Letters Written by Members To Our City Government & To The Media
Please note that the letters below reflect the opinions of individual members only and have not been endorsed by the WISPPA organization as a whole.
Please note that the letters below reflect the opinions of individual members only and have not been endorsed by the WISPPA organization as a whole.
Letter to the City Council by Mary Urquhart 6/24/20 re: Budget
At this point, there is only one course of action to take regarding our budget. The City must complete its independent financial audit before any budgetary discussions continue. To achieve that, the "Resolution of Continuing Appropriations" must be adopted by the City Council.
The very real technical analyses brought to light in the work of Josh Betta, Sheila and Steve Rossi, and Bill Kelly, to name only a few, must also be given due diligence and further study. THEIR ANALYSES SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT BE IGNORED.
Beyond the completion of the City’s financial audit, it appears we have reached the point where an independent “forensic” review of financial management should be strongly considered. I understand these tools are referred to as “risk assessment reviews.”
This is about the fundamental credibility of our community. It is your fiduciary and MORAL duty to protect our City's precious funds. And our community reputation.
How can we support the utility users tax again if we have lost our credibility with the voter?
South Pasadena City Council: your vote will be remembered.
At this point, there is only one course of action to take regarding our budget. The City must complete its independent financial audit before any budgetary discussions continue. To achieve that, the "Resolution of Continuing Appropriations" must be adopted by the City Council.
The very real technical analyses brought to light in the work of Josh Betta, Sheila and Steve Rossi, and Bill Kelly, to name only a few, must also be given due diligence and further study. THEIR ANALYSES SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT BE IGNORED.
Beyond the completion of the City’s financial audit, it appears we have reached the point where an independent “forensic” review of financial management should be strongly considered. I understand these tools are referred to as “risk assessment reviews.”
This is about the fundamental credibility of our community. It is your fiduciary and MORAL duty to protect our City's precious funds. And our community reputation.
How can we support the utility users tax again if we have lost our credibility with the voter?
South Pasadena City Council: your vote will be remembered.
Letter to the Members of the Finance Commission by Steve Rossi 6/15/20
I apologize for sending this directly to you, and on such short notice before your next commission meeting only a matter of hours from now. However, despite my best efforts to request agenda material information from City Staff with sufficient time to review the materials prior to the meeting as required under the Brown Act, Staff refused to respond to my requests and only saw fit to post the relevant budget materials extremely late in the day. As such, it was impossible to review the financial information provided and develop a coherent analysis prior to the public comment deadline. As a result, I am reaching out to you directly, as I believe the statements made in the Cover Letter in the Finance Commission Agenda Report dated 6/18/20 and provided by Finance Director, Karen Aceves, are materially misrepresentative of the true facts surrounding the financial information provided in both the 5/26 Draft Budget, the 5/29 Draft Budget, the budget presented to the City Council on 6/10 (which was neither the 5/26 nor the 5/29 drafts) and the information posted to the Agenda packet on 6/17 in advance of the 6/18 Finance Commission meeting.
As an overarching comment, the Cover Letter serves to understate the actual volume and magnitude of the changes made between the two drafts – only 3 days apart. In total there were at least 127 changes totaling $14.3 million in adjustments…much more significant than the $50K of “net” changes that Staff represents in the Agenda materials.
Further, without being presented with a full budget in the Agenda materials, it is impossible to tell if the numerous errors, omissions, and questionable assumptions surrounding the prior two drafts of the budget have as yet been corrected.
The only information that is known is this:
On 5/26, Staff presented an incomplete and error riddled budget to the Finance Commission.
On 5/29, Staff provided a vastly different budget in the City Council agenda packet for review, but still riddled with errors
On 6/10, Staff presented a third, different budget. NOT the budget included in City Council Agenda packet, which raises additional Brown Act concerns
On 6/17, Staff presented the Finance Commission with a cherry-picked “subset” of changes made between the 5/26 and 5/29 drafts…but again, has not provided a complete listing of the adjustments made, choosing instead to focus on hand selected changes that serve to minimize the appearance of changes made.
As of 6/18 the 2018/19 audit is still not completed and is approximately six months late
The best explanation Staff can come up with to date is that it’s the prior Finance Director’s fault. Nearly three years later and running the department as DeWolfe sees fit, with her own hires in charge of the department, and she is still blaming the prior administration for failures resulting from current day actions and decisions…hmm, seems that I’ve heard that somewhere before.
The City Council has put the Finance Commission in a tough position, and I respect the decision you are each faced with today. However, each of you took on an ethical, if not fiduciary, responsibility to the City when accepting appointments to the Finance Commission. That includes not serving as a rubber-stamp committee, and not blindly approving a budget that has been slammed together quickly, without sufficient financial acumen, clearly without quality control checks or procedures, and without the benefit of a completed financial audit that is already inexplicably delayed.
Do the right thing and kick the budget back to Staff to await the completion of the 2018/19 audit.
I apologize for sending this directly to you, and on such short notice before your next commission meeting only a matter of hours from now. However, despite my best efforts to request agenda material information from City Staff with sufficient time to review the materials prior to the meeting as required under the Brown Act, Staff refused to respond to my requests and only saw fit to post the relevant budget materials extremely late in the day. As such, it was impossible to review the financial information provided and develop a coherent analysis prior to the public comment deadline. As a result, I am reaching out to you directly, as I believe the statements made in the Cover Letter in the Finance Commission Agenda Report dated 6/18/20 and provided by Finance Director, Karen Aceves, are materially misrepresentative of the true facts surrounding the financial information provided in both the 5/26 Draft Budget, the 5/29 Draft Budget, the budget presented to the City Council on 6/10 (which was neither the 5/26 nor the 5/29 drafts) and the information posted to the Agenda packet on 6/17 in advance of the 6/18 Finance Commission meeting.
As an overarching comment, the Cover Letter serves to understate the actual volume and magnitude of the changes made between the two drafts – only 3 days apart. In total there were at least 127 changes totaling $14.3 million in adjustments…much more significant than the $50K of “net” changes that Staff represents in the Agenda materials.
Further, without being presented with a full budget in the Agenda materials, it is impossible to tell if the numerous errors, omissions, and questionable assumptions surrounding the prior two drafts of the budget have as yet been corrected.
The only information that is known is this:
On 5/26, Staff presented an incomplete and error riddled budget to the Finance Commission.
On 5/29, Staff provided a vastly different budget in the City Council agenda packet for review, but still riddled with errors
On 6/10, Staff presented a third, different budget. NOT the budget included in City Council Agenda packet, which raises additional Brown Act concerns
On 6/17, Staff presented the Finance Commission with a cherry-picked “subset” of changes made between the 5/26 and 5/29 drafts…but again, has not provided a complete listing of the adjustments made, choosing instead to focus on hand selected changes that serve to minimize the appearance of changes made.
As of 6/18 the 2018/19 audit is still not completed and is approximately six months late
The best explanation Staff can come up with to date is that it’s the prior Finance Director’s fault. Nearly three years later and running the department as DeWolfe sees fit, with her own hires in charge of the department, and she is still blaming the prior administration for failures resulting from current day actions and decisions…hmm, seems that I’ve heard that somewhere before.
The City Council has put the Finance Commission in a tough position, and I respect the decision you are each faced with today. However, each of you took on an ethical, if not fiduciary, responsibility to the City when accepting appointments to the Finance Commission. That includes not serving as a rubber-stamp committee, and not blindly approving a budget that has been slammed together quickly, without sufficient financial acumen, clearly without quality control checks or procedures, and without the benefit of a completed financial audit that is already inexplicably delayed.
Do the right thing and kick the budget back to Staff to await the completion of the 2018/19 audit.
Letter to the City Council from Betty Emirhanian regarding unfair access to city council members during meetings 6-16-20
I watched every minute of the city council meeting on June 10, 2020. It was excruciating to watch. The budget presentation was way too long and didn't cover what the public really wanted to know: What are the cuts being made and how do they affect our residents? The sound quality on Spectrum was horrendous. I hope that the city will address this with Spectrum because it was unwatchable on TV. The city should get its money back.
My main point however is I noticed that at least one council member was receiving information via texts on the phones. This is very concerning. The public is required to write their comments to the city council the day before the meeting yet there are some residents who seemingly have direct access to the city council members in real time. Perhaps the comments were quite innocuous such as the meeting is too long or the sound quality is bad. But the public doesn't know that because these comments are not made public. It is not transparent or fair that some residents have an inside line during the meeting. I hope you will address this and stop this practice or allow everyone to make public comments as the meeting progresses.
I watched every minute of the city council meeting on June 10, 2020. It was excruciating to watch. The budget presentation was way too long and didn't cover what the public really wanted to know: What are the cuts being made and how do they affect our residents? The sound quality on Spectrum was horrendous. I hope that the city will address this with Spectrum because it was unwatchable on TV. The city should get its money back.
My main point however is I noticed that at least one council member was receiving information via texts on the phones. This is very concerning. The public is required to write their comments to the city council the day before the meeting yet there are some residents who seemingly have direct access to the city council members in real time. Perhaps the comments were quite innocuous such as the meeting is too long or the sound quality is bad. But the public doesn't know that because these comments are not made public. It is not transparent or fair that some residents have an inside line during the meeting. I hope you will address this and stop this practice or allow everyone to make public comments as the meeting progresses.
Letter to the Mobility & Transportation Infrastructure Commission from Delaine Shane, Joanne Nuckols, Alan Erlich, Susan Sulsky and a number of other South Pasadena residents 6-15-20
We residents appreciate the recognition of Meridian Avenue in Agenda Item No. 4. However, we need IMMEDIATE relief from the dangerous traffic conditions that we experience daily. Our street has been compromised due to decades of 710 planning and City neglect. Thankfully the 710 is now dead and Public Works has done enough short-term studies. In 2000, the City approved a 3-way stop for Meridian/Oak that was never installed. The TAC at that time recommended approval, but for political reasons by Council, it was never installed (see attachments). That same Council asked for follow up if the problems persisted and would support TAC’s recommendation. We now request that MTIC recommend this signage installation to City Council. More recently, the current City Council requested Public Works to study the intersection at Meridian/Maple. Please recommend the two, three-way stops at Meridian/Oak and Meridian/Maple with related signage warning that stop signs are ahead. Curbs need to be painted red within the zebra crossing at Meridian/Oak to prevent cars from parking within that crossing. A permanent digital speed sign coupled with enforcement would control the speed. Finally, key intersections such as Meridian/Bonita need limited, red painted curbs to ensure that residents have clear sight lines for public safety whether for walking, bicycling, or driving. These simple, cost-effective solutions can do so much now while the results of the Complete Street Project will take years to implement. With over 20 years of worsening traffic, we simply cannot wait any longer.
We residents appreciate the recognition of Meridian Avenue in Agenda Item No. 4. However, we need IMMEDIATE relief from the dangerous traffic conditions that we experience daily. Our street has been compromised due to decades of 710 planning and City neglect. Thankfully the 710 is now dead and Public Works has done enough short-term studies. In 2000, the City approved a 3-way stop for Meridian/Oak that was never installed. The TAC at that time recommended approval, but for political reasons by Council, it was never installed (see attachments). That same Council asked for follow up if the problems persisted and would support TAC’s recommendation. We now request that MTIC recommend this signage installation to City Council. More recently, the current City Council requested Public Works to study the intersection at Meridian/Maple. Please recommend the two, three-way stops at Meridian/Oak and Meridian/Maple with related signage warning that stop signs are ahead. Curbs need to be painted red within the zebra crossing at Meridian/Oak to prevent cars from parking within that crossing. A permanent digital speed sign coupled with enforcement would control the speed. Finally, key intersections such as Meridian/Bonita need limited, red painted curbs to ensure that residents have clear sight lines for public safety whether for walking, bicycling, or driving. These simple, cost-effective solutions can do so much now while the results of the Complete Street Project will take years to implement. With over 20 years of worsening traffic, we simply cannot wait any longer.
Letter to the City Council from the WISPPA board regarding the budget 6-9-20
The WISPPA board would like the city council to address the budget issues raised by Bill Kelly, Josh Betta and a number of other South Pasadena residents who brought these same concerns to the WISPPA board’s attention. Given all the issues swirling around the budget, we think that the city should hold a meeting as soon as possible similar to the Housing Elements meeting where the public can ask questions.
We realize that the budget is a moving target right now and it is our understanding that legally it must pass by June 30. Can the city pass it provisionally and allow the public more input for an updated budget in a month or two? This is especially important because of the issues raised, the budget surveys were inadequate and notifications to the public were confusing.
Thank you for your consideration.
The WISPPA board would like the city council to address the budget issues raised by Bill Kelly, Josh Betta and a number of other South Pasadena residents who brought these same concerns to the WISPPA board’s attention. Given all the issues swirling around the budget, we think that the city should hold a meeting as soon as possible similar to the Housing Elements meeting where the public can ask questions.
We realize that the budget is a moving target right now and it is our understanding that legally it must pass by June 30. Can the city pass it provisionally and allow the public more input for an updated budget in a month or two? This is especially important because of the issues raised, the budget surveys were inadequate and notifications to the public were confusing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Letter to the City Council from the WISPPA board regarding City Council Meetings 6-9-20
The WISPPA board would like to share some concerns regarding city council and commission meetings. While we understand that Covid-19 has forced the city to make a number of changes as to how meetings are held, we feel the public is not being heard in the new format, We appreciate the city changing the number of words for comments to 250, although even that is not enough. The deadline for comments is still the day before the meeting which far from ideal. Often in the past, the public would like to make a comment as the meeting progresses. If you must hold to this deadline, we suggest that the comments submitted the day before be addressed in the meeting. The new format prevents any spontaneity and the whole process feels very one way.
The meetings need to be shorter with key, contentious issues at the beginning of the meeting. City council comments should be at the end.
We have some suggestions we hope you might consider. Hold city council and commission meetings on a platform such as zoom while we are social distancing. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to hold meetings live with social distancing taking place by perhaps having a screen set up (in the courtyard or elsewhere) and then allowing just a few people at a time inside the chamber.
The city needs to improve notification of meetings. Commission meetings are not always posted in an obvious place on the city website. Some meetings are listed on the home page, others not. The city calendar has disappeared which is unfortunate because it was very helpful in looking at what meetings were coming up.
We would like to see the public being able to ask questions at commission meetings as things are discussed. Commissioners are the public’s representatives and should be able to have discussions with the public.
It is vital that the City and City Council make sure that the public voices are heard regardless of whether is it criticism or praise. Please remember that for each person that complains about an issue, there are many more who agree but are silent.
The WISPPA board would like to share some concerns regarding city council and commission meetings. While we understand that Covid-19 has forced the city to make a number of changes as to how meetings are held, we feel the public is not being heard in the new format, We appreciate the city changing the number of words for comments to 250, although even that is not enough. The deadline for comments is still the day before the meeting which far from ideal. Often in the past, the public would like to make a comment as the meeting progresses. If you must hold to this deadline, we suggest that the comments submitted the day before be addressed in the meeting. The new format prevents any spontaneity and the whole process feels very one way.
The meetings need to be shorter with key, contentious issues at the beginning of the meeting. City council comments should be at the end.
We have some suggestions we hope you might consider. Hold city council and commission meetings on a platform such as zoom while we are social distancing. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to hold meetings live with social distancing taking place by perhaps having a screen set up (in the courtyard or elsewhere) and then allowing just a few people at a time inside the chamber.
The city needs to improve notification of meetings. Commission meetings are not always posted in an obvious place on the city website. Some meetings are listed on the home page, others not. The city calendar has disappeared which is unfortunate because it was very helpful in looking at what meetings were coming up.
We would like to see the public being able to ask questions at commission meetings as things are discussed. Commissioners are the public’s representatives and should be able to have discussions with the public.
It is vital that the City and City Council make sure that the public voices are heard regardless of whether is it criticism or praise. Please remember that for each person that complains about an issue, there are many more who agree but are silent.
Letter to the City Council from Bianca Richards 6-6-20 Topic: Focus on budget in council meeting
I am writing to you all to express my concerns in regards to the ordering of the Agenda. I was dismayed that Item # 17. Presentation of Draft Budget for Review Prior to Adoption of June 17 was the VERY LAST ITEM. This is such an important issue and should not be at the very end. I was so happy that the June 3rd meeting was postponed to June 10th and hopefully the Agenda can be reordered.
Also, the meetings are too long to begin with and the Coronavirus Update and Discussion could really be shortened -so much is repeated information. The meetings need to focus on city issues and maybe even the Councilmembers Communications should only pertain to real city issues and not PR fluff to make members look good. You know that I attend many meetings in person and do stay to the end and can’t believe that important decision making is happening so late at night. Now that the meetings are virtual I am watching long into evenings and it is so much worse due to the nature of the technology. At times it is painful to watch you all. Please reorder Agendas when appropriate and especially the postponed meeting from June 3rd to June 10 so that the Budget has full attention early in the evening.
I am writing to you all to express my concerns in regards to the ordering of the Agenda. I was dismayed that Item # 17. Presentation of Draft Budget for Review Prior to Adoption of June 17 was the VERY LAST ITEM. This is such an important issue and should not be at the very end. I was so happy that the June 3rd meeting was postponed to June 10th and hopefully the Agenda can be reordered.
Also, the meetings are too long to begin with and the Coronavirus Update and Discussion could really be shortened -so much is repeated information. The meetings need to focus on city issues and maybe even the Councilmembers Communications should only pertain to real city issues and not PR fluff to make members look good. You know that I attend many meetings in person and do stay to the end and can’t believe that important decision making is happening so late at night. Now that the meetings are virtual I am watching long into evenings and it is so much worse due to the nature of the technology. At times it is painful to watch you all. Please reorder Agendas when appropriate and especially the postponed meeting from June 3rd to June 10 so that the Budget has full attention early in the evening.
Letter to the City Council from Delaine Shane 6-5-20 Topic: PAUSE to the budget process
I personally know each of you. Two of you I have known since before we all retired from MWD. For God’s sake and for the financial stability of our community, as recommend by the Josh Betta financial review report, PLEASE put an immediate PAUSE to the budget process through a Resolution of Continuing Appropriations, take heed of Mr. Betta’s recommendations, and request an in depth audit to be conducted by the California State Auditor. It will be a difficult journey, but a vital one for the future of our community and our children. Your unswerving leadership has never been so critical as it must be now. Please consider the community over politics and naysayers.
I personally know each of you. Two of you I have known since before we all retired from MWD. For God’s sake and for the financial stability of our community, as recommend by the Josh Betta financial review report, PLEASE put an immediate PAUSE to the budget process through a Resolution of Continuing Appropriations, take heed of Mr. Betta’s recommendations, and request an in depth audit to be conducted by the California State Auditor. It will be a difficult journey, but a vital one for the future of our community and our children. Your unswerving leadership has never been so critical as it must be now. Please consider the community over politics and naysayers.
Joanne Nuckols 62-2-20 Topic: The Budget and the Cutting and Possible Outsourcing of Community Services
It appears on the proposed budgets that the Community Services Dept is being drastically cut if not eliminated with part-time staff on furlough currently and the possibility of the services being outsourced to the YMCA. Is this what we really want in South Pasadena without even trying to figure out a more creative solution post pandemic? If the city outsources to the YMCA, or some other entity how hard will it be to go back in a year of two or three to some semblance of what we had pre-pandemic...very hard if not impossible?
South Pasadena has been an incorporated city for 132 years, one of the oldest in LA County. We have survived all sorts of problems, large, think stopping the 710, and small, and always figured out how to maintain our small town character. Being a family oriented city is part of our identity and the city operated Community Services Dept an integral part of that identity and should be maintained as such.
It appears on the proposed budgets that the Community Services Dept is being drastically cut if not eliminated with part-time staff on furlough currently and the possibility of the services being outsourced to the YMCA. Is this what we really want in South Pasadena without even trying to figure out a more creative solution post pandemic? If the city outsources to the YMCA, or some other entity how hard will it be to go back in a year of two or three to some semblance of what we had pre-pandemic...very hard if not impossible?
South Pasadena has been an incorporated city for 132 years, one of the oldest in LA County. We have survived all sorts of problems, large, think stopping the 710, and small, and always figured out how to maintain our small town character. Being a family oriented city is part of our identity and the city operated Community Services Dept an integral part of that identity and should be maintained as such.
Letters to the Mayor and Council Members Topic: Contract to perform Survey
Delaine Shane 6-3-20
Why are our taxpayers’ dollars being wasted on this contract? Just because it has “always” been done that way for the UUT is not applicable to the current situation. Your discretionary money is still OUR taxpayers’ monies.
And then to load it with the controversial building height and bed tax too? Don’t you believe in the ongoing planning process? Whatever is established during the remainder of the general plan and specific plan updates, the form-based development code, and the EIR, along with the housing element, is the only way to proceed that is inclusive for all the residents. I believe in and fully support our Planning Director and Manager of Economic Development to do their jobs and usher in this ongoing planning process in partnership and collaboration with us, the residents. We all want the same thing, a healthy and vibrant small town community that cares about all its citizens and local businesses.
Paying off yet another consultant to “package” an array of pet projects by certain individuals at City Hall is simply the wrong approach.
VOTE NO tonight on Agenda Items 11 and 14. Thank you.
Ron Rosen on 6-2-20
I oppose your spending any money (discretionary or otherwise) to pay a consultant to look into removing the city’s 45 foot building height limit. Apparently this consultant specializes in helping cities get ballot proposals passed. If you vote for this, you’re voting to remove the height limit, no matter how you try to spin it. If you’re running for reelection, do you really want to face the voters having voted to put this on the ballot? We learned at the Housing Element workshop that it’s premature to be talking about removing height limits. What’s appears to be going on here is that those of you who seem to want very aggressive development are laying the groundwork for that and using the housing element as an excuse. Was this ever discussed publicly? Did this arise from an interested public? No, it arises from a few who appear more interested in doing what they want and not what the public wants. Let’s have some transparency. Tell us what your real agenda is. “Developers are waiting” is what we heard from one of you not long ago. This city successfully fought a freeway for 70 years. You need to find ways to work with the state without destroying the character of our town instead of wringing your hands and telling us what we must do. Doing away with height limits should be a last resort, not a first step.
Joanne Nuckols 6-2-20
Again, I am against the city council authorizing $24,950 to be spend for a professional poll, in particular, because the subjects to be polled have changed. It’s a classic bait and switch.
First it was the UUT, now complicated/complex subjects are added that need a lot of explanation like raising the voter imposed height limit, which is very controversial, and a "bed tax" which will no doubt muddy the fairly "clean" issue of extending the UUT, if all placed on the ballot at the same time.
Given this once in a lifetime COVID crisis resulting in financial challenges and economic uncertainties, the rule books have been thrown out the window. Information from a traditional poll, whether push or other wise, will be out dated the minute it’s completed.
No-cost/little-cost ideas to solicit meaningful opinions that would be more representative of South Pasadena's citizens thoughts on these issues rather than a push poll are:
1. Each council person have a virtual town hall meeting in their district.
2. Solicit input from the memberships of the local organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary, WISPPA, SPPF, Neighborhood Watch, Chamber of Commerce, SPARC, PTAs, etc.
It's just bad optics to be spending $25K unnecessarily at this time. Any council person running for reelection and voting for this push poll with a highly controversial issue like eliminating the height limit, which could allow for over development in South Pasadena, will have to own the issue whether it’s put on the ballot or not.
Félix F. Gutiérrez, Ph.D." 6-2-20
I would like to express my strong opposition to the City of South Pasadena paying for a survey on a proposed ballot measure to eliminate or increase the existing height limit on buildings in the city.
Those favoring the survey or ballot measure because of their concerns about the height limit should exercise their First Amendment right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances' and express themselves to city officials by gathering signatures on a petition they pay for and circulate. As I learned in South Pasadena Junior High School decades ago, this is a constitutionally-protected way to express public opinion to government leaders. It has been used in South Pasadena before and should be used again.
Rather than committing our financially-strained city to devote scarce resources for what may become a pre-election campaign survey disguised as a public opinion study, I strongly urge you not to approve this unnecessary expenditure. Advocates for changing the law have other avenues provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thank You for Your Consideration.
Why are our taxpayers’ dollars being wasted on this contract? Just because it has “always” been done that way for the UUT is not applicable to the current situation. Your discretionary money is still OUR taxpayers’ monies.
And then to load it with the controversial building height and bed tax too? Don’t you believe in the ongoing planning process? Whatever is established during the remainder of the general plan and specific plan updates, the form-based development code, and the EIR, along with the housing element, is the only way to proceed that is inclusive for all the residents. I believe in and fully support our Planning Director and Manager of Economic Development to do their jobs and usher in this ongoing planning process in partnership and collaboration with us, the residents. We all want the same thing, a healthy and vibrant small town community that cares about all its citizens and local businesses.
Paying off yet another consultant to “package” an array of pet projects by certain individuals at City Hall is simply the wrong approach.
VOTE NO tonight on Agenda Items 11 and 14. Thank you.
Ron Rosen on 6-2-20
I oppose your spending any money (discretionary or otherwise) to pay a consultant to look into removing the city’s 45 foot building height limit. Apparently this consultant specializes in helping cities get ballot proposals passed. If you vote for this, you’re voting to remove the height limit, no matter how you try to spin it. If you’re running for reelection, do you really want to face the voters having voted to put this on the ballot? We learned at the Housing Element workshop that it’s premature to be talking about removing height limits. What’s appears to be going on here is that those of you who seem to want very aggressive development are laying the groundwork for that and using the housing element as an excuse. Was this ever discussed publicly? Did this arise from an interested public? No, it arises from a few who appear more interested in doing what they want and not what the public wants. Let’s have some transparency. Tell us what your real agenda is. “Developers are waiting” is what we heard from one of you not long ago. This city successfully fought a freeway for 70 years. You need to find ways to work with the state without destroying the character of our town instead of wringing your hands and telling us what we must do. Doing away with height limits should be a last resort, not a first step.
Joanne Nuckols 6-2-20
Again, I am against the city council authorizing $24,950 to be spend for a professional poll, in particular, because the subjects to be polled have changed. It’s a classic bait and switch.
First it was the UUT, now complicated/complex subjects are added that need a lot of explanation like raising the voter imposed height limit, which is very controversial, and a "bed tax" which will no doubt muddy the fairly "clean" issue of extending the UUT, if all placed on the ballot at the same time.
Given this once in a lifetime COVID crisis resulting in financial challenges and economic uncertainties, the rule books have been thrown out the window. Information from a traditional poll, whether push or other wise, will be out dated the minute it’s completed.
No-cost/little-cost ideas to solicit meaningful opinions that would be more representative of South Pasadena's citizens thoughts on these issues rather than a push poll are:
1. Each council person have a virtual town hall meeting in their district.
2. Solicit input from the memberships of the local organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary, WISPPA, SPPF, Neighborhood Watch, Chamber of Commerce, SPARC, PTAs, etc.
It's just bad optics to be spending $25K unnecessarily at this time. Any council person running for reelection and voting for this push poll with a highly controversial issue like eliminating the height limit, which could allow for over development in South Pasadena, will have to own the issue whether it’s put on the ballot or not.
Félix F. Gutiérrez, Ph.D." 6-2-20
I would like to express my strong opposition to the City of South Pasadena paying for a survey on a proposed ballot measure to eliminate or increase the existing height limit on buildings in the city.
Those favoring the survey or ballot measure because of their concerns about the height limit should exercise their First Amendment right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances' and express themselves to city officials by gathering signatures on a petition they pay for and circulate. As I learned in South Pasadena Junior High School decades ago, this is a constitutionally-protected way to express public opinion to government leaders. It has been used in South Pasadena before and should be used again.
Rather than committing our financially-strained city to devote scarce resources for what may become a pre-election campaign survey disguised as a public opinion study, I strongly urge you not to approve this unnecessary expenditure. Advocates for changing the law have other avenues provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thank You for Your Consideration.
Joanne Nuckols 6-2-20 Topic Use of funds for 110 loop ramp drawing.
I support the use of $6,000 of Councilman Schneider's discretionary funds for a first cut scaled drawing of a 110 loop ramp, a variation on the hook ramp. A sketch of this variation has been discussed for the last three years at combined meetings of the Transportation and Public Works Commission and unanimously recommended to be funded on several occasions.
As an original member of the DAG, along with Mayor Joe, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Cacciotti and John Vandercook, we spend countless hours discussing and years shepherding this project and others through the Caltrans/FHWA process. In the end, the hook ramp project was not completed because of a lack of funds.
The funds are available now through Metro, this project is in the Final 710 EIR Preferred Alternative TSM/TDM, prominent in the Statement Of Overriding Considerations and "on the books" with all the agencies. It is time to move it along. Additionally, this variation has the potential to have less impact to the historic Arroyo Seco Parkway. Facilitating this first cut scaled drawing is the first step towards serious consideration of this variation.
I support the use of $6,000 of Councilman Schneider's discretionary funds for a first cut scaled drawing of a 110 loop ramp, a variation on the hook ramp. A sketch of this variation has been discussed for the last three years at combined meetings of the Transportation and Public Works Commission and unanimously recommended to be funded on several occasions.
As an original member of the DAG, along with Mayor Joe, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Cacciotti and John Vandercook, we spend countless hours discussing and years shepherding this project and others through the Caltrans/FHWA process. In the end, the hook ramp project was not completed because of a lack of funds.
The funds are available now through Metro, this project is in the Final 710 EIR Preferred Alternative TSM/TDM, prominent in the Statement Of Overriding Considerations and "on the books" with all the agencies. It is time to move it along. Additionally, this variation has the potential to have less impact to the historic Arroyo Seco Parkway. Facilitating this first cut scaled drawing is the first step towards serious consideration of this variation.
Below are letters and comments regarding the postponement of the city council meeting on 6-3-20
Letter to the Mayor and Council from Anne Bagasao 6-3-20:
At a time when our city facing a budget crisis, the cowardly cancelling the people's voices is a breach of our democracy.
Those kids outside are trying to participate in the process and you five are too afraid to face them on a Zoom call from the comfort of your homes?
How embarrassing for all of you and our city.
At a time when our city facing a budget crisis, the cowardly cancelling the people's voices is a breach of our democracy.
Those kids outside are trying to participate in the process and you five are too afraid to face them on a Zoom call from the comfort of your homes?
How embarrassing for all of you and our city.
Comment by Betty Emirhanian: Sorry I don't agree with you. If there is a countywide curfew, the city should not be asking employees to break that curfew. The meeting is being delayed by one week, it is not being cancelled.
Comment from Delaine Shane: I just read your response to Anne regarding the postponing of the Council meeting. This is where true democracy resides, a real discussion. So, no need to apologize! I’ll just jump in with my two cents worth.
At most, there probably needs to be two or possibly three City employees onsite. One would be Maria, one whoever is the IT expert, and perhaps one more. The council chambers are right next door to the Police Department. Everyone else is sheltered in place. City manager is at home, department managers, special managers, are all at home. It’s a Zoom meeting after all. There is no evidence that South Pasadena is a target. We have no big box, expensive retailers—just ACE and the grocery stores, which by the way is not as much of a message of white privilege as burning and looting upscale retail found in the likes of Beverly Hills. The protests that have occurred at Fair Oaks and Mission are really quite tame/polite when compared to those held in the inner cities, downtowns, and upscale communities. As far as I know, no violence has occurred in residential areas—they are looting and destroying expensive retail stores. Those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted. No excuse. However, the two or three employees could easily be escorted to their cars by the police and have a motorcycle officer follow them on their way out. The curfew does not affect those essential employees coming or going from work. And people are driving home on the freeway at all hours of the night—because the reality is that people work far from their homes—it’s all about affordability.
Given that the council in the past has skipped having meetings and then later cramming in more agenda items that have to be rushed through due to poor planning, it is getting to be too much. The discussions are less thoughtful, the rhetoric is high, and some of the officials are marginalizing people who voice dissent. It breaks my heart to see all this dissention and argumentativeness, when with a measured and open and listening approach for all, we could work through our differences. So, please understand that I really feel the same way as Anne.
At most, there probably needs to be two or possibly three City employees onsite. One would be Maria, one whoever is the IT expert, and perhaps one more. The council chambers are right next door to the Police Department. Everyone else is sheltered in place. City manager is at home, department managers, special managers, are all at home. It’s a Zoom meeting after all. There is no evidence that South Pasadena is a target. We have no big box, expensive retailers—just ACE and the grocery stores, which by the way is not as much of a message of white privilege as burning and looting upscale retail found in the likes of Beverly Hills. The protests that have occurred at Fair Oaks and Mission are really quite tame/polite when compared to those held in the inner cities, downtowns, and upscale communities. As far as I know, no violence has occurred in residential areas—they are looting and destroying expensive retail stores. Those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted. No excuse. However, the two or three employees could easily be escorted to their cars by the police and have a motorcycle officer follow them on their way out. The curfew does not affect those essential employees coming or going from work. And people are driving home on the freeway at all hours of the night—because the reality is that people work far from their homes—it’s all about affordability.
Given that the council in the past has skipped having meetings and then later cramming in more agenda items that have to be rushed through due to poor planning, it is getting to be too much. The discussions are less thoughtful, the rhetoric is high, and some of the officials are marginalizing people who voice dissent. It breaks my heart to see all this dissention and argumentativeness, when with a measured and open and listening approach for all, we could work through our differences. So, please understand that I really feel the same way as Anne.
Comment from William Kelly: Government will have to figure out how to continue to function. As I've mentioned, when supplemental unemployment payments run out at the end of this month, conditions are likely to deteriorate further. Zoom meetings can be run from any home computer and meetings shown on facebook or other platforms, like Youtube. There's no magic in the local cable channel, which as I understand it is why staff has to be at city hall.
Comment from Joanne Nuckols: Great suggestions about having the meeting earlier in the day. That's what other cities are doing. You nailed the reason for the continuance to June 10. Staff that has to be at city hall would have to go home after curfew starts and not be safe.
Comment from Anne Bagasao: Now is not the time to be afraid. It's time for them to be leaders. And we may very well be on curfew next week as well.
What I was told is that is that they don't want Ortiz to be distracted with the council meeting in case the boogie man shows up in South Pas tonight.
I have to say that I marvel at the optimism of South Pasadenans that they think this is going to be over next week.They clearly have not been listening.
What I was told is that is that they don't want Ortiz to be distracted with the council meeting in case the boogie man shows up in South Pas tonight.
I have to say that I marvel at the optimism of South Pasadenans that they think this is going to be over next week.They clearly have not been listening.
Letter to the City Council from Ron Rosen on 6/2-20 Topic
I oppose your spending any money (discretionary or otherwise) to pay a consultant to look into removing the city’s 45 foot building height limit. Apparently this consultant specializes in helping cities get ballot proposals passed. If you vote for this, you’re voting to remove the height limit, no matter how you try to spin it. If you’re running for reelection, do you really want to face the voters having voted to put this on the ballot? We learned at the Housing Element workshop that it’s premature to be talking about removing height limits. What’s appears to be going on here is that those of you who seem to want very aggressive development are laying the groundwork for that and using the housing element as an excuse. Was this ever discussed publicly? Did this arise from an interested public? No, it arises from a few who appear more interested in doing what they want and not what the public wants. Let’s have some transparency. Tell us what your real agenda is. “Developers are waiting” is what we heard from one of you not long ago. This city successfully fought a freeway for 70 years. You need to find ways to work with the state without destroying the character of our town instead of wringing your hands and telling us what we must do. Doing away with height limits should be a last resort, not a first step.
I oppose your spending any money (discretionary or otherwise) to pay a consultant to look into removing the city’s 45 foot building height limit. Apparently this consultant specializes in helping cities get ballot proposals passed. If you vote for this, you’re voting to remove the height limit, no matter how you try to spin it. If you’re running for reelection, do you really want to face the voters having voted to put this on the ballot? We learned at the Housing Element workshop that it’s premature to be talking about removing height limits. What’s appears to be going on here is that those of you who seem to want very aggressive development are laying the groundwork for that and using the housing element as an excuse. Was this ever discussed publicly? Did this arise from an interested public? No, it arises from a few who appear more interested in doing what they want and not what the public wants. Let’s have some transparency. Tell us what your real agenda is. “Developers are waiting” is what we heard from one of you not long ago. This city successfully fought a freeway for 70 years. You need to find ways to work with the state without destroying the character of our town instead of wringing your hands and telling us what we must do. Doing away with height limits should be a last resort, not a first step.
Letter to the City Council from Dean Serwin on 6/2/20 Topic: Removing a traffic lane on Mission to provide for pocket-parks and al fresco dining.
Even before the Covid-19 issues, I thought the revised Mission Street Plan should strongly consider removing a traffic lane on Mission to provide for pocket-parks and al fresco dining.
Given the Covid-19 restrictions, the City should take all possible action to allow for both al fresco dining, and open air sales by businesses.
Please feel free to read this comment during the meeting; I was encouraged to write it after learning of item 16 thanks to the weekly email update from WISPPA.
Even before the Covid-19 issues, I thought the revised Mission Street Plan should strongly consider removing a traffic lane on Mission to provide for pocket-parks and al fresco dining.
Given the Covid-19 restrictions, the City should take all possible action to allow for both al fresco dining, and open air sales by businesses.
Please feel free to read this comment during the meeting; I was encouraged to write it after learning of item 16 thanks to the weekly email update from WISPPA.
|
Letter to the SouthPasadenan from Ron Rosen 6/1/20 Topic: Building Height over 45 ft.
In 1982, it was proposed that the two buildings shown below be built on Fair Oaks Avenue where the Pollo Loco strip mall and the large brown office building next to it at 625 Fair Oaks are now. In response, in 1983 the citizens of South Pasadena passed an ordinance preventing any building from exceeding 45 feet in height. At this Wednesday's meeting, the City Council will vote on whether to fund a "study" about putting a proposal to remove that height limit on the ballot. It appears that part of what the consultant will do is develop strategies for getting you and me to vote for removing the height limit. If you have concerns about the over-development that some in city government appear to be seeking, let the City Council know that you don't want your tax money (discretionary or not) spent on putting this matter on the ballot. One of the rationales offered for removing height limits is new state-mandated housing requirements. For a city that successfully fought the state over a freeway for 70 years, those on the Council who aren't inclined to stand up to the state regarding over-development should be ashamed of themselves. |
|
Letter from Betty Emirhanian 5-19-20 Topic: Budget Process
Dear City Council,
I appreciate the City asking residents to give input on the budget through the budget survey. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in the survey itself. The different categories were at such a high level that one could not realistically allocate between them. Each spending category should have had a few subcategories. The survey assumes that every aspect of each department or category is equally important and critical. Although I fully support our police and fire departments, are there some things that could be done differently? The overhead section surely has some components that we might be willing to live without. It would have been helpful to know how much of each category we are legally obligated to spend and how much can be managed. You are basically asking whether the city should continue providing all the services or not. It really did not ask for our advice on priorities.
Dear City Council,
I appreciate the City asking residents to give input on the budget through the budget survey. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in the survey itself. The different categories were at such a high level that one could not realistically allocate between them. Each spending category should have had a few subcategories. The survey assumes that every aspect of each department or category is equally important and critical. Although I fully support our police and fire departments, are there some things that could be done differently? The overhead section surely has some components that we might be willing to live without. It would have been helpful to know how much of each category we are legally obligated to spend and how much can be managed. You are basically asking whether the city should continue providing all the services or not. It really did not ask for our advice on priorities.
Letter from Delaine Shane 5-18-20 Topic: Budget Process
Dear City Council:
Regarding the 2020/2021 budget process, I have two comments. First, to arbitrarily set dollar amounts to each department misses the intent of this exercise. To make informed recommendations, list the costliest programs that contribute to each department’s budget and what their percentages to the budget are. Residents can then rate the importance of such programs directly.
Second, the Finance Department presented one scenario concerning budget shortfalls. Consider a range of percentage losses for an even worse scenario. For example, expect more delayed payments on property taxes. It takes up to five years of non-payment of property taxes before the County can seize that delinquent property. Decreases in sales taxes and user fees may be greater than predicted. Some local business and residents may not be able to rebound from this financial crisis, especially those that were struggling financially even before the pandemic, including renters, minorities, seniors, and undocumented workers.
Dear City Council:
Regarding the 2020/2021 budget process, I have two comments. First, to arbitrarily set dollar amounts to each department misses the intent of this exercise. To make informed recommendations, list the costliest programs that contribute to each department’s budget and what their percentages to the budget are. Residents can then rate the importance of such programs directly.
Second, the Finance Department presented one scenario concerning budget shortfalls. Consider a range of percentage losses for an even worse scenario. For example, expect more delayed payments on property taxes. It takes up to five years of non-payment of property taxes before the County can seize that delinquent property. Decreases in sales taxes and user fees may be greater than predicted. Some local business and residents may not be able to rebound from this financial crisis, especially those that were struggling financially even before the pandemic, including renters, minorities, seniors, and undocumented workers.
Letter from Betty Emirhanian 5-19-20 Topic: 150 Word limit
Dear City Council,
Having just written my 1st letter regarding the budget to the city council since the implementation of virtual meetings and the 150 word limit on comments, I have to agree with the previous residents who complained about that word limit. Residents are not being allowed to fully explain their position in one short paragraph. We have gone from 3 minutes of verbal comments to the equivalent of one minute. I feel this is unacceptable. Has the city given thought to allowing residents to record their statements?
Dear City Council,
Having just written my 1st letter regarding the budget to the city council since the implementation of virtual meetings and the 150 word limit on comments, I have to agree with the previous residents who complained about that word limit. Residents are not being allowed to fully explain their position in one short paragraph. We have gone from 3 minutes of verbal comments to the equivalent of one minute. I feel this is unacceptable. Has the city given thought to allowing residents to record their statements?
Letter from Joanne Nuckols 5-5-20 Topic: Legislative Advocate
I am against the expenditure of any money for a lobbyist at this time. Our State representatives Assemblyman Holden and Senator Portantino are doing an excellent job of advocating for our city and given the severe financial climate that we all find our selves in, it would be an unwise expense at this time.
I am against the expenditure of any money for a lobbyist at this time. Our State representatives Assemblyman Holden and Senator Portantino are doing an excellent job of advocating for our city and given the severe financial climate that we all find our selves in, it would be an unwise expense at this time.
Letter from Joanne Nuckols 5-5-20 Topic: PSA for a professional poll concerning a future UUT.
I am against the city council authorizing $24,950 to be spend for a PSA for a professional poll concerning a future UUT. Given this once in a lifetime COVID crisis resulting in financial challenges and economic uncertainties, there are much better fiscally responsible ways for the city council to gauge the "understanding of residents' opinions, priorities and preferences."
Some possible no-cost/little-cost ideas to solicit real opinions would be more representative of South Pasadena's citizens thoughts on continuing UUT than a push poll:
1. Each council person have a virtual town hall meeting in their district.
2. Solicit input from the memberships of the local organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary, WISPPA, SPPF, Neighborhood Watch, Chamber of Commerce, SPARC, PTAs, etc.
3. Utilize the information recently solicited by the city on the City Budget via Scoop.
4. Consult with the last UUT support committee as to their ideas for information gathering.
It's just bad optics to be spending $25K unnecessarily at this time.
Thank you for your consideration.
I am against the city council authorizing $24,950 to be spend for a PSA for a professional poll concerning a future UUT. Given this once in a lifetime COVID crisis resulting in financial challenges and economic uncertainties, there are much better fiscally responsible ways for the city council to gauge the "understanding of residents' opinions, priorities and preferences."
Some possible no-cost/little-cost ideas to solicit real opinions would be more representative of South Pasadena's citizens thoughts on continuing UUT than a push poll:
1. Each council person have a virtual town hall meeting in their district.
2. Solicit input from the memberships of the local organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary, WISPPA, SPPF, Neighborhood Watch, Chamber of Commerce, SPARC, PTAs, etc.
3. Utilize the information recently solicited by the city on the City Budget via Scoop.
4. Consult with the last UUT support committee as to their ideas for information gathering.
It's just bad optics to be spending $25K unnecessarily at this time.
Thank you for your consideration.
Letter from Delaine Shane 5-4-20 Topic: Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with True North Research, Inc.
Dear City Council:
Please vote NO on Item No. 18. Our City needs to reign in expenses and not continue generating these types of agreements.
FYI, part of the agreement’s purpose stated on page 2 of the staff report is copied directly from True North Research’s website1. So, it’s only proper to let you know what the last two sentences are in that same paragraph: “True North has designed and conducted more than 350 such studies and has the highest verifiable success rate in California since 2008 (96%), with a 100% success rate since 2016 (72 wins/72 measures recommended for ballot). To date, True North has helped its clients raise over $30 billion in voter-approved bonds, taxes, and assessments.”
So, is this agreement to gauge the residents’ opinions without bias or is it to influence and lobby for an outcome of the UUT irrespective of the residents’ opinions?
Dear City Council:
Please vote NO on Item No. 18. Our City needs to reign in expenses and not continue generating these types of agreements.
FYI, part of the agreement’s purpose stated on page 2 of the staff report is copied directly from True North Research’s website1. So, it’s only proper to let you know what the last two sentences are in that same paragraph: “True North has designed and conducted more than 350 such studies and has the highest verifiable success rate in California since 2008 (96%), with a 100% success rate since 2016 (72 wins/72 measures recommended for ballot). To date, True North has helped its clients raise over $30 billion in voter-approved bonds, taxes, and assessments.”
So, is this agreement to gauge the residents’ opinions without bias or is it to influence and lobby for an outcome of the UUT irrespective of the residents’ opinions?
Submitted by Anne Bagasao 5-5-20: The South Pasadena Tenants Union has reviewed the City Manager's recommended update to the March 18 Eviction Ban ordinance.
We urge the council and community not to support this ordinance in Agenda Item # 13.
We urge the council and community not to support this ordinance in Agenda Item # 13.
- The original eviction moratorium passed March 18th was a good-faith measure to protect renters when no such measures were available. The measure before the council tonight is a sneak attack on renters that affords them fewer protections than they would receive under the expanded county measure currently in place, including 12 months to catch up on missed rent payments.
- Tonight's so-called renter protections are in fact landlord protections that run counter to the spirit of protecting the most vulnerable in time of health crisis and attendant economic downturn.
- Tonight's measure contains draconian certification requirements that include disclosing to one's landlord the most sensitive personal information, such as medical records and bank statements. The county makes no such demand.
- If the City Council truly wishes to protect tenants during this crisis, it will sunset the eviction protections passed March 18th and allow those of Los Angeles County to take effect.
Letter from Delaine Shane 4-14-20 Topic: 150 word limit
Dear City Council:
Please do not approve the first amendment to the RMG contract (Agenda Item 14) for interim public information officer services. I have provided detailed reasons in my original email sent to you. I hope that you have had the opportunity to skim it if not read it. That email exceeds the 150-word limit.
Indeed, I am wondering why public comment is limited to just 150 words? Usually public comments are three minutes per person. Accordingly, the number of words allotted would therefore be roughly 390 words (assuming 130 words per minute). So, why has our public comment become limited to just slightly over one minute? If this coronavirus pandemic persists in closing the City Council meetings to the public, please reconsider the word limit of the emails to be read out loud.
Stay safe and healthy. Thank you.
Dear City Council:
Please do not approve the first amendment to the RMG contract (Agenda Item 14) for interim public information officer services. I have provided detailed reasons in my original email sent to you. I hope that you have had the opportunity to skim it if not read it. That email exceeds the 150-word limit.
Indeed, I am wondering why public comment is limited to just 150 words? Usually public comments are three minutes per person. Accordingly, the number of words allotted would therefore be roughly 390 words (assuming 130 words per minute). So, why has our public comment become limited to just slightly over one minute? If this coronavirus pandemic persists in closing the City Council meetings to the public, please reconsider the word limit of the emails to be read out loud.
Stay safe and healthy. Thank you.
Letter from Delaine Shane 4-21-20 Topic: City Budget
Dear Finance Committee:
Gabriel Petek, California Legislative Analyst, told the state’s Senate Budget Committee to prepare for a projected state deficit of up to $35 billion this year and $85 billion in future fiscal years. California Franchise Tax Board has received a “trickle” of April cash payments compared to last year.
You should expect property tax revenues not to be stable but to decrease substantially, the UUT may not be successfully renewed unless the City gets its finances in order starting with a thorough review of all contracts less than $25,000. Sales tax revenue will plummet unless the City and its residents can support and find relief for local businesses now struggling. User and other fees have been regressive recently to those least likely to afford them.
What about coordination with the school’s finance committee?
Recommend moving budget outreach to just after the state’s revised budget in mid-May.
Thank you.
Dear Finance Committee:
Gabriel Petek, California Legislative Analyst, told the state’s Senate Budget Committee to prepare for a projected state deficit of up to $35 billion this year and $85 billion in future fiscal years. California Franchise Tax Board has received a “trickle” of April cash payments compared to last year.
You should expect property tax revenues not to be stable but to decrease substantially, the UUT may not be successfully renewed unless the City gets its finances in order starting with a thorough review of all contracts less than $25,000. Sales tax revenue will plummet unless the City and its residents can support and find relief for local businesses now struggling. User and other fees have been regressive recently to those least likely to afford them.
What about coordination with the school’s finance committee?
Recommend moving budget outreach to just after the state’s revised budget in mid-May.
Thank you.
Letter from Delaine Shane 4-14-20 Topic: RMG contract/Interim Public Information Officer Services
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I am absolutely grateful that our infection rate is relatively low and that our community has not yet experienced (and hopefully never will) COVID-19 deaths.
That said, I am against approving the first amendment to the RMG contract (Agenda Item 14) for interim public information officer services.
Our community brand has suffered:
Anecdotally, on NextDoor, residents from neighboring but outside communities have visited our area and have commented on the lack of mask wearers. Notwithstanding the mixed messages from public officials of when to wear the face masks, many on that social platform speak of South Pasadena residents as selfish and entitled. Where is our PIO to correct them and state the official policy in South Pasadena?
When the edict came down to allow restaurants, cafes, and pubs to serve only take out or delivery, at least one local business chose to stay open allowing for no social distancing inside its dining premises on St. Patrick’s Day. This encounter led to the incident being broadcast not only locally and regionally, but also nationally. Social media went into overdrive on what took place and assigning blame. Where was the interim PIO to provide a clear and measured response?
Aside from City services, there has been an incredible outpouring of community activities by our neighbors, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations. Why hasn’t the interim PIO provided links to these incredible and selfless individuals and organizations like WISPPA, Dudes, PTSA, Women’s Club, Holy Family Church, etc.? As a small town, having each other’s back is what it is all about. Not just compartmentalizing City services and ignoring the rest. By not broadcasting these non-City efforts, it looks as though we as a community are doing very little.
Our City government services are minimal and confusing:
Just what is the role and responsibility of the Director of Emergency Services? The interim PIO needs to get the word out. Absolutely, we are so grateful for our first responders: police, fire fighters, and paramedics. But, when looking online under Management Services, there is nothing about the Director of Emergency Services.
What is the role of the Public Safety Commission during this crisis? It appears that the City management has kept this vital commission in the dark for some time now. Why?
Daily communications from the City should be paramount. Much appreciation goes to the South Pasadena Unified School District for their almost daily communications to us parents with school age children. And that’s without a PIO. What purpose and end results do we the taxpayers get with relying on the services of the interim PIO?
Not everyone receives the new e-announcement, the Pulse. Why hasn’t the PIO made every effort to get the word out on this new communique?
Whatever happened to the City Manager’s blog that I was told last year by our then Mayor was to be rolled out? Shouldn’t that be providing updates on the Covid-19 as related to our community, including how we can help local businesses?
What Twitter and Facebook messages have been sent to keep residents apprised of specifically South Pasadena and not the regional, state, and federal announcements (which I can follow on my own account very easily)?
What about stories circulating about rent increases during this time? Shouldn’t the PIO be providing useful information for worried tenants?
I have gotten more local information from the South Pasadenan and the South Pasadena Review than from the PIO’s announcements.
Therefore, from what I have experienced and read, I am against the approval of Agenda Item 14.
Given that every critical decision made by the Council appears to be based on county and state decisions and guidance, we should not continue subsidizing a PR professional in Fallbrook. Let’s rely on an experienced City staff person to communicate the basic guidelines and specifics for South Pasadena. Let’s keep the money to improve South Pasadena in South Pasadena and not pay an outside consultant to provide generic stuff that we can already get elsewhere.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I am absolutely grateful that our infection rate is relatively low and that our community has not yet experienced (and hopefully never will) COVID-19 deaths.
That said, I am against approving the first amendment to the RMG contract (Agenda Item 14) for interim public information officer services.
Our community brand has suffered:
Anecdotally, on NextDoor, residents from neighboring but outside communities have visited our area and have commented on the lack of mask wearers. Notwithstanding the mixed messages from public officials of when to wear the face masks, many on that social platform speak of South Pasadena residents as selfish and entitled. Where is our PIO to correct them and state the official policy in South Pasadena?
When the edict came down to allow restaurants, cafes, and pubs to serve only take out or delivery, at least one local business chose to stay open allowing for no social distancing inside its dining premises on St. Patrick’s Day. This encounter led to the incident being broadcast not only locally and regionally, but also nationally. Social media went into overdrive on what took place and assigning blame. Where was the interim PIO to provide a clear and measured response?
Aside from City services, there has been an incredible outpouring of community activities by our neighbors, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations. Why hasn’t the interim PIO provided links to these incredible and selfless individuals and organizations like WISPPA, Dudes, PTSA, Women’s Club, Holy Family Church, etc.? As a small town, having each other’s back is what it is all about. Not just compartmentalizing City services and ignoring the rest. By not broadcasting these non-City efforts, it looks as though we as a community are doing very little.
Our City government services are minimal and confusing:
Just what is the role and responsibility of the Director of Emergency Services? The interim PIO needs to get the word out. Absolutely, we are so grateful for our first responders: police, fire fighters, and paramedics. But, when looking online under Management Services, there is nothing about the Director of Emergency Services.
What is the role of the Public Safety Commission during this crisis? It appears that the City management has kept this vital commission in the dark for some time now. Why?
Daily communications from the City should be paramount. Much appreciation goes to the South Pasadena Unified School District for their almost daily communications to us parents with school age children. And that’s without a PIO. What purpose and end results do we the taxpayers get with relying on the services of the interim PIO?
Not everyone receives the new e-announcement, the Pulse. Why hasn’t the PIO made every effort to get the word out on this new communique?
Whatever happened to the City Manager’s blog that I was told last year by our then Mayor was to be rolled out? Shouldn’t that be providing updates on the Covid-19 as related to our community, including how we can help local businesses?
What Twitter and Facebook messages have been sent to keep residents apprised of specifically South Pasadena and not the regional, state, and federal announcements (which I can follow on my own account very easily)?
What about stories circulating about rent increases during this time? Shouldn’t the PIO be providing useful information for worried tenants?
I have gotten more local information from the South Pasadenan and the South Pasadena Review than from the PIO’s announcements.
Therefore, from what I have experienced and read, I am against the approval of Agenda Item 14.
Given that every critical decision made by the Council appears to be based on county and state decisions and guidance, we should not continue subsidizing a PR professional in Fallbrook. Let’s rely on an experienced City staff person to communicate the basic guidelines and specifics for South Pasadena. Let’s keep the money to improve South Pasadena in South Pasadena and not pay an outside consultant to provide generic stuff that we can already get elsewhere.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
