Friendly Fortuna at it's finest...

early days of General Plan update

Another wonderful example.  

River Lodge filled again to make sure a tank didn't go in Rohner Park...

Last year was a different story...

(thanks Doug for trying)

The project they decided not to discuss?  
A new tank down the street from Vancil reservoir, where twice the storage of the proposed tank is sitting unused. 


However, rules are rules, 

so here's two years of information gathering whittled down to three minutes: 

 Why are we building a new tank?

Planning for the future is great, but first there's an obligation to spend the money as promised.  

I think Mr. Glaser has forgotten about Resolution 2006-25 passed and adopted by the City Council in 2006 to justify the rate increases.  It says the money's for

"projects that are required to fulfill the City's current operational responsibilities and are not driven by future development." 
  
Vancil reservoir was built in 1963.  We've spent more than $1/2 million to reline and upgrade it, but a new pipeline and larger pumps are still needed.

Isn't it time we use it?
Ironically Vancil has twice the storage we need today. 
So this reservoir can also provide for future city needs. 


The Council needs to know we are concerned that money raised for current needs is being spent on a project we may not need for 20 years or more. 

The Council needs to hear from you.

More on the tank issue...

The Coffee Party

There was this email, "here's something you might enjoy," with a link.
But I was in the middle of something, two somethings actually.
One was the latest in the seemingly-never-to-end public records saga.
The next was a way to communicate what I had learned from that hopefully-soon-to-end public records saga.

A couple days later, the time was right. I did enjoy it and so here it is for anyone who happens by:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/us/politics/02coffee.html?em

A new movement, the Coffee Party. The slogan is “Wake Up and Stand Up.” The mission statement declares that the federal government is “not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans.”

I had overcome my anger, disappointment, an intense desire to just give up and had maintained civility. Thanks, Mr. Rogers for: What do you do with the anger you feel?

So I can take the pledge:
As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.

With this caveat: I can only thank the sender of the email privately, which I believe may be systematic of a breakdown of the democratic process here in Fortuna. "When in the course of human events..." that happens it is very hard to remain pleasant, but it is a worthy goal. Don't you think? Hopefully it keeps us moving forward.

Back to those two somethings...

Jan 18 meeting

If you saw Doug Strehl at the Dec 7th Council meeting suggest to the Council a public meeting on the tank issue, give him a call and thank him. Even if you didn't see it, call and thank him anyway. The difference between a hearing and a workshop is that the rules for public participation are more relaxed. It appears to me to have been a valiant attempt to provide a time to actually look at the tank issue, to hear what people think about it.

The Mayor agreed with the idea, even suggesting extensions of time could be allowed. He then asked the City Manager his opinion, and it looked like a go. They didn't ask the other three council members. But that isn't necessary because the City Manager, consulting with the Mayor, sets the meeting schedule. That task is delegated to him. Somehow, somewhere the idea got dropped. At the early January meeting, it was back to making both decisions at one meeting (to certify the negative declaration and approve the next step in the process). When the final agenda came out it is now just one agenda item. That means only one public hearing. What a wonderful time saving idea. I called and checked. There will be no extensions of time for speakers, no electronic images, and no expressing the opinion that the new tank isn't necessary. Anyway, that's the rules for the public. Except the last one, that one violates the Brown Act.

In any case, Doug Strehl deserves our thanks for trying to open the process up. Please call him, serving on the council shouldn't be a thankless job. He's in the phone book. I would save you the time, but I fear those little webby information gathering devices would pick up the number and put him on some call list.

If you have a bit more time call another member of the council and ask what their views are on public participation. Ken Zanzi, Mel Berti, Pat Whitchurch and Dean Glaser are all in the phone book.

Monday is the meeting. I know that one voice carries no weight, especially when that voice is saying something they don't want to hear. But I'll be there, a martyr to free speech and public participation. Please don't pity me, I hate pity. Understand that I believe in it. It actually can be fun. Come on down Monday, I could use some company. Oh, yes. It is at 6pm at the Courthouse.

Here is the link to my visual presentation I won't be showing. I checked the box for no sign-in required, hope it works. If you would like a hard copy leave that in a comment. I'll try to have one for you at the meeting. Also, I'll be giving a hard copy to the Council members, so it should be available at City Hall after the meeting. This is about the project, because that is what is on the agenda. The city reservoir at Vancil is not on the agenda.

Wondering what this is all about?

Heidi sums it up nicely.

What now?

Hopefully, the attorneys are wrapping up Egger v City of Fortuna. I went into this with an understanding with myself: I believe that the city is trying to provide information and be more open, but we had a serious disagreement over the interpretation of two parts of the California Public Records Act.

We disagreed about whether all preliminary records can be withheld from the public and if the City can reject a request without an attempt to help identify records. I have received the preliminary information used to prepare the Vancil portion of the staff report and the City was able to provide it without a specific list from me (how could I know what information they used to prepare their report?). I feel receiving the information shows that the City has rethought its interpretation. Having been told that I can make further requests related to this, if needed, I have confirmed my wish to end the lawsuit.

My attorney, Paul Boylan, asked what I would do next? I've thought about that a bit and decided to take another friend's advise and do a poll. Look to the right and you will see it under "What Now?" It is part tongue-in-cheek fun, part real curiosity. Check as many boxes as you wish.

But first, if you have a chance, please check out fortunacitizen, where I ask, "Why don't we use Vancil?" The lawsuit, remember, was to aid my work looking into the possibility of using Vancil reservoir instead of building a new one nearby(possible savings: 2.5 to 3 million dollars). Much of what I've found is there, organized roughly by the questions I asked as I went along. Take a look, and don't forget to come back and let me know what you think.
thanks.

PS here is a preview of the questions at fortunacitizen:

1. Where does Fortuna store it's water? Not counting the 2 failing, there are 4 reservoir/tanks.
   
2. Does Fortuna need more water storage? Possibly in the south, not in the north.
   
3. Is there enough emergency storage? Yes, even without the 2 failing tanks. A remaining question: what is the weak-link in an emergency?
   
4. Are there alternatives to spending more than $4 million on a new water tank? yes
   
5. Didn't City staff conclude that using Vancil was "not prudent at any cost savings? Yes, now they need to support their conclusion.
   
6. What information did staff use to come to their conclusion? There is not a lot of documented information collection.
   
7. Wouldn't using Vancil risk relying on PRV valves? The city uses PRV valves.
   
8. Do the Water Revenue Bonds require building a new reservoir to replace those at Stewart Street? No.
   

Go to fortunacitizen for more information.

Change, one step back, two forward

I want to thank Mayor Whitchurch and Linda Jensen. Yes, Mayor Whitchurch because although he flicked the switch he stopped short of actually stopping me from speaking at the March 9th meeting. Can this mountain be a molehill again?

Linda Jensen deserves grand kudos for defusing the situation at the beginning of the March 16th meeting. Back in August as I handed the Council information before a meeting, Mayor Campbell asked if I had a copy for staff, which I did. Between then and last month I switched at Mr. Rigge's request to leaving information with staff to give to council. I sometimes had a few extra I put on the table with the agenda copies. On March 16th I noticed something in the minutes. I assumed only a Council member could take the minutes off the consent calendar so I typed up my thoughts. Before the meeting I confirmed with Mr. Rigge the process and then gave him a copy. As I moved to hand copies to the Council I was told I had to have copies for everyone in the room or could not give anything to Council. As I hesitated, wondering at the moving target of Council process, Linda Jensen got up and made some copies. I finished giving the Council their copies and life goes on. Thank you!

FYI dear readers here is CA Gov Code 54957.5.(b):(b) Writings that are public records under subdivision (a) and that are distributed during a public meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its legislative body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.
So, while I was technically correct, I apologize that due to a shortage of time and ink I did not have copies for the other members of the public at the March 16th meeting.

Editorial: Dissent takes beating in court - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

here's that article I mentioned.
Editorial: Dissent takes beating in court - Sacramento Bee
Posted using ShareThis

Get elected, loose your freedom of speech; odd bit of judicial reasoning. Californians Aware's website was one of the resources I used when I was trying to communicate with City staff about preliminary records and where I found my attorney, Paul Boylan, when they refused to respond.

I've been working on FortunaCitizen; adding links for printable/readable versions of the documents I photographed. And here, added a chunk to the discussion of Council meetings.

OK, Maybe I was a little optimistic about change in Fortuna

March16, 2009 Fortuna City Council Meeting

Agenda Item: Oral Comments from the Public

At the last City council meeting those watching on TV did not hear my
closing remarks. At the time, the Mayor had indicated I only had one
minute left, then after a bit I noticed a movement and thought to
myself, “Is the mic still on?” But I continued because I
had worked long and hard to gather the information and then try to
condense it down into 3 minutes. Also, I could have just
misinterpreted what I saw. By the end of the meeting, after several
gracious acts by the Mayor allowing others to speak out of order, I
felt that probably I was mistaken about what I saw.

When I was told that in fact the mike was off at the end of my comments, I
laughed. So,the Mayor doesn’t appreciate my endeavors, he has
control of the switch, I was out of order; really just a minor
disappointment in my life right now.

But when I saw it on TV, it gave me a different perception. I no longer
saw it as a personal problem. The question became what do people
think when they watch this happen? Would they feel welcome to come
speak at Council meetings? Is public participation, especially by
those with a different perspective, welcomed?

When someone is ruled out of order, it is government regulation of speech.
It is at times necessary to insure that you can get done what needs
to get done, but the regulation needs to be applied evenly. And I
would not want such tight regulation that the praise of Mr. Rodriquez
would have been ruled out of order before it had a chance to be given
or that the question at the end of the meeting could not have gotten
a response.

We have a governing principal. It says, “We May Disagree, But We
Will Be Respectful of One Another, All Comments Will Be Directed to
the Issue at Hand, and Addressed to the City Council, Personal
Attacks are Unacceptable.”

I respectfully suggest that this be the guide for ruling people out of
order.

I would like to now restate what was not broadcast two weeks ago.

I hope this information provides you with a clearer historical
perspective as you continue planning for the use of our water rate
revenues.

My apologies for going overtime and thank you for your patience.

Note: The remarks of March 2nd are posted as Historical Summary at fortunacitizen.

Not so public, after all

My apologies if you tried to view the released records yesterday and found you needed a google account to view. When I tested it, the link worked like a charm, but of course I was logged on to my google account at the time. Sigh...

I tried scribd.com, no luck. So, at this time the options are: create a google account (easy); send an email to fortuna.sunshine@yahoo.com, subject: released records (easy for you, I'm happy to send); or go ask for them at City Hall (great if you are out for a walk, you can look at or pay for a copy thanks to City Staff)

Let the sun shine in

Now available to the public, the records that took a lawsuit to get released.

Awhile back Anonymous at SoHum Parlance wrote "Please explain in a bit more detail exactly what was withheld from you; I'd really like to know." It was quite frustrating, but I had to write, "my counsel instructs me not to say anything about the case for now." Seemed like an odd response from someone asking the City to be more open. But that is what happens when you enter lawsuit land.

I so wanted to avoid uttering those words that I spent hours researching and then writing a letter to explain to the City that the California Public Records Act, State Constitution and the courts all agree that they should share with me the information they were gathering on using the underutilized Vancil reservoir instead of building a new tank 1/4mile away at Sewart Street . The final response: "we do not know of any reports or items held or retained by the City as requested."

Despite my derisive "lawsuit land" comment above, I'm proud to live in a country that has a court system that allows for challenges to questionable practices by government officials. Perhaps one sticking point was that the City didn't understand what I meant by "consultant or staff reports regarding the investigation of using the existing Vancil Street reservoir for zone1 water storage." All I can say to that is I'm glad I have a sense of humor and a belief in the ability of people to change.

Now, back to those public records. All this was so that hopefully I would be the last to hit a brick wall at City Hall. The writer mentioned above is right not all city records are public, but most of them are.
And I was so happy about making whatever was in that envelope I picked up last Friday available to the public I immediately went over and had them scanned into a pdf file. Joke was on me, I discovered I couldn't post a pdf file directly on FortunaCitizen, or at least if it is possible I couldn't figure out how. Luckily, after much trial and error, I talked to my son. He pointed me in the right direction and after more trial and error the records are there, where ever 'there' is. And you can see them, too because they are public records.
The link requires a google account. Don't have one? It is easy and free, or fortuna.sunshine@yahoo.com will be happy to email pdf file to you; please use "released records" for email subject.

Change in Fortuna 2

I attended last night's informational meeting "to describe the anticipated design and construction process for the Stewart Street Replacement project" (formerly the Tank in the Park). The paper didn't mention it was a neighborhood meeting, but no one seemed to mind that a few non-neighborhood folks showed up. I want to note that the fact that it was publicly noticed is a positive change for a neighborhood meeting in Fortuna. Last spring the Friends of Rohner Park "crashed" a meeting on Stewart Street when they heard about it through the grapevine. Three months or so ago a Council member remarked "now that the cat is out of the bag" he'd like to hear how the meeting with the Vancil neighbors went. I'd say things are getting better, thanks city staff.

At the beginning of the meeting the neighbors were told staff was trying to understand the issue as if they were neighbors and at times it was acknowledged, "I truly hadn't seen it that way before." This seemed to come when some of the prepared response seemed to miss the mark, but some credit goes to the neighbors as they did a good job of repeating and rephrasing until their concerns were acknowledged. Hopefully after the clarified concerns have been "considered" the dialog will continue or at least they will receive a more definite response. But compared to the cold shoulder the Friends of Rohner Park got this was refreshing.

I have to say I felt a bit uncomfortable at times when the staff spoke for the "ratepayers" to remind the neighbors that the cost of their requests needed to be considered. The neighbors' concern that the switch from the park meant the construction impact cost shifted from the many to a few seemed legitimate to me (the speaker noted no ill-will toward those concerned with the park). But of course I'm biased, this ratepayer requested they make changes to the project which would have reduced both the project costs and the impact on the neighbors substantially so I have little sympathy for staff speaking on behalf of ratepayers interested in costs. But, I'll give staff the benefit of the doubt that I'll soon see the error of my logic when I review the preliminary records.

Anyway, back to changes. The Friends of Rohner Park struggled through seven months of meetings tentatively set and then canceled and requests to know results of investigations, or to have an explanation of process, ignored or denied. What a true joy to see a written "Anticipated Chronological Project Task List" handed out. Had I had such a list perhaps I could have met the city's illogical demand that I ask for specific records in my requests for information on using Vancil reservoir. This list is a positive change.

And lastly, there have been meetings, on the General Plan and last August on the tank issue, where no public comments were allowed. I have heard that city staff and some council members attended a Brown Act training last fall. I would bet last August was the last meeting to allow no comment. That's positive change. And those records? Any day now.

Change in Fortuna

Good news this afternoon. Got a phone call from Paul Boylan, the attorney handling the Public Records Act case. He called to let me know that the city may be ready to give me copies as early as Friday. This is wonderful news.

I am a bit apprehensive, as the word is they are copying the whole Stewart Street Reservoir Replacement Project file. It goes way beyond what I asked for and could take a lot of time to sort through. But I agreed to that as a compromise assuming that otherwise staff time would have to be used to sort through it, and it might need to be someone with some familiarity with the project to distinguish which records were pertinent to my request.

A week ago the city released the first record, which was part of the first request I made back in September. Having finally figured out how to make it more readable than the earlier pages I posted on FortunaCitizen today.

For a little background on this read comments at Sohum Parlance