken sandwiches, hot dogs and chili.

The sandwiches include your choice of homemade salads, and the meals range in price from $1.50 to $3.50.

All proceeds go to help support our community programs.

If you need more information on any of our events, or if you would like to become a member of the Post or Auxiliary,

contact Denis or Sue Wells at (209) 394-2059.   

GIVE BLOOD, SAVE LIVES

 

If we had more blood donations, more lives could be saved. Please take an hour out of your busy schedule and give someone a chance to live.

Your donation does make a difference.  There is no substitute for blood.

Your donation of one pint of blood can save up to 3 lives. 

One donation can be separated into different components, helping different patients, such as new born babies, those suffering from cancer or leukemia, accident or burn victims, etc.

Please drink plenty of fluids before donating and bring your donor card or photo ID with you.  Donors must be at least 17 years old, be generally healthy and weigh at least 110 pounds.

The Livingston Community Blood Drive will be held

Thursday, February 4th, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,

at the Veterans Memorial Building, located at 1605 7^th Street, in Livingston.

 

Donate a pint of blood and receive a coupon for a meal, hosted by the Livingston/Delhi Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary.

Stop by and give the gift of life.

For more information or to make a life saving appointment,

call Denis or Sue Wells at 394-2059.

Walk-ins are always welcome.

 

NATIONAL YOUNG AMERICAN CREATIVE PATRIOTIC ART CONTEST

 

Attention 9^th through 12^th grade students.

The Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars is the sponsoring the National Young American Creative Patriotic Art Contest.

The Livingston-Delhi Auxiliary is offering a first-place prize of $100 and an “Eagle Liberty” jacket and a certificate.

Second place is $75 and an “Eagle Liberty” jacket and a certificate.

Third place winners will receive $50 and an “Eagle Liberty” jacket and a certificate.

The winning artwork will be eligible for State competition, and from there, to the National competition, where the winning artists can receive scholarships of up to $10,000.

Entries are due by March 1, 2010.

Students must have crafted their entries during the 2008-2009 school year – and this must be verified by a teacher’s signature on each entry form. 

 If a student used the U.S. Flag in his or her work, the flag’s depiction must conform to the Flag Code.

Partial contest rules:

Artwork must be on paper or canvas and must be 8 inches by 10 inches to 48 by 24 inches, not including mats.

Watercolor, pencil, pastel, charcoal, tempera, crayon, acrylic, pen-and-ink or oil may be used.

Digital art may be used, but must be on paper or canvas; no computer discs will be accepted.  Do not frame entries.

Submit canvas entries on stretcher frames. Other entries must be matted on white.

Do not use color mats.  In matting, use heavy paper to reinforce the back.

Mounted and floating mats may also be used.

Complete rules and entry forms can be obtained from Denis or Sue Wells at 394-2059 or on line at www.lavfw.org.

Just a Short Recap of the January 5th 2010 City Council Meeting: Round 3

 

“See a need?-Fill a need!”-Big Weld: From the Movie “Robots”

 

I love the movie “Robots”. It’s just a plain ole fun movie: Animation, music, characters, voice talent.

 

And then there’s the message about getting off ones “titanium tucus” and actually doing something instead of just complaining about it

 

See a need? Fill a need![1]

 

 

With that in mind, let us dive into the 3^rd part of this series: in which the City Council takes up the following DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEM: Agenda Item #10:

 

• Introduce and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Livingston Amending Title 2 (Government Organization) Chapter 3 (Citizens’ Service Committee) of the Livingston Municipal Code Relating to the Organization and Duties and Responsibilities of the Citizens’ Service Committee.

 

Before we get into what Team Espinoza and Team Vierra had to say, I just gotta admit, I was really surprised at the response from The Public on this one. With all the issues facing this community, especially in this economy, what could anyone say against having a Committee whose mission was to come up with workable solutions to real problems?

 

(Besides, just a few short months ago, it seemed some members of the community were just chomping at the bit to get a committee like this going and were challenging, challenging the Council to get it up and running.[2])

 

Boy was I wrong[3].The only comment from “The Public” on this on was all negative[4]: Like: It was supposed to be a Citizens’ Advisory Committee, not a Citizens Service Committee and just who really came up with the idea of a Citizens’ Service Committee  anyway and what do you mean it won’t have a Fiscal Impact: won’t it really have a Fiscal Impact because activities cost money and after all no one really applied for the old Citizens Advisory Committee positions last year and who would really want to be on a City Service Committee anyway besides don’t we have enough Service Clubs already?[5]

 

Team Espinoza asked whether or not there would be a set date and time for meetings, minutes taken, an agenda etc. and talked about how the Citizen’s Advisory Committee went downhill and got political: attacking the council people. Also wondered if Junior (non voting) members would get in trouble under The Brown Act if they discussed Agenda Items  [6]

 

Team Vierra felt that a Service Committee would be a good vehicle for getting the youth of our community involved in community activities and there were a wide range  of activities and festivals that could be promoted by a Service Committee. A City sponsored Citizens Service Committee could possibly help bring back City Wide Events like the Yamboree. There was also agreement that the last few Citizens Advisory Committee meetings were full of complaints but no real solutions.

 

In Addition There was also discussion about having committee members served “staggered terms”[7] and allowing those who do not live within the City Limits also be on the committee.

 

The Result? The motion to have a Citizen’s Service Committee which includes (non voting) junior members, staggered terms for voting members, and allows community members who live outside the City Limits to be members, passed 3-2. Team Espinoza voting no[8].

 

 

My Final Two Cents Worth

(On this particular Agenda Item)

 

Yes….the Citizens Service Committee could still be a place where folks could come with comments and complaints, but the job of the Committee would not be to just listen, but to actually come up with workable solutions.

 

No..this Resolution itself will not have a Fiscal Impact because the people on the Committee would not get a Stipend.

Yes..a Project the Committee suggests might have a Fiscal Impact, but it would have to go before the Council First, and there would be a Staff Report including the Fiscal Impact of the Project and the Council would decide whether or not to DO the project/activity.

 

No…a Project/Activity wouldn’t necessarily have to be paid for by the City Anyway. If there were no funds available in the City’s budget for a “worthy project” the Committee could solicit donations, get businesses to sponsor events, write grants, etc.

 

In other words..figure out another way to get the job done.

 

But,, that would mean, instead of sitting around just talking about how “something needs to be done”, it would mean more Committee members would actually have to DO something[9]………..

 

And, Yes…I do think having some of our “Non-City neighbors” on the Committee would be a good idea.

 

And, No….. “Round 3” is not quite over yet. We still have one more Agenda Item to go: #11. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing a Policy Regarding Attendance at City Council Meetings by Members of the City Council.

 

 

---

[1]Face it, there is no way the City itself can do everything everyone would like to have done. The economy sucks and the State keeps “borrowing” money from the Cities.

[2]Yep! It’s there buried in the dusty pages of Draft Minutes. Oh. That’s right. It was a Citizens Advisory Committee they were so looking forward too. My Bad! J

 

[3] It’s been known to happen now and then J

 

[4]I am paraphrasing here. These aren’t word for word quotes, just the message that came through loud and clear.

 

[5] Oh oh!

 

[6]According to the City Attorney, they wouldn’t.

[7] Instead of having them all expire at the same time.

 [8] I think they wanted to talk about it some more. (Ding!)

[9] See a need? Fill a need!

 

A Couple of Meeting Cancelations, and a Farm Kid in the Marines

 

NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION

COURT THEATER COMMITTEE

 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting of the Court Theater Committee scheduled for Monday, January 18, 2010, at 5:00 P.M. has been cancelled due to the Martin Luther King Jr. birthday holiday.

Dated:  January 13, 2010

/s/ BETTY COTA

Deputy City Clerk

 

Next up: the

NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION

LIVINGSTON CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Notice is hereby given that the January 19, 2010, Regular Meeting of the Livingston City Council has been cancelled due to a lack of urgent agenda items.

Dated: January 14, 2010

/s/ Betty Cota

Deputy City Clerk

 

 

 

While you are here, how about a little something that might put just a smile on your face and a glow in your heart. It’s about a letter from “a Farm Kid in the Marines[1] (Now at San Diego Marine Corps Recruitment Training)” and it goes something like this…..

 

 

Dear Ma and Pa,

I am well.  Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the places are filled.

 

I was restless at first because you get to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m. But I am getting so I like to sleep late. Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot, and shine some things.  No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing.  

Men got to shave but it is not so bad, there’s warm water.  Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie and other regular food, but tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit by the two city boys that live on coffee. Their food, plus yours,  holds you until noon   when you get fed again. It’s no wonder these city boys can’t walk much.

 

We go on ‘route marches,’ which the platoon sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it’s not my place to tell him different.  A ‘route march’ is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys get sore feet and we all ride back in trucks.  

The sergeant is like a school teacher.  He nags a lot.  The Captain is like the school board.   Majors and colonels just ride around and frown. They don’t bother you none.

 

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing.  I keep getting medals for shooting.   I don’t know why.  The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk head and don’t move, and it ain’t shooting at you like the Higgett boys at home.  All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it.  You don’t even load your own cartridges They come in boxes.

 

Then we have what they call hand-to-hand combat training.  You get to wrestle with them city boys.  I have to be real careful though, they break real easy.  It ain’t like fighting with that ole bull at home.  I’m about the best they got in this except for that Tug Jordan from over in Silver Lake . I only beat him once..  He joined up the same time as me, but I’m only 5′6′ and 130 pounds and he’s 6′8′ and near 300 pounds dry.

 

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join before other fellers get onto this setup and come stampeding in.

 

 

Your loving daughter,

 

 

Alice

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ah! Just gotta love those Marines! J )

---

[1] No..I don’t know the author-wish I did J

Just a Short Recap of the January 5th 2010 City Council Meeting: Round 2

In Part 1 of this (now 3) Part Series, I talked about how the very first City Council Meeting of the New Year started out well enough, with a few 5/0 decisions and some fairly decent rational discourse. But that once the “audience” started to thin and the Sun Star reporter left, things went right back to “same-o, same-o.” 

And…since the verbal tussles that ensued were more akin to the bombast and bluster you’d hear from WWE or La Lucha Libre “tag teams”, I’ve decided to name the two “warring factions/tag teams/tribes” on the council as TEAM ESPINOZA and TEAM VIERRA after the Senior members on each “side.”

In Part 1, I discussed what appeared (for a flickering moment) to be a genuine effort to “burry the hatchet” into the dusty pages of Draft Minutes History. Discussions were fairly polite and rational[1].  However, as the audience got thinner, and the night got longer, it seemed clear that at least a couple councilpersons might have wanted to “bury that hatchet” elsewhere.

In Part 1, was a an account of a series of Public Hearings, all of which ended with 5-0 decisions and things looking quite “hunky-dory fine.”

But then came the time to discuss the CONSENT CALENDAR (Round 2-Ding!) which included the following.

6. Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on October 20, 2009.

7. Approval of Warrant Register Dated December 9, 2009.

8. Approval of Warrant Register Dated December 17, 2009.

9. Approval of Warrant Numbers 68840[2] ($65,445.02 – Legal Services), 68984[3] ($43,791.94 –Legal Services), 69096[4] ($6,637.50 – Police Recruitment Services), 69181[5] ($81,791.36 – Legal Services), and 69266[6] ($5,103.36 – Police Recruitment Services).

Ah me, here is where things took a turn straight into the Twilight Zone

Team Espinosa made a motion to not pay the above mentioned warrants (for services already rendered) because the Attorney was "hired illegally" and they were against the way the others did things by hiring the (current) attorney. Besides, if certain Council Persons had not been absent earlier the warrants would have been paid earlier anyway.[7] And what they really want to do was pull the amounts that had to do with the Foster Farms lawsuit. The Team Espinoza motion to not pay Failed 2/3[8]

Team Vierra countered by explaining the way the City of Livingston government is organized and stating: Foster Farms sued the city: the City didn’t sue Foster Farms. Doesn’t the City need an attorney? What is the purpose of voting against paying the attorney? The clear position of Team Vierra was if services are rendered, then they must be paid for.

(The Attorney says the City cannot represent itself in court by the way.)

The Final Result All the warrants are going to get paid anyway. The final vote on paying was 3/2[9]. With Team Espinoza voting “No”.

And A Final Observation on “Round-2”

This pattern of voting against paying legal fees is not a recent phenomenon. At the July 7th City Council Meeting where Warrant No. 68230 was pulled, because Team Espinoza wanted to vote “no” on legal bills relating to the grand jury investigation[10]  (legal bills associated with now former City Attorney Subramanian) Both members of Team Espinoza voted against paying.

At the August 4th, 2009 City Council Meeting the following Warrants were pulled for “discussion” Numbers 68345, 68456 and 68467 (Legal opinions on water/sewer rates, general plan EIR legal, misc. planning legal, Foster Farms rendering plant legal, misc. general legal, Livingston Hospitality Hotel legal and Livingston Family Apts legal. Both members of Team Espinoza voted against paying.  

This voting pattern by Team Espinoza began with the vote against paying former City Attorney Subramanian in July and this pattern of pulling the warrants of/and voting against paying the City Attorney has been pretty consistent ever since. Only when all the members of Team Vierra have been present have these “disputed” warrants been paid via a 3/2 vote.

A Final Wrap Up of This “Round”: From this point on, the gloves were off and the fight was on: any form or semblance of “unity and rationality” went straight out the window.

I’m sure some of you would like to hear what happened next. But since, between this post itself and all the footnotes, you have yourselves a fair amount of reading to do (if you want to get a true picture of the personalities involved). Therefore we will leave you at Round 2 and pick up again with Round 3–Discussion and Potential Action Items, at a later time.

---

[1] I’m not saying I agreed with it all, I just said it was somewhat polite and rational as in at least attempting to apply logical reasoning to the issues before them.

[2]Legal work done in August, Invoiced in September, on the October 2^nd Warrant Register for the October 20^th Meeting.

[3]Legal work done in September, Invoiced in October, on the October 20^th Warrant Register for the October 20^th Meeting.

[4]Invoiced in October, on the October 28^th Warrant Register for the November 17^th Meeting.

[5] Legal work done in October, Invoiced in November, on the November 12^th Warrant Register for the November 17^th Meeting.

[6] Invoiced in November, on the November 17^th Warrant Register for the December 1^st Meeting

[7] Translation: They would have been paid via a 3/2 split decision. 3 in favor, 2 against.

[8] Chalk up another “loss” for Team Espinoza!

[9] Another loss for Team Espinoza!

[10] Merced County Civil Grand Jury Postscript to FY2007/2008 Grand Jury’s Report On The City of Livingston

Just a Short Recap of the January 5th 2010 City Council Meeting: Round 1

"I haven’t missed a meeting, and I don’t plan to. But If I have an emergency, I don’t want it to become a political thing"-Mayor Varela

"You need to take a step back and look at the big picture about what you are here for"-Mike Torres

"There’s a Cat and Dog Fight, no doubt about it"-Warren Urnberg

"I have seen 12 year olds that can get along better than you guys"[1]

 

It was an interesting meeting, noooooooo doubt about it. I wish I could say the all the discussions that night were informed, rational, and focused on coming to an agreed upon consensus.

It seemed to start out well enough, with a few 5/0 decisions and some fairly rational give-and-take. But once the “audience” started to thin and the Sun Star reporter left, things got just a tad testy. The “new tone for a new year” quickly devolved into more of a verbal sparring match than a genuine search for “truth, justice, and what’s in the best interest of Livingston residents”.

So…since the verbal tussles that ensued[2] were more akin to  the bombast and bluster you’d hear from WWE or La Lucha Libre “tag teams”, I’ve decided to call “as spade a spade” and introduce you to our “City of Livingston City Council Tag Teams”

 

In THIS corner, we have TEAM ESPINOZA! with Senior Councilperson Rodrigo Espinoza and Junior Councilperson Margarita Aguilar.

And in THAT corner, we have TEAM VIERRA![3], with Senior Councilperson Frank Vierra, Mayor Daniel Varela, and Junior Councilperson (and former City Clerk) Martha Nateras.

But wait!…..Before we get to the Main Event, let’s take quick “time out” and look at the things that were discussed during Closed Session that evening

 

1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation. Government Code Section 54956.9(a).

a. Merced County Farm Bureau v. City of Livingston, et al., California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151754 [consolidated with Valley Advocates v. City of Livingston, et al., Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151757].

b. Fernando Davalos et al, v. City of Livingston et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000669.

c. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. City of Livingston, et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000292.

 

When time came for the Regular Meeting to begin (DING!), there was no sign of the former City Attorney who had been dismissed in June then “invited back” in December^[4].Since nothing

and I mean NOTHING was said about it, guess you’ll have to read “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Council Meeting” to get a sense of the “personal dynamics” and make your own “educated guesses” as to what exactly happened.[5]

Well skip over the AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS and the ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS and get right down to the “red meat” you have all been salivating for: the PUBLIC HEARINGS![6]

 

First up, Item #3 on the Agenda: Resolution Conditionally Approving Site Plan/Design Review 2009-04 for the Dr. Singh Mixed Use Project.

By “Mixed Use” for this project it meant, basically a Dentist Office on the Ground Floor with an Apartment on the Second Floor. The number of parking spaces seemed to be the main “glitch” here: According to the City the project was estimated to be short about 10 spaces.

Team Espinoza was in favor of Community Based Projects and would rather see a new building than an empty lot with weeds and wanted the In Lieu Parking Fee cut from 10,000 to 5,000

Although Team Vierra was also in favor of Community Based Projects but stated a concern about having enough parking and the “fairness” of cutting In Lieu Parking Fees for one developer and not all.

As too The Public no one in the audience seemed to have anything against the project (Or at least pitching a big fit about it at this time)

Result? passes 5-0 with In-Lieu Parking Fees cut from $10,000 to $5,000 [7]  

There’s 5-0 vote Number 1!

Next up on the Agenda, Item # 4. City Council Guidance on Site Plan/ Design Review 2009-05 for Adding Composition Shingles to Parkside Subdivision’s Approved Materials.

What the Developer of the Parkside Subdivision said he wanted to do was address a "cash flow" issue: cutting costs where ever possible and still keep framers & other employees working.

If I heard correctly, although the “Approved Materials List” for the Development only included Tile, the Development Agreement itself did not specifically prohibit the use of Composition Roofing. In addition to that, there was no “date certain” clause to require the construction of a park within the development within a particular time frame.

Since there’d been a complaint made about Composition instead of Tile on some homes, Council needed to decide if they were going to insist on only allowing tile roofs in the Parkside Subdivision, or allowing some homes to have Composition Roofs[8]

Team Espinoza (one of whom lives in the Parkside Subdivision) said that as far as s/he knew, the only material that was ever approved for construction was tile roofing and that the developer "mislead" people by not letting them know they could have tile as an upgrade.

Team Vierra agreed that "Principles of Conformity" should be maintained and that getting the park finished needs to be done as soon as possible. As to Tile being the only materiel originally approved: that was because the homes in the development were so close together, tile would be safer in case of fire. Also Wished the developer had come to them first with his "economic troubles"

The Public (mostly residents in the sub division who bought homes with composition roofs) felt they were cheated out of their right to a Tile Roof. Those who bought their houses with composition roofs want tile on their roofs now. They were also upset that the park that was supposed to be part of the subdivision has not been finished.

The Result? Adding Tile To the Approved Materials List was denied 5-0. Houses already done with composition have to be re-roofed.

There’s 5-0 vote Number 2!

So far, no major sniping and the votes have been 5-0. Could we be “on a roll” here?

Next up, Item #5 on the Agenda: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Merced Union High School District and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to Peach Avenue.

(Those of you who were at the Council Meeting in December will remember that this one was “put off” until this meeting “to give the public more time to give an opinion”[9])

Approving the MOU would allow the High School District to move forward with the preparation of their CEQA documents. This Memorandum of Understanding would at least get the project going and "take off the table" the rerouting of Peach Avenue. The High School District would widen Peach Avenue and install a Pedestrian Overpass after the last of the Measure M bonds are sold. In the mean time, the District will install a Pedestrian Activated lighted crosswalk as part of the Livingston High School Expansion Project.

The Team Espinoza position is another 300 to 500 homes may be built within the next 10 years so the overpass should be built sooner.

The Team Vierra position is if there is more building then the District will have the property taxes necessary for the Bond Sale which would allow them to build the overpass. Is concerned about the current problem of delivery trucks blocking traffic and “traffic jams” that happen during student "drop off” and “pick up” times.

Comments from The Public include the owners of The Pink Store who do not want their dreams ruined by a re-rout of Peach and wish the City would approve the MOU. Others commented that the process had been going long enough: and it was time for the city to make a decision. There were also questions from the public about the "loading and unloading" of students and the related "traffic jams" during the morning and afternoon

The District said the High School Expansion will also include a new parking lot which should absorb most of the student traffic.

Result? The Memorandum of Understanding with the Merced Union High School District passes 5-0.

There’s 5-0 vote Number 3!

Looking good so far isn’t it? Beginning to look like council persons have put aside their differences and are getting down to the work of at least discussing issues in a rational manner…but we’re not quite done yet. We haven’t gotten to the CONSENT CALANDAR and DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS.

As Paul Harvey might have said, there’s still “the rest of the story”.

 

Which will be the subject of a future post… J

---

[1]No..I didn’t catch the name. Go get the Audio if you want it.

[2] And have taken place in the past.

[3] No..I’m not naming it after the Mayor. Since I named TEAM ESPINOZA after the Senior Member of THAT team is seams only fair to name “the other side” after the most Senior Member. J

[4]Score one “loss” for Team Espinoza.

[5] Of the choices listed in that post, I’m leaning towards a combination of “A” with a healthy dose of “B” thrown in for good measure. J

[6] And yes, I am cutting out a lot of the discussion. Guess you’ll just have to either go get a copy of the Audio or wait until the Draft Minutes come out. Or-come to the meetings!

[7] I’ll let you decide if 5-0 votes should be “scored” a “draw” or just a plain “Win for Livingston Citizens” J

[8] Will the park ever get built? Hmmmm, well the Developer was not a “happy camper” when he left the meeting that night. Re-roofing a few houses with Tile is going to cost him “a pretty penny”. Should he have gone before the council with his woes earlier? Maybe..but that’s not my point here. He wanted to use Composition Roofs and his Development Agreement didn’t prohibit it. Residents at Parkside want their park built. But, unless I heard wrong, there is nothing in the Development Agreement to encourage him to get it done any time soon: especially after having to “shell out” the funds to re-roof several homes. This could be one of those times where the residents “won their tile but lost their park”. Will the developer even continue with the Subdivision? Well just have to see…..

[9] Guess not too many people were really interested: about this time the trickle of “the public” out the door had already begun.

 

Board and Planning Commission Hold Joint Meeting on County Growth Plans

This just came into my “in-box” today from Merced County.

“The Merced County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission will be holding a joint meeting on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 to give staff direction on the revised growth alternatives for the County’s General Plan Update.  The meeting will be held in the Board Chambers at 2222 M Street in Merced and will begin at 1:30 in the afternoon.  Public comment on the revised alternatives will be taken at the meeting prior to the item’s consideration.  Members of the public can also submit their comments in advance of the meeting by email to bnicholson@co.merced.ca.us or can drop them off at the Planning Department’s front counter.  

The County General Plan sets the growth philosophy and course of action for development within the County, including where and how growth should occur in order to protect valuable farmland and natural resources, while meeting the needs of the County’s growing population. The Revised Alternatives Report can be downloaded from the General Plan Update website at www.co.merced.ca.us/gpu, along with a December 14^th 2009 memorandum from Jim Harnish,[1] the County’s General Plan Update consultant, which offers additional detail and analysis of the revised General Plan Alternatives D & E.     

The County has already held numerous community workshop meetings on the General Plan to invite public comment and input.   

The General Plan Update will be a 20-year Plan that will set County policy in the subjects of agricultural preservation, land use and development, circulation and transit systems, environmental resources protection, economic development, housing, public infrastructure, public safety and noise.”

 

  

---

[1] Given the Controversy over the City of Livingston 2025 General Plan Update, “TABLE A Alternatives Population and Employment Projections” in this Memorandum would be worth looking at (Might want to look at the other tables while you’re there).

[2] The Population Projections contained in the City of Livingston 2025 General Plan Update were the focus of some pretty harsh criticism. Therefore, it might be beneficial for all interested parties to take a look “TABLE A Alternatives Population and Employment Projections” in the memorandum from Jim Harnish,[2] the County’s General Plan Update consultant