Process and Schedule

In January 2010, the City of Encinitas initiated the two-year Comprehensive General Plan Update Planning Process.

Engaging the community is a critical part of this project and opportunities to participate will be ongoing. In March 2010, the City will hold Community-Specific Workshops in the five communities of New Encinitas, Old Encinitas, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Olivenhain, and Leucadia. Community-Wide Workshops will be held in May and October 2010, and in March and July 2011.

The Outreach Program will define all of the outreach opportunities (check back for details).

We are updating the General Plan to reflect the ideas of everyone in Encinitas. The workshops will give residents a forum to voice questions, ideas and concerns and to learn more about what is happening with the Plan Update.

For more information go here.

In December we approached Mayor Dalager and Water Board President Houlihan in the hopes of having them address some of the concerns and possible misconceptions the public has about the SDWD and the City of Encinitas. Mayor Dalager never responded.

President Houlihan shared her knowledge and thoughts on Monday (Jan. 25). She is not in favor of an independent board of directors for the SDWD and not interested in making a citizen’s review commission part of the rate increase process. Houihan saw no reason to change the current arrangement, however she could not offer any reasons against an independent Board of Directors.

Houlihan addressed the questions sincerely and to her fullest ability. Here is what she told us:

Staff
One of the three finance staff that was recently transferred to the SDWD from the City was already being paid 90% out of the SDWD. This staff member was a receptionist.

Public Works Yard
The SDWD pays the city for use of the new public works yard, but only for maintenance and cleaning costs. It was not clear how those costs are apportioned.

The cost to the SDWD for moving into the new public works yard was apportioned and approved by the Council. Houlihan said she based her vote for the approved apportionment on the fact that consultants had written a report that supported the vote. Herb Patterson, explained that he had corresponded extensively with the City regarding the report. He believes the report does not satisfy the requirements of Prop 218 and probably overestimates the SDWD’s share of the cost for the new public works yard (more on this will be posted by Saturday).

Patterson also stated that he had not been able to find documents that explicitly describe what is being called the City’s “perpetual use rights” to the public works yard. Houlihan did not know about this particular detail, but expressed interest in helping the public obtain the details of the agreement between the City and the SDWD.

Bonding
Houlihan was adamant that the SDWD is not involved in bonding for city projects and was clear to state that the SDWD is a separate legal entity from the City (but run by the same elected officials). However, it is unclear how the little known Encinitas Public Finance Authority (EPFA) fits in. The EPFA is used by the Council to issue municipal bonds for public projects. Houlihan did not mention that the EPFA does have a history of ties to both the city and the water district.

Although Houlihan made a clear statement that the SDWD was not on the hook for city bonds, that statement was later hedged a little by saying the bonds for the golf course were unusual.

She made another key statement that the SDWD does not pay into the EPFA, the paper entity that issues millions of dollars in bonds. This is important because ETA members have long standing concerns that the SDWD is involved in this bonding authority.

Houlihan said she would ask staff to present the ETA with a flowchart of the liabilities from all the bonds and the different legal entities. As of Jan 28, we have not received the flowchart. If the relationships are as portrayed by Houlihan, it should not take the finance staff long to produce the document. It is important to get that documentation out to the public because we have one ETA member, Gerry Sodomka, who has publicly addressed this issue many times over the last few years.

He spoke four times before the council in 2006 challenging the city on the issue of the SDWD being involved with bonding for city projects. Sodomka reports to the ETA that he was never told he was incorrect. The City Manger or any of the Council could have corrected him during those public meetings. The City’s bond consultant, Mark Northcross, was involved in the city meetings and he did not correct him. When former mayor Christie Guerin publicly asked the City’s finance staff whom had repayment responsibility, a clear response was not given.

There has not been a clear sign that the SDWD wasn't responsible until Monday night, when President Houlihan addressed the issue directly.

It will be good to get this particular issue straightened out.

To receive notification that the city has presented the ETA documentation on the bonding responsibilities, sign up for Encinitas Taxpayers email advisories.

The City of Encinitas Uses Certificates of Participation and lease-revenue bonds. They are expensive way to finance things, so why do it?

Answer: Because our elected officials don't think the voters would agree with them.

This review of how the State used Lease-Revenue bonds should explain things.

Last week's prison deal brought cheers and plaudits from virtually all political corners in California. The Legislature, threatened by a federal court takeover of the state's prison system, averted the crisis -- it is hoped -- by enacting a comprehensive bill to deal with prison overcrowding and other corrections issues. Governor Schwarzenegger hailed the agreement as another example of how California can work in a post-partisan world.

But like most political decisions made under duress, there are legitimate questions as to whether the deal reflects good public policy -- or whether it was even legal.

To recap; California has a huge and growing prison population. Those who are politically conservative were not about to let convicted felons out early. Those on the left -- who would prefer more leniency for those who are incarcerated -- were pushing for programs dealing with rehabilitation as well as a new sentencing commission. But political compromise in California is difficult and often the only way to reach that compromise is with lots of taxpayer dollars to appease both sides. It is amazing what a soothing effect buckets of taxpayer cash can have on the adversaries in a political dispute.

That is what happened here. The tough on crime Republicans got their extra beds -- 53,000 of them -- and the Democrats got their rehabilitation programs designed to reduce recidivism.

The centerpiece of the agreement was a bond proposal in the amount of $6.1 billion. That is a huge amount of indebtedness, especially considering that voters just approved the massive infrastructure proposal last fall in the amount of $42 billion.

Which brings us to the number one question posed by taxpayers: Why were these bonds not put to voters for approval?

The short answer - which is really no answer at all -- is that, as "lease revenue" bonds, they are exempt from voter approval.

There is no debate that lease revenue bonds, and their questionable cousins "certificates of participation," are instruments of indebtedness. However, because their repayment is -- in theory -- not guaranteed by the state's general fund, they are not considered "general obligation bonds" which, if the amount is over $300,000, are required by the California Constitution to be voter approved. Last time we checked, $6.1 billion is a bigger number than 300,000.

In any event, there are instances at both the state and local level where lease revenue bonds make sense. Specifically, if the improvement being financed by the indebtedness itself generates revenue, an argument can be made that voter approval should not be required because the source of the repayment does not put taxpayers at risk. The clearest example of the legitimate use of lease revenue bonds is a public parking garage. Parking garages generate revenue and that revenue can be used to repay the bond holders. Some publicly financed sports facilities, and their appurtenant retail and other business properties, might also be candidates for lease revenue financing.

Read more »

ETA Encinitas City Staff Quietly get Pay Raises in 2010
That is probably why there were audible, but restrained, cheers from staff when the council gave them 4 years of unconditional raises. It should be sobering to the taxpayer that staff actually cheered the council's unanimous decision.

UT SD Teachers to Looking at a Pay Cut
Teachers and other San Diego school employees could take pay cuts next year of up to 8 percent to help offset a projected $93 million deficit, under a proposal presented to labor groups this week.

UT Pay Raise OKed for SANDAG
The agency’s executive director, Gary Gallegos, makes $240,000 a year and will get $10,000 raises for the next five years under a deal approved 14-5 despite concerns among some board members about the timing.

Council Member Stocks voted for Gallegos' raise.

City Could Make Some 'Private' E-mails Public
OPEN GOVERNMENT -- "With iPhones and Blackberries becoming must-have accessories, San Jose is poised to approve a ground-breaking disclosure policy that would ensure elected leaders don't use those personal devices to skirt public-records laws," reports John Woolfolk in the San Jose Mercury News.

The public often believes our City Attorney's job is to make sure the city follows the law. That is not how our City Attorney operates. Our City Attorney is not elected. He was hired by the City Council. His client is the City Council. He is "just the piano player" playing the music the City Council majority gives him.

When the city staff violate the municipal code or violate open government laws the City Attorney can not be expected to react.

Here is an email sent to the City Council today:

Mr. Sabine [City Attorney],
This email is acknowledgment and documentation of two phone messages I received from you regarding the Formal Complaint I filed on December 16, 2009 against Park and Recreation Director Chris Hazeltine.

In your message on January 11, 2010 at 6:02pm you made the following statements:

"Let me tell you just what my thinking is to summarize"
"As a City Attorney I take direction from the City Council"
"So, if the Council wants, you know, me, to investigate anybody then they would direct me to do so."
"So I think the first step for you would be going to the Council in whatever form you desire"
"I looked at it pretty closely and thought about it and think that's whats appropriate"

In your message on January 13, 2010 at 4:56pm you made the following statements:

"I will reiterate that the City Attorney takes direction from the Council"
"And it's the Council that you have to convince um to direct the City Attorney to take any action um regarding any kind of investigation
"I've look at it carefully and thought about it and that's a, that's the case"

As I mentioned before I have strong supporting evidence that Mr. Hazeltine has violated City polices in a number of areas.

It can only be concluded by your statements and past emails that the City of Encinitas is not obligated to track complaints and has no policy to process and investigate complaints against City employees.

I'm sorry but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong the City ignoring complaints against City employees. It would appear that this lack of a Complaint Tracking System would only open the City of Encinitas to liability, the very thing your position is responsible for, protecting the City.

Thank you for your attention

Steve Meiche

Meiche's complaint can be found here.

Sabine's title would be more appropriate if it were Council's Attorney.