Jordan Brandman hurls accusations of recklessness at Tom Tait, perhaps written for him by someone whose little knowledge truly did turn out to be a dangerous thing.
From his demeanor, Jordan Brandman seemed to be quite proud of his commentary at Tuesday night’s Anaheim City Council meeting about the Chamber of Commerce’s contract to administer a now-cancelled program. (If you haven’t read that story of mine, entitled “Anaheim Council’s Imperative: Shovel Money into the Chamber of Commerce!“, you should read it now.) (OK, you can wait until the weekend; it’s long.)
Well, if Jordan is proud of what he had to say, then who am I to deny it a broader audience? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jordan Brandman (with a little of my own commentary thrown in) on why the City should this September give the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, headed by his friend Todd Ament, a full year’s payment of $460,000 to administer a program that will expire at the end of December.
While you can get the highlights from this video, also available on the previous story, we’ll be working primarily from the 38-minute monster video embedded just below– and a big thanks to an anonymous OJB reader who volunteered to transcribe this much of it. (There may be mistakes, which will be corrected as they are identified — and you, Dear Reader, can help in that process! You can also help to transcribe the remaining 26 minutes or so yourself, if you’d like!)
I’m only going to talk about the section from 23:50 to 36:10, where Councilmember Jordan Brandman — who had started things off in a high dudgeon over allegations of corruption by attorney Cory Briggs and used City Attorney Michael Houston to try to bat them down — finally gets deeply (and weirdly) into the merits. I think that this 12+ minutes is the highlight of the whole discussion, because parts of it are so far over the top:
Tom Tait (TT): Any other Comment? Councilmember Brandman…
Jordan Brandman (JB): Do I get to speak now? Oh, thank you….You know there’s a legal term called “irreparable harm.” And I think that this motion tonight is doing irreparable harm and it’s doing irreparable harm for a few reasons
The legislation session is not over…there is cleanup legislation that is going to go through, there are regulations that are going to be implemented. Let’s say a bill cleaning up AB 93 is passed on Sept 12, gets to the Governor’s desk over that weekend, he has until Oct. 13 to sign it.
Then, there are regulations and other implementing rules that are written…between that time and Christmas. We won’t know any of that until the program ends on December 31. There is a reason why the Governor who by the way on this dais, I think I’m the only philosophical, the only person who has a philosophical affinity to Gov. Brown. The decision’s been made and I think we need to adhere to his prudence. He’s been a very prudent governor, and I think this motion would be doing what opponents of his and what the legislator (did by being frankly reckless!
I am not finished! I have the floor.
TT: I’m not interrupting you.
JB: This motion is reckless. We need to wait for the session to end, we need to wait for the governor to sign whatever legislation he’s going to sign. The funding that’s already been provided to the chamber is an advance payment on the vouchers.
I’m going to have to interject here: Jordan’s point is absolutely loony. It should be embarrassing. Here’s what is really going on:
The Legislature passed a bill, soon signed by the Governor, to eliminate enterprise zones because they were no longer serving their intended purpose. They had become corrupted. Exhibit A for this, it has widely been held, was Anaheim itself. (Several speakers on the issue, based on what seems like one offhand remark by a Brown Administration official, suggest otherwise. Well, I’d be happy to do some more research and collect quotes about the process if they’d really like to press the issue.) The legislative votes were lopsided in favor of eliminating them. The Governor is a staunch opponent of the current system and has shown that he’s happy to veto far less disturbing bills. While Jordan claims partisan “affinity” for the Governor near the beginning of his speech, on this issue he is way, way, way on the other side of the fence.
There is no way — none at all — that a bill is coming back this year to reinstate the Enterprise Zone program. No one truly believes that this will happen. (If they do, I will bet them any amount on the outcome.) “Cleanup legislation” is not going to restore it. Implementation of new regulations — and bear in mind that this program is being cancelled — is not going to give new reason to continue the current contract with the Chamber to implement Enterprise Zone vouchers, because none shall be issued after December. There will be some mild “cleanup work” — a little review of the straggling applications, a little reporting — but nothing that would justice paying the Chamber of Commerce the huge sum it’s receiving for doing what most counties do in-house.
The system is being replaced by a system that will be harder to game — which is what Anaheim did once it finally set up its program in February 2012. If the Council majority still wants to shovel money to the Chamber of Commerce to do whatever needs doing, it will have to craft and sign — and justify to the public — a new contract for a different scope of work, with a new set of deliverables.
Why is Jordan trying to convince people otherwise? Because he wants to delay the process.
Why does he want to delay? I can’t come up with any reason except the sadly obvious one: if he can stall the process past sometime in September, then as it stands the Chamber will receive its full payment for one full year’s worth of work on the project — even though no new applications for vouchers can be taken once the clock strikes 2014. It is not clear what (and how much of it) the Chamber would be doing for its money for the final 8 to 9 months of its duration.
Why? Why? Why? Some assert that the Chamber — of which Jordan is a huge supporters — is in a “cash crunch.” The Chamber has hired a whole slew of new employees to get anyone in the City who can possibly do so to apply for an Enterprise Zone voucher while there is still time left on the clock. (I’d like to say that this was “irresponsible,” but (1) I can’t actually prove it at this point based on publicly available data — because a promised “performance audit” was not delivered, and (2) I suspect that it’s an understatement.)
But the real problem seems to be this: upper level staff make a lot of money — seriously, I’d love to see the comparison to CoC’s in other cities and counties — and they are behind on their bills. I don’t know whether this is true — but if they’d like to show me their books I’ll see what I can see. So if this is true the Chamber could either try to squeeze the money out of its paying business clientele … or out of public funds, controlled by elected officials who would really like to maintain good relations with it. The choice, sadly, is obvious.
Back to the transcript:
JB: Now As I understand it, Ms. Vander Dussen, you said, that you are now — given that AB93 [the bill eliminating enterprise zones] has been signed — you are going to enter into negotiations on the revision of the scope.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Department (SVD): That’s correct.
JB: When will we have the recommendations to vote on those revisions?
SVD: Um, I think that we are meeting next week to go over those changes, so it will probably take a couple of weeks for us to come up with a staff position.
JB: So it is reasonable to state that those revisions will be to us by either the second meeting of September or the first meeting of October.
(That’s going to turn out to be important.)
SVD: Yes…
JB: …Which is still ahead of the deadline of Oct. 13 when Governor Brown would have to sign any clean-up legislation that’s currently being considered by the Legislature.
SVD: I’m not familiar with the legislative deadlines, I’m sorry.
JB: Okay, that’s okay, I am. So I am not supporting this; I don’t believe that this is uh, prudent, and so with that, I’m ready to vote. (TT: “OKAY”) And, and uh, I call the question.
A quick note to everyone on the Anaheim City Council and the City Attorney too — you can’t speak your piece and then call the question to end debate when you’re done. Read the freaking rules of parliamentary procedure. You either speak or you call for an end to debate. Not both.
TT: Well, I want to continue the debate. So I’m going to…
JB: I call the question, I have called the question.
TT: I’m going to ask the question.
MattMichael Houston, City Attorney (MH): Just to clarify Mr. Mayor. Calling the question requires a second and a two thirds vote in order to proceed with that, but it’s up to the body to decide how to address that.TT: Okay well, if the body wants to shut down debate on this, frankly I think debate is a good thing and transparency is a good thing, and the more we talk about this the more the public understands it and that’s a good thing, but Councilmember Brandman, if you want to shut down debate..
JB: I have called the question.
Lucille Kring: I would like to hear what the Mayor has to say.
And that means that there will be no 2/3 majority to call the question, because 3/5 won’t do. I’m still waiting for Kring to vote with Tait on something after Jordan has already voted with him just so she can mess with him and see how quickly he can backpedal. How can she resist that sort of sport?
TT: Thank you Councilmember Kring. Are there any other votes to shut down debate? Seeing none…
JB: Okay
TT: Okay, reckless, talk about reckless. … Let me ask Sheri … I hate to keep putting you on the spot. We had the initial contract for a five year period. What was that worth, the total contract, do you recall the one, back in February?
SVD: Yes, Mayor, it was $2,367,500 for five years.
TT: Okay and then that was amended to how much?
SVD: I’m sorry, that was the amended total.
TT: So the first contract, was for how much, maybe a million, four something?
SVD: No, it looks like closer to $2 million if I’m adding in my head.
TT: The additional amount back in May, I thought it was for another $130,000 a year or something like that.
SVD: Well, it’s actually one, two, three, four, five, …it’s almost a $600,000 increase so the original contract then would have been about what, $1.7 [million].
TT: So $1.7, and they increased it to $2.3, so if you want to talk about reckless, that was done, we had a contract, the Legislature was about ready to terminate the enterprise zone in May. This came forth with an increase in the contract weeks before, we were told three weeks before the audit was due, and this Council increased it by… how much? $600,000? No increase in scope, that I know of. Increased the Chamber contract for $600,000 before the audit was in. We still don’t have the audit, and by the way that was a performance audit, I believe, that we don’t have the results of.
I was actually trying to stifle laughter at this point. Let’s review:
(1) The Council learned that the program for which they had a five-year contract with the Chamber of Commerce to administer, stretching through early 2017, would be canceled at the end of this year.
(2) The Chamber came to the Council and said “give us more money, quick!”
(3) The Council gave the Chamber another $600,000.
(4) The Council didn’t even ask the Chamber to do anything different or new in exchange for this new money.
(5) The Council had been awaiting an audit to see if the Chamber had been spending this money — public money — appropriately, but it hadn’t come through yet.
(6) And … it still hasn’t.
This really is comedy gold. They’re basically tossing bags of cash out the door to the Chamber of Commerce, whom they represent a hell of a lot better than the populace of Anaheim, while they still can. So then Tait asks whether the Council was giving the Chamber as an organization the same sort of scrutiny that it was giving to the puny non-profits that had been begging for scraps earlier in the meeting — a financial audit.
TT: Was there a financial audit done of the Chamber, that we have?
SVD: Mayor, the audit that was performed was to determine that the Chamber had fulfilled its obligations under our contract with them, so it did not look at anything of the chamber’s financial statement beyond the enterprise zone..
TT: Okay, so, the audit that we haven’t even seen yet is a performance audit, so we asked that.. Earlier tonight we had a bunch of nonprofits that were fighting over a small amount of money, $10,000, and we require a financial audit and a performance audit.
We gave a $600,000 increase to the Chamber without a performance audit or a financial audit, and you call this reckless, by just simply saying that when this contract’s over, we should terminate it? That when this program’s over, we should terminate the contract to pay the Chamber, that’s reckless?
I don’t think there’s any two ways about this: that little speech much have been a hell of a lot of fun. Unfortunately, everyone else on the dias had a motive not to get the joke — and one of them was loud.
JB: Mr. Mayor, your timing on this amounts to a reckless action, in my opinion. This, you have the penultimate authority, as you did —
(Note to Jordan: look up “penultimate.”)
— to place this item on the agenda, within a week, using your supreme authority as mayor. There is no rush to do this until after Governor Brown and the Legislature do all their considerations.
The rush involves whether the City will pay the Chamber $460,000 that, under the scope of the contract under which these public funds are paid, it cannot possibly spend. You’re not supposed to do that.
If you want to put something on the agenda, using your supreme authority as mayor, after the Governor and legislature have considered everything, I have no problem discussing that. But to say that we’re going to start termination proceedings… on something that is not even yet fully defined —
It is fully defined. This is a dead program. It has joined the bleedin’ choir invisible.
— causes not only irreparable harm to the people who we’re contracting with but also to the business community at large because we’re making that public statement.
Well, yeah, maybe — but they’d better hope not. What “irreparable harm” can possibly be done to the Chamber or the business community to tell them that they’re not going to get an amount of money from January 1, 2014 to the anniversary of the September payment that is beyond what they can possibly spend under the existing contract? What’s the harm in paying them only for the service they’ll actually be able to provide? Is there a credit card payment due — that the Chamber was counting on this money to cover? A tax payment? They’ve known for three months that the program was ending — and they already shook down the Council to increase their budget by a third. They should not be worrying about covering costs.
We’re basically telling businesses who we want to get vouchers by December 30, right now, in August, that the Chamber’s contract will be ended by the end of December. So what happens after we’ve taken this motion tonight, new legislation is approved, through the gut and amend process, and the Governor signs it, and the world has changed, and we have to come back here rather than waiting until after all the proceedings are done. It causes irreparable harm, irreparable harm. And I just, I simply disagree with you.
Please note that the same logic — that they can pass a bill in the next month — could also apply just as well to next year. And to the year after that. By this logic, it would literally make sense to pay the Chamber to keep itself ready to implement a program just in case the Legislature passes it and the Governor signs it for the entire remaining period of the the five-year contract. And that — I suppose I should say this explicitly — is nuts.
Jordan’s real logic here seems to be something like this: “Come on, we all know that we’re going to get the Chamber the money it wants! Even if we don’t pay them for this, we’ll pay them for something else, because they need the money!!!” This would be, I suggest, an unseemly position for an elected representative to take and I presume that Jordan will seize the opportunity to disavow it.
TT: So I’m going to ask this question. The law is passed, signed by the Governor, doing away with enterprise zones, correct?
SVD: That’s my understanding, yes.
TT: Okay, that’s the law. It’s going away. I was very clear. I didn’t say that we cancel it today. I said we let the Chamber know that at the end of the year, this contract’s going away. I would think that this should go without saying. And when people in the community have asked me, I’ve said of course it goes away. The program goes away. Why in the world, I’m actually, why would we want to continue spending money. It’s irresponsible to let the Chamber know on December 31 that they don’t have a contract at our last December meeting, when this is over. It’s irresponsible to the people that work there. This gives them a chance to plan. Now if the Chamber, now I sense that what this council wants to do is to maybe morph this into something completely different. And if the council wants to do that, then cancel this contract, and enter into a new contract.
That last point is really important. If the Council’s prime imperative is to funnel money into the pockets of Todd Ament and his group, it can write up a new contract. It just has to justify it. And the circus you see being performed here is going to raise substantial suspicion that it can’t justify it — which creates a problem.
JB: Well, see, that’s where you have my intent incorrect. My intent is to be prudent. And I’m willing to make an assumption here and I’ll actually ask the question. That after everything has been considered, we’ve processed through the session and through the time where the Governor is able to sign or veto anything, that staff of their own volition, not through a personal request from you using your supreme authority as mayor, will come back in October or early November to start the very proceedings that you want to start tonight. And there’s plenty of time to do that. That’s a 60 day window.
TT: So we have a payment that we make to the Chamber in September. Full amount. Full Amount. I’m trying to give staff direction on what to do.
JB: They’re going to come back with a revised scope for all of that before the payment is fully processed.
Please understand what Jordan is saying here. First, he is ignoring that by the time that the staff comes back — “of their own volition” — in “October or November,” the $460,000 paid in a lump sum in September for a full year’s worth of service will already have been given to the Chamber. The idea is to make some arrangement before September.
Here, I’ve got a great idea — only give the Chamber 1/3 of its annual allotment in September, which would give them time to do some January mop-up duty. Does that make sense? Could you ask the staff to — right now — negotiate that sort of arrangement with the Chamber? You really should do it, before the payment, because otherwise the question will arise when they get that $460,000 as to what is that $460,000 FOR — because one thing we know that it’s NOT for is to administer a canceled state program!
As for the staff not being “directed” to do this, but coming and doing it “of their own volition” —
TT: Do you want to give staff direction? That’s our job.
JB: Staff’s already on their own volition going to do this.
TT: Our job is to give staff direction.
JB: Our job is to let staff bring forth these items on their own volition and give us their best advice.
Anyone who thinks that Jordan is correct about the relationship between Council and staff in such a circumstance, please meet me in comments to discuss it.
JB:You asked for this item. Tonight. Staff did not bring this forward. Let’s make this very clear.
TT: Of course I asked for it.
JB: But they had already started their administrative proceedings to revise the scope. So why don’t we let staff, our great staff in Anaheim do their job and bring back this item in a prudent manner?
Put aside the question for now of the September payment. Is there any question that the scope — if the scope is indeed for administering this program, the one for which there’s a contract, is going to be revised … downward? You know, because the program has been cancelled?
So then Tait gets to the point. OK, if the true imperative here is to shovel money at the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce — “shoot (money over to them) first; ask questions (as to what they money is for) later” — then can we at least agree that that is what you plan to do here? Can you say, Councilmember Brandman, that “we’re going to give them this money no matter what and later will ask them for something to justify it?”
TT: Let me ask this, does this council want this to morph into a different contract for other services? Yes or no?
JB: That is not my intent tonight. My intent is to let the staff do their job.
Stop for just a moment here. If the staff is not doing the job, right now, of figuring out whether it can even legally pay the Chamber of Commerce the money it wants to fulfill a contract for a service that it cannot perform, then shouldn’t the staff be, well, fired? They’re supposed to life up to professional standards, right? Seriously, what kind of staff lets the City Council hand out $460,000 to — let’s face it — their cronies without knowing what that money is supposed to be buying for the city?
My guess is that that would be the kind of staff that would end up going to jail.
The staff’s responsibility is not ultimately to the City Council, but to the people of Anaheim. And if the Council is trying to get them to do something crazy, like cut a $460,000 check for services from Sept. 15 (or whatever) 2013 to the same date in 2014 for a program that is being eliminated on December 31, then it’s the staff’s responsibility to — “of their own volition” — notify the City Council that they can’t send the check under those conditions.
Now, why wouldn’t the staff for the City of Anaheim do that? Maybe because they saw what happened to former City Attorney Cristina Talley, who was fired for telling the Council that they really do have to obey the law. They want to keep their jobs. But what if the Council requires them to do something loony and (from what I can tell right now) illegal — spending public money pursuant to a contract where delivery of contracted services is impossible, turning it into a gift — as a condition of keeping their job?
Well, here at long last we get into an area where I have personal expertise — as a plaintiff’s employment lawyer. If your boss gives you an illegal order … well, hmmm … you know, rather than my offering legal advice to strangers, I’m sure that there are people within the state government that interested employees could call to clarify what they are supposed to do in such a situation. New City Attorney Michael Houston might be the first call for them to make — but he would not likely have to be the last.
And then, if they get fired anyway for standing up to the Council — well, the City might wish that it had back some of that TOT tax and money spent on putting paramilitary in the streets, because it might end up needing to dip into it. Heavily.
TT: Well, you’re a councilmember. I’m asking. That’s the question. We can either morph this into something completely different or we can cancel it.
JB: I can’t answer that question Mr. Mayor, because Go Biz hasn’t even processed any new regulations. The regulations for the cycling out of the enterprise zone haven’t even happened yet. It’s not a question that’s even answerable.
TT: Alright.
You know what? I guess that this gutty little blog has just made that call a little bit easier for staff to make — by providing them this very transcript of Council debate.
Can some state regulator can figure out what Jordan is trying to say above — and what it would mean for employees asked to send out a whole bunch of public funds to an organization that can’t deliver the promised goods? (Maybe it’s not a question that’s even answerable.)
There’s more — so much more — to this video. There’s three other Councilmembers to hear from; there’s Jordan’s colloquy with Michael Houston over whether the Council was breaking the law by voting on money going to a campaign contributor — and, indeed, that’s not the problem — and there is another Michael Houston appearance worth noting. No transcripts of all that, yet. Another time. That’s enough for today. I expect that just as much as we’ve done may take readers more than a little time to digest.
Irreparable harm would only be done if the contract were voided for some arbitrary reason not contemplated in the termination clauses. Even if State action ending the program were not specifically mentioned it would seem to be logical and legal way to void an agreement that was created under the authority of State legislation.
But there would be harm all right – the CoC gravy train might jump the tracks.
Yeah, that last line was, in effect, Jordan’s implicit point. Yeeesh, that was a stupid argument for him to raise.
In contract law, it’s called the doctrine of “impossibility.”
Would it be possible for you guys to also present a Cliff Notes version of some of these posts? I might get interested enough to read them.
I don’t have time. We’d need to find some old fella with the time and the chops for it.
You’re missing out here, though. I’m telling ya, you’d enjoy it.
Another winning Democrat forced down our throats by the party establishment as being “better” than the alternative…
Yep.
Over THIS Democrat’s incessant hollering.
Jordan was a decent member of the School Board. Even many of his friends seem surprised by what he’s done this year.
But he was hardly hardly “forced down our throats” by the party establishment, which was very much split on his candidacy. In this case, though, no other Democrat with any following or money even ran. True, Duane Roberts of the Green Party ran — and he finished last, but that wasn’t because the Democratic Party was out in force against him. His friends (including those who edit journalistic outlets) didn’t go to bat for him either.
Meanwhile the “party establishment” came within a fraction of a vote of endorsing Julio Perez against Tom Daly in the primary and did endorse David Benevides against Miguel Pulido for Santa Ana Mayor, so your criticism is out of date. Your paper could cover this story well if you decided to do the work of understanding the tensions within the local Democratic Party instead of blithely lumping everything together to try to justify your own political inaction.
so true Dat’…..Gustavo you do make me a better Democrat…..and we aren’t all cut from the same cloth.
After almost decades of watching council fights (live and recorded) I am hard pressed to recall one that eclipsed Brandman’s display of juvenile sarcasm. If “super powers” did exist on the Council (‘Intellect’, ’empathy’ or ‘vision’ would be a useful one!) he would probably be a smoldering pile of ashes.
Yes, there IS a legal doctrine called “Irreparable Harm”, but (perhaps because nobody was paying him $24K to do so), our junior councilman apparently didn’t take the time to run the phrase online before trotting it out, to learn, as I did (and happily share for FREE) a few examples that stand in polar opposition to his use.-
Polluting a river, withholding medication from a seriously ill patient, etc. where the consequence can neither be remediated or financially compensated, to wit, an IMPOSSIBLE situation, rather than merely an INCONVENIENT one, which the City might find itself in if Chamber ‘experts’ were no longer available to fulfill a newly – emerged workload. Beyond correct interpretation of the guidelines and basic office skills, what unique qualifications are required here? Heck, I might even want to bid on that!
BTW, if speed is not important, I wouldn’t mind transcribing a 5 minute segment (or 2!). Email me so I don’t start one already in work.-
Everything else beyond the part that you see there is still up for grabs. Just let me know. I think you have my (or at least Vern’s) e-mail — or post here. You might enjoy doing the first several minutes where Jordan tries to evade the laser beam gaze of Cory Briggs.
For what it’s worth, here is up to 6:32 – I will continue until the nausea is uncontrollable! lol
TT: Next item…is item number 22…this is an item…that I asked to be put on the Agenda…
JB: Point of order!
TT: This is….Excuse me?….
JB: Point of Order, Mr.Mayor…..I have a Point of Order on this item….
TT: Please..
JB: Thank you,…Mr. City Attorney, Madame City Manager, is it appropriate.. for any member of this Council, to sit in consideration of this item, given that it is my understanding..that..ALL of us, have either received political contributions from PACs, relating to the entity under contract by the city, or by Board Members of the Chamber..As per the Political Reform Act, is it appropriate…
(CA): Let me ask for clarification – your question is whether.. whether you are permitted to discuss….
JB: Do we have a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act, on this, given every single member of this council has received PAC contributions from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC, and Board members, and affiliates of the Chamber….
(CA): Um, presuming that were the case, that would not be a conflict under the Political Reform Act….
JB: And why is that, Mr. City Attorney?…..Could you…could you state…
(CA): Because political contributions are not financial interests for purpose of the Political Reform Act..
JB: And what is a financial interest?
(CA):There are six enumerated financial interests under the Political Reform Act, they cover things such as sources of income,gifts, investment, ownership of real property, um, and then there’s a catch-all for personal financial interests, but,under the definitions of income and gift, the receipt of , political contribution is specifically excepted, and is recognized by California Supreme Court case law, as well as FPPC Advice Letters, to not include political contributions…
JB: So, The FPPC..also rules that, per statute?
(CA): Well, per statute, and per the regulations, and per Advice Letters, but there’s a…. I Can’t remember the exact California Supreme Court opinion off the top of my head, but it’s a 1980 Supreme Court opinion which holds the same, as well as a Court of Appeals Decision, known as Breakstone – Billiards(?)
JB: So, the contributions that have been received by every single member of this council, do not preclude us for standing in consideration of this item tonight?
(CA) That would be correct under the Political Reform Act, yes.
JB: Thank you.
TT: Got that cleared up? to your satisfaction?
JB: Yes, I did, thank you.
TT: Alright, this is… item number 22, this is “To determine if a modification to the contract with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, is appropriate at this time, in light of the State of California’s termination of the Enterprise Zone Program at the end of Calendar Year 2013″…I’d asked that this be put on the Calendar..we um….The Enterprise Zone…Let me ask Staff this question… When did the Enterprise Zone, when did that come into effect?
SVD:Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’m Sherry Van der Deusen, the Planning Director,….. the State of California granted our designation of the Enterprise Zone, effective February of last year.
TT: February of last year…And then at that time we entered into a contract with the Chamber of Commerce, to… to essentially operate.. and process the vouchers, of the Enterprise Zone?
SVD: Yes, Mayor, the Chamber is responsible for all aspects of administration of the Enterprise Zone, which includes Marketing, processing vouchers, and reporting.
TT: OK….So,…maybe if you give a brief background of the recent legislation on the Enterprise Zone, that is, to my understanding, no longer….will go out of….will no longer be in effect as of the end of the year.
SVD: That is correct Mayor, the passage of AB 93 and Senate Bill 90 repealed the Enterprise Zone, effective December 31st, 2013, However, businesses may still take advantage of the current benefits of the program,through the end of the year. The existing law provides that local EZs will cease operation at that time, but there still is a role for, at a minimum, vouchering, until the end of the year…
TT: So that vouchering…current contract compensates…the Chamber… a specific dollar amount for each Voucher, is that correct?
SVD: Actually. No. We have.. a set Scope of Work, with value attached to that, and the Chamber…excuse me, the Vouchering activity is covered by that.
TT: OK. So the total amount of the contract….So, That contract is entered into…February, of last year, and there was an amendment recently, that was in May, I believe?
SVD: In May, yes.
TT: And that increased the contract, by how much?
SVD: It increased the contract by… I think it was $120,000 for this year..I can look up the exact number for you in just a moment…I’m sorry, it was $130,000.
TT: $130,000, and then for 5 years, for a total of….2.7 Million,is that correct?
SVD: $2.36 Million.
TT: I’m sorry, $2.36 Million, total amount of the contract. So this is a contract, plus an amendment for the Chamber to essentially, operate the Enterprise Zone vouchering, so when a company would come into Anaheim, and hire…people of certain qualifications, there’s a tax credit, and then with that tax credit, there is a Voucher, which I guess, has to be verified by .. somebody…make sure that they’re telling the truth, and things like that, and that…the city has contracted with the Chamber to do that task, which would normally be done by the City,is that correct?
You would win one of our OJB t-shirts for this, if we had ever produced them!
I’d settle for one (or all!) of Ed Snell’s recall petitions – if I was in town more, I’d put them to good use! (lol) ( No flashing nose, though!)
Ah, ET Snell, the “clown citizen activist” who hung out in Anaheim during last summer’s unrest, and a while longer.
This is what I heard – it’s just a rumor, may not be true. But he was at some other city council, and said something during public comments like “You’ll be sorry you made this vote” or “we’ll make you pay for this” which some councilmember pretended to take as a threat, and he had to spend some time in jail. (Apologies to ET if that’s not true, and also if it is.)
Jordan says: “by the way on this dais, I think I’m the only philosophical, the only person who has a philosophical affinity to Gov. Brown. ”
He is totally wrong. He belongs to the same party as Governor Brown, that’s all. The person on the dais with the most philosophical affinity to Brown is Mayor Tait. For one thing, Brown is where killing Enterprise Zones originated, Jordan is cowering in the corner sheltering them in his arms.
Ryan: your comment was reckless and may cause irreparable harm.
i bet if you guys had your way you would take all the fun out of government. what is the point of spending the time, energy and money necessary to get friends elected if you get no return on your investment. as i have continually argued: cronyism is good, it is good for my friends, it is good for our cronies and, most importantly, it is good for me. vern, greg, what have i ever done to you guys to make you hate me so much
Have we ever even once this year criticized Newport Beach’s government? Stay in your gilded cage and we’ll leave you alone.
granted, with the exception of picking on our beautiful new city hall, you have been both kind and genteel. my comment was based upon the implicit criticism of the concept of corrupt politicians helping their friends. this has been the american way since patrick henry shorted english tea
Thanks, but I’m just trying to lull you into a false sense of security re Newport Beach.
I guess that I shouldn’t actually say that so straightforwardly. Damn.
Is “Bad Dog” still on display at that N.B. Art Museum? If I won the Lotto (Hard without playing!) I’d put it on permanent installation at Museo across from Anaheim City Hall!lol.
see, this is what i am talking about, if it weren’t for people like greg, you and i would sit down, work something out and the piece would be where ever you want it within five days…but with these good government types running around, it makes it hard to help people
I’m prepared to look the other way this time, willie.
SVD: In most Enterprise Zones, that function is performed by the City, or a JPA (Joint Powers Authority) of the different cities or Counties that make up the Enterprise Zone.
TT: OK. So the…now, with the contract going away, it seems like,…it’s probably obvious, that this contract, then, would also go away…..but I want to make sure that we would have a Chamber that has been , processing these, and marketing, spending their time, and being compensated to go out and market the voucher program, to make sure that companies know about the voucher program, for .. per year about….what is the per year cost of this?
SVD: The cost for this year is $467,000, Mayor.
TT: So, $46x,000 per year, to market the voucher program, and to process the vouchers….. I understand that, ..I’m not asking that the contract..,be terminated today, but I think that the Chamber deserves a right to know, what is going to happen to the contract… at the end of the year,..it needs to be adjusted,…as it… certainly it is not the same contract, with the program going away in three months, the marketing, and the requirements, and the …requirements to publicize it…things like that, aren’t the same as a program that is indefinite…So I would like to…I’m not asking that it be done today…I would like to direct Staff, or to ask this Council to direct Staff, to address this….and…let the… and to begin the termination of this contract, to work out … a system that makes sense untill the end of the year, because I think that we pay in advance, is that correct?
SVD: That’s correct, we do.
TT: So I think we w(?) want to pay in advance, and I think a payment is coming up in September, so it IS important that we look at this soon…so….I think it’s just common sense that we….let the Chamber know that this contract will be .. terminated at the end of the year. So I may put that in the form of a motion, that we direct Staff to begin steps to terminate this contract, and to provide for the wind-down of the contract ..over the next three months. Mayor Pro-Tem?
GE: I’ll second it, for the sake of discussion.
TT: A…Councilmember Kring..
LK: Thank you. If this is terminated, or, for the Enterprise Zone…I understand that ,because I was at the meeting last week, at the Chambers office, with the representative from the Governors’Office, who said that, even though….and you were there too, Sherry… even though this, quote, Enterprise Zone has been eliminated, that funding, that was in the.. Enterprise Zone, is being transferred now, to, let’s say, Enterprise Zone 2..I’m not quite sure what the name of that is going to be..and they’re going to have basically, similar functions, but, basically, it’s going to help companies attract employees, and they will have specific requirements, if somebody is chronicaly unemployed, …. veterans, or even the…prisoners..have been released into our communities, primarilly to help those people…so they’re…if the Chamber…it sounds to me..wants to be that conduit, to continue that program, so if that is continued by them, they will need a funding source, because the City is not going to bring that in-house. So how would eliminating this particular Enterprise Zone contract, as of December 31st,..what would be… if they have no funding, they can’t start it up again January 1st…So what would you recommend to go over that…to have it seamless?
SVD: Well, Mayor, excuse me, Councilmember Kring, the contract we have right now is specifically to administer the Anaheim Enterprise Zone, pursuant to the CITY’S contract with the State of California, so if we want to have the Chamber engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the Enterprise Zone, I would recommend that we have a new agreement with them, to do that. The new program that is being pushed out by the State, does not require any local administration. Certainly, if the Council wishes, we could contract with the Chamber, or another entity, to make sure that our businesses are aware of the State’s program, but we are not obligated to do that.
LK:So the State would directly talk to businesses, about the advantages of hiring these people,..?
SVD: It is my understanding that GO-BIZ will be administering this program – that is a state organization.
LK: OK. Alright, thank you.
TT: It was just to clarify…so any new program will not be administered by the city… if there is any hiring incentive program, that will be administered by the State, through . GO-BIZ, is that..
SVD:That is correct. There is no role for local agencies in the new incentives program proposed by the State.
TT: OK. So if this Council wants to contract wit the Chamber at a later date, for.. something else, that is certainly the Council’s perogative… but this is, you know, this is four hundred and some dollars a year, 2.3 Million, that could go,…that is General Fund money..and at that point, in the future, we could decide if that is the best use of that General Fund money, wether it is the Chamber contract or other important uses in the City, but this contract…excuse me…this contract is for processing of vouchers, and the voucher program goes away, so it would be like, if a man.. has a contract to buy a horse, and the horse dies. H wouldn’t (then) have a contract to paint your house. So for that reason, I think we need to let the Chamber know, that the contract will be terminated at the end of the year. I’ll make that motion, we have a motion,,
seconded by…
KM: I’d like…..
TT: Please – Councilmember Murray
KM: Thankyou. ..Thank you, Ms VanderDeusen, for the tremendous amount of work you’ve done..in partnership with our Chamber…as the City has been able to get the Enterprise Zone Progam up and running, we are all deeply disappointed that the State chose to dismantle it, just as we were getting some… tremendous momentum, with a local program .I attanded the meeting with Michael Rossi, that the Chamber hosted, in partnership with Sen. Correa, last thursday, with some of our business leaders, and.. he was.. Mr. Rossi, I should say, is the Governor’s Job Czar, oversees all of the economic programs for the State of California. He went into great depth, about, the caliber and quality of Anaheim’s program,as being a model for the State, and, spoke at length about the GO-BIZ program- it WILL be a discressionary fund, it has NOT YET been defined, in fact, the next 60-90 days, is when the State is going to be promulgating its rules and regulations, and structure for thisprogram. But because of the strength and the leadership of the Anaheim Chamber, Anaheim has a seat at the table with the State as that program moves forward, and I think it’s thrilling that we have this opportunity. We have created…4,000 new jobs to date, the program doesn’t sunset until the end of the year, so vouchers will be processed into next year, and we need to make sure that we don’t disrupt that for the businesses making investments today and through the end of this year, and they are able to secure the tax credits that are owed to them andtheChamberhas beenrunningthatIthinkitspremature to cut that off. I certainly believe that we should continue to work with the Chamber in the next 60days, the next 60-90 days as this newprogramis written and defined, to look at a new work plan, and to bring back recommendations for an amended contract that will be compliant with the new program. That is certainly in order, but I don’t support an early termination of their contract, before we know further, aout the sunset date for the vouchers, and until we know more.. and we will know more because we will be at the table…on how the new program is defined…and so our partnership with the Chamber is longstanding, we hve done tremendous work in partnership with the business community, for economic development in Anaheim, and tonight, I am not prepared to vote against jobs in Anaheim. Thank you.
TT: I don’t.. see how this votes against jobs in Anaheim, to say that is…This is a contract for vouchering Enterprise Zone vouchers, we are paying 400-some thousand dollars to voucher these things, to process them. If there is nothing left to process, why would we have a contract for 400-some thousand dollars, of General Fund money, we will get no money from the vouchering, we have needs in the City, of Police, of Fire, of Parks, we have community neighborhoods that are in need, we could have those discussions at a later date, on a future contract, if we want. And we could decide how we want to spend…or do we want to decide…I think what you are asking is that we continue spending money, on a program that will e defunct in 3 months..I don’t think that is our fiduciary as the taxpayers..we have to look after THEIR money…it’s THEIR money to pay a Chamber to do a program right now that… the program goes away..why would we continue paying the Chamber?
KM: I’d like to respond if I may.
TT: Please.
KM:Thank you. First I have a question. Is continuing the vouchering program, which is reimbursed with the voucher program, a choice between Police, Fire, and maintaining this Economic Development program through its sunset date?
SVD: As I understand the motion, we would continue to contract with the Chamber for vouchering, and asI understand it, I have been directed to work with the Chamber to revise the scope of work, to eliminate any tasks that might not be necessary, now that we know that the program will be ending by the end of the year. So, in that sense, it is still General Fund money that is still contracted to the Chamber. At this time, there is no provision in the law, as I understand it, that would extend the Anahiem EZ’s vouchering authority into the following year.There are discussions at the state level to allow the ANaheim EZ to continue to voucher next year, and if that legislation were to pass, then certainly we would want to talk about whether we want to allow the Chamber to continue to do that, since they have the systems already in place to handle that. But at this point in time we don’t have any authorization in place to continue vouchering eyond December.
KM: And so my remarks were…I do want the city to..work with the Chamber to amend the scope, to comply with the new program, so that we can compete for up to $200 Million in new sales tax credits, and new hiring credits that will be available from the State for NEW hiring…I just don’t want to early terminate a vouchering program when we don’t know when that definitive sunset date will be..until we have more information, I think it would be prudent to take 60 to 90 days, because if we did early terminate a program for vouchers, it could limit new hiring through the end of the year…I think that’s an unnecessary step to take. Thank you.
TT: I’m going to respond to that. I’m not saying terminate today, I didn’t say anything close tothat. I said continue the program as it winds down, have it voucher those few additional vouchers that will come in through the end of the year, continue to do that, but this program IS over..What date is that, December 30th?….31st?
SVD: December 31st.
TT: 31st. This program is OVER. There is no requirement to voucher after that, but if there ARE a few vouchers that we have to clean up after that, then we could contract with the Chamber, or we could do them ourselves…. but it would be de-minimis, compared to the 400 and some thousand dollars, that we are spending. A good portion of thta money is for things like.. putting on events, going to conferences, its for reaching out to businesses to tell them about the vouchering program, and to talk to businesses that are outside Anaheim, inside Anaheim, making them aware of the voucher program. It is a State requirement for the Enterprise Zone that we do this. That requirement goes away, the requirement will go away at the end of the year. Why would we really want to continue to do this, when the requirement goes away? Any new program, which we might want Anaheim business to take advantage of, will be administered by the State. Why would we want to take that on, and spend more of our General Fund money, for something that the State is willing to do? So, again, it’s like if you have a contract to buy a horse, and the horse dies – there’s no reason – the purpose of the contract goes away. I think it’s obvious. Councilmember Kring?
LK: Thank you. I’d like torespond to that. Actually, at this meeting last week, the Chamber said that they are constatnly going out, because the program does end on December 31st of this year, we still have September, October,November, December, we have a little over 4 months, that they are still going out, still talking to businesses, This program in Anaheim hasonly been in effect for 18 months, and in that period of time I guarantee that not every single business in this city is aware of it, and aware of the benefits, the tax credits, the purchase of new equipment, the new employees that they can hire, So the Chamber is charged with going out in the next 4-1/2 months, finding people who will hire these absolutely needy people, we have somany Vets who are coming back from our wars, that are desperate for jobs, we have.. you heard many people talking tonight, about the early release of prisoners- those people need jobs, if they don’t get jobs, housing is limited for them, if they don’t have enough money to support where they can live and food, then they are going to go back and start becoming cr- ….have the life that they lived before, and be incarcerated. I don’t think that’s what we want we want these people, those people, to get jobs, along with the vets, and many other people who are struggling, and the Chamber has, is charged absolutely with going out, every single day, talking to different businesses, where they will take on this responsibilty of hiring these new people, when needed, because of the tax credits. Because of this ending December 31st, the business can actually hire as of December 31st. The voucher will not be paid until sometime in 2014. The Chamber also has to go out , and the City doesn’t have anything in place, but the Chamber has services in place, they’ve got it in place, they know what they’redoing, they can expedite those vouchers a lot quicker than the City, who’d have to get up to speed, so I think that shutting them down December 31st would be a huge mistake, because we do want more jobs in this city, so I will not be supporting the motion.
TT: Mayor Pro-Tem.
GE: I too have some concerns that we would be premature in jumping into terminating something in that we don’t know for sure what the new form is going to take, and it seems to me, like it would just be prudent on our part tocontinue,with the expectation that Staff will continue to be up to speed on what the State is doing, and will be working with the Chamber to be up to speed, so that when we get a little closer to the end of the year, we will know what kind of an arrangement we need to have with the Chamber, to go forward into the next phase of this. There just seems to be no urgency to make a decision tonight, so I’m not going to be supportive, either.
TT: Any other comment? Councilmember Brandman.
*****Well, there you have it, on your doorstep at 23:50! I have done MY pennance for voting for Lucille Kring! To me more of a FIULLABUSTER than a discussion! I am going to retire for (at least) ONE of my namesake refreshments!***** Big Box–
I have done MY pennance for voting for Lucille Kring!
Me, too. But I fear purgatory awaits.
If the rest of the Council isn’t clear on the EZ Program status, maybe the Mayor can use some visual aids at the next meeting……
thank you greg