Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28 - Potential Ballot Initiative for Issuance of Certain Certificates of Participation and Other Lease Revenue Obligations - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 From: Daniel Wampole <wampole@me.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 10:58 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: COP & Lido Land Council Members Please, Please block COP and the sale of our old City Hall land. Both are bad for our city. Than you, Dan Wampole President of the Newport Ridge HOA and Member of The Newport Coast Advisory Community Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 & 25 From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:49 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Council Meeting scheduled for June 12th To: Newport Beach City Council members Why would the City Council of Newport Beach suddenly propose three new controversial financial ideas for the city -all to be presented at one meeting? And this coming on the back of the fateful attempt to turn Newport into a port city. COPs will tie the hands of future councils and impair our flexibility fo finance large projects quickly. We would be the only city in America doing this. In a natural disaster this could be extremely costly, driving up the cost of any project that uses a COP for funding. And why would we want to sell the Lido House on a whim? It makes no sense to sell this property instead of using it for income. Finally, changing the structure of the finance committee could weaken its effectiveness rather than strengthen it. Is there some compelling reason that these three hefty new ideas are being hurriedly presented or is this merely a politically motivated procedure? I say NO to COP debts, NO to selling the Lido House Hotel, and No to the elimination of councilpersons on the city finance committee. Those of us who have lived in Newport Beach for many years and value its unique qualities and beauty do not like to see ideas being promoted, particularly in haste, that are not in the longtime best interests of our city. Much more information thoughtfully presented, consisting of educational open-ended workshops, and overall citizen participation might bring some understanding and sense to these otherwise complex and "spur of the moment" ideas, but it is doubtful. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Lorenz, 434 Redlands Avenue, Newport Beach, Ca 92663 949 646 2054 lynnierlo@aol.com Received After Agenda Printed Jun 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 & 25 From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:26 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Agenda for June 12 meeting Dear City Council members: There are three items on the agenda for the June 12 meeting that are concerning and I would like to suggest that you seek additional information before acting on any of the three. #1 Mr. Peotter is proposing a ballot issue for November that will require voter approval before issuing `certificates of participation'. This may sound like a good idea, but it is actually a terrible proposal because it ties the hands of future councils and will likely cost the city quite a bit of money. Not one other city in America does this. A certificate of participation (COP) is a bit like arranging a mortgage. Unlike General Obligation bonds, COP debt does not involve an increase in taxes and by law, payments are included in the city budgeting process. Like our own mortgages, a COP is used to pay for something big that the city has decided to finance instead of paying cash for. We used a COP to pay for the main library and have used this only 3 times in the last 25 years. If we do this, we would be the only jurisdiction in California and to my knowledge the only jurisdiction in all of America who has. If nobody else is doing this, doesn't that give you pause to think that it may not be a good idea? No one knows what the future will bring. We can afford to pay cash for big projects now, but what if we have to respond to an earthquake or tsunami and have to rebuild major parts of the city? Puerto Rico is an example of what happens when there isn't enough money to rebuild. Imagine if rebuilding bids have to be confirmed with an election? Bids would be over six months old and would expire, subjecting the city to additional risk or the bids would be padded 30% to allow for the lengthy time of the vote. This is universally considered a bad financial business practice, but the Gang of 4 wishes to do it. Keeping the option of a COP is perhaps a bit like having a credit card available to use in case of an emergency. This is being pushed forward without any input from the Finance Committee or any meaningful input from independent financial experts. May I suggest that this get deferred from this meeting until a later meeting in order to allow a better understanding of the ramifications? It does not appear to have been thoroughly vetted for unintended consequences in the future. #2 Mr. Peotter is proposing selling the land that is currently leased to the new Lido House Hotel. This is the old city hall site and we will be getting revenue from this property for decades to come, which will only increase over time. We don't need the money now for our budget, so why would we even consider selling this property vs adding its revenue to our budget ad infinitum? could understand this if we had a crushing need for money, but we don't. Like any investment property, the benefits of a fixed stream of income seems to me to outweigh any short term benefit. Again, may I suggest a thorough review of the pros/cons by the Finance Committee or an outside financial expert? #3 There is a proposal to eliminate any councilpersons from being on the city finance committee. Since it seems to me that having councilpersons more knowledgeable about city finances (rather than less) is a good thing, this is a rather puzzling proposal. I cannot see any benefit to changing the composition of the finance committee but I can certainly see a downside. May I suggest that you let this proposal ferment a bit longer as well? Thank you, Susan Skinner P] Received After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 and 25 From: aw13973@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:16 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: patty white Subject: Proposals Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Newport Beach. I do not agree that we should sell the land that used to be Old City Hall. The rental income is good and it can only become more valuable in time. I do not think the Certification of Participation (COP) should be on the ballot in November. We need to consider each project as it happens. We do not need to be the ONLY jurisdiction in California to do this. Managing these COP's would be most difficult and should be done only when necessary. This would be a costly election requirement. City council members should be on the City Finance Committee. They have knowledge of the finances of the city and their input is important. There is no reason to change the composition of the finance committee. Please consider my input, as a resident of Newport Beach, Ca. Patty White 2027 Port Weybridge Newport Beach, Ca 92660 1 Received After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 & 25 From: Carol Hartman <carol_hartman@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:45 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Council meeting issues To the Newport City Council, We are aware that there are several issues to be addressed at the June 12, 2018 council meeting. All of those proposed seem not to make any sense, such as instigating a COP, that no other city in America has, selling the land that the city owns and receives lease money that will increase with time and adds to our city finances, and having a city finance committee without a council member on it is a very bad idea. That committee should be very intelligent with no one person choosing the committee members,that is our money that we pay with our taxes. Terry and Carol Hartman 414 Plata Newport Beach, California 92660 Nelson, Jennifer From: Jim Kerrigan <jimkerrigan@mail.com> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 4:12 PM To: Dixon, Diane Subject: Fwd: Agenda Items for June 12 Council Meeting Attachments: image002 jpg Received After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Closed Session and Item No. 28 Thank you, I'm flattered. As to the comment, though, it's just "tricky" for someone to suggest selling the property now, AFTER the City has acted to decrease the value of the land, for a different reason. Thank you for considering my comment... Jim ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dixon, Diane <ddixongnewportbeachca.gov> Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:41 PM Subject: RE: Agenda Items for June 12 Council Meeting To: Jim Kerrigan <jimkerriga.ngmail.com> Mr Kerrigan Great letter. You obviously have knowledge on these issues. I value your input. Thank you for taking the time to write. Well done! Diane Diane B. Dixon Council Member District 1 949.287.9211 From: Jim Kerrigan <jimkerrigangmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 12:07 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncilknewportbeachca.gov> Subject: Agenda Items for June 12 Council Meeting Two items on the agenda seem odd, worthy of comment and discussion: If the City has done these in the past, as they have, then the question is, "Why change the process?" Certificates of Participation are new to all cities. There is very little "law" in the form of challenges and rulings, to assure the process and standing. Lengthening the process only adds uncertainty and increases costs. Increases the costs by having to run this "unknown" instrument past our voters, and increases the cost by the padding in quotes that bidders will add due to the lengthening of time between bid and contract performance. The idea is without merit or value. Selling Land of Lido House OMG, what a bad, self-serving, idiotic idea!! It is an insult to the public, our voters, and past City Councils, who were way beyond their abilities to originally beget this project. Let me explain, in case you do not remember the history, and do not comprehend the economics of the current project, and the future economics. First, voters approved the current City Hall project with the idea of SELLING the exiting land to pay for the project. Somehow, prior Councils had superior knowledge, judgement and reasoning and they built a $220 million City Hall instead of about $28 million (?) approved by voters. Not only did they vastly expand the expense to us all, they adorned it with artwork. Then they decided it was important to retain ownership of the land! If there was a value to the land, it was maximum before the decision to lease it for a hotel. Then, the land might have been extremely valuable to a developer with a free hand. The City accepted the idea of a hotel development BECAUSE of the stream of lease income AND the retention of ownership of that valuable oceanside land. We decided to lease the land for a hotel. Now, the current value of the land is ONLY the value of the economic stream of revenues from the lease, plus some residual value at the end of the lease. The value of the land at the end of the lease is small now, because of the unknowns. Why sell the land? Now? We have no fiscal need or emergency. Selling it now can only provide the buyer with a potential windfall when/if the hotel fails. Why shouldn't the public gain in a windfall, since we took the risk of the original purpose. Land is land; Newport land is gold, forever! It seems we have goofy out -of -the blue ideas at every meeting. Residential towers in Newport Center, Port of Newport Beach, on and on. Run the City, stop coming up with nonsense just because no one calls you on it. We will remember this all at the next election... City Manager? You got caught, you did not do a good thing, the public did. Jim Kerrigan 2011 Vista Cajon Received After Agenda Printed June 12, 2018 Item No. 28 & 25 From: Sue Costanzo <suesviews52@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:14 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: COPS and eliminating Councilmen from Finance committees Dear City leaders These are 2 very bad and very poorly thought out ideas. If "anything" we want more and more to help with finance details as well as our committees to come to creative consensus on major projects as well as any emergencies that should arise. To enact a COPS program is just stupid! Who are you all representing?! It certainly is not the Citizens of Newport Beach and Corona del mar, Newport Coast! Think again .... then let's have a serious meeting with citizens on what is really applicable to resolving our future finance needs! Also ... this city is going crazy with approved building permits! To allow all these condo projects is insane! I used to be able to come up my street and actually get onto PCH! NOW there is no driving PCH ... it is always too crowded and dangerous. I won't even walk the dogs along there with the insane traffic conditions. So congratulations for becoming Laguna Beach and joining the insanity of uncontrolled traffic jams and accidents as well as unsafe pedestrian situations! Stupid is doing what Laguna Beach has .... and not recognizing it! STOP giving the Irvine company approvals when you sacrifice our quality of life and safety ... once and for all!!! Susan and James Costanzo Corona del mar