HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Public Comments - Additional Documents - 2/16/2016ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PUBLIC COMMENT
M EJIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: February 10, 2016 Defective OCFA EMS Model Letter - Written Public Comment
-----Original Message -----
From: stephen wontrobski
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 3:49 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: February 10, 2016 Defective OCFA EMS Model Letter - Written Public Comment
Dear Ms. Green,
The attached February 10, 2016 Defective OCFA EMS Model letter with its December 24, 2015 letter
regarding EMS Paramedic Response Times was signed and issued today. It addresses Costa Mesa
issues.
Can you please make distribution of it to your City Council members and include it as my written
public comment for your next City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Stephen Wontrobski
Ste hen M. Wontrobski
February 10, 2016
Board of Directors Members
Orange County Fire Authority
1 Fire Authority Road
Irvine, CA 92602
Ref: Defective OCFA EMS Model
Dear Board of Director Members:
I have long objected to the OCFA Emergency Medical Services (EMS) model. I have criticized it as
high cost model that over -compensates union paramedics and firefighters to the financial detriment of
the taxpaying public. Ironically, the OCFA's main responsibility is to the public and not to wage,
pension and other benefit demands of the paramedics and firefighters. However, what cannot be
ignored is the fact that the average firefighter's total yearly compensation is over $230,000 for a
qualified individual with a minimum high school education.
Furthermore, the interests of the public should reign supreme over the financial and political interests
of the majority of current Board members. Unfortunately, it does not, regardless of what this group
claims.
I have also criticized the EMS model as being a poor service model to those members of the public
requiring EMS services from the OCFA. (See my attached December 24, 2015 letter on this subject.)
Assuredly, the OCFA will cite their customer survey responses to dispute this statement. However,
have already completed an investigation of the OCFA customer survey complaints, and I am in a
position to address such a predicted response. At this point I do not care to debate that matter.
Instead, I will address the recent Triton Group consultant study on EMS models that was submitted to
the Costa Mesa City Council and Costa Mesa Fire Department. This study was discussed at the
Costa Mesa City Council meeting on January 19, 2016, which I attended. Listed below are various
observations that are associated with the Triton Group study.
1. The current Costa Mesa EMS model is basically the same model as the OCFA model.
OCFA Finance/Audit Manager, Jim Ruane, in numerous meetings I have attended has stated
that the OCFA model is the best EMS model and other agencies use it because it is the best.
However, the Triton Group does not agree with this repeated assertion. (I am not referring to
the new enhanced EMS study model that was initiated by Chief Bowman.)
The OCFA model employs three pieces of equipment and a minimum of nine responding
individuals. (Two pieces of OCFA fire fighting/EMS vehicles with seven of the referenced
$230,000 employees and one private ambulance company piece of equipment staffed by two
EMT individuals paid dramatically lower wages and fringe benefits.)
The OCFA will be quick to point out that private ambulance company paramedics are not as
well trained as the OCFA paramedics. This widespread assumption is incorrect and is
completely unsupported with information from the Orange County Healthcare Agency (HCA).
Private and OCFA paramedics are equally trained. However, private ambulance company
paramedics actually have stiffer continuing accreditation requirements than OCFA paramedics.
This added requirement is only applicable to private paramedics and not the OCFA
paramedics.
5. The time has finally come for the HCA to provide a study comparing the performance of private
paramedics involved in the County IFT Program with the performance of paramedics from the
OCFA and other Orange County Fire Departments. The study should also address completion
of PCR's, which the County has already audited, found greatly deficient, and a concern to
public safety.
6. The County HCA and not the OCFA should do a study comparison of OCFA paramedic
wages, pensions and benefits to equally trained and qualified Orange County private
paramedics. Private ambulance company paramedics make on average between $65,000 to
$75,000 in total yearly compensation, as opposed to $230,000 for equally trained OCFA
paramedics.
7. The Costa Mesa Triton Group study rejects usage of the OCFA model, since it considers it
costly, inefficient and lacking in proper service to the community. I quote from page 2 of the
study.
The current practice is the response of an engine company, a fire based ambulance and
a private ambulance provider to all EMS incidents. This type of response to medical
emergencies is atypical when compared to best practices throughout the United States.
Simply stated, this deployment model is not the most efficient for an urban city,
operationally or financially.
8. 1 have learned that the private paramedic model is being used successfully at dramatically
lower cost in neighboring counties. In fact, the private paramedic model was highly praised for
its response and handling of the recent San Bernardino terrorist attack.
9. 1 believe the OCFA, as well as Costa Mesa and Irvine, should thoroughly vet the
implementation and transition to a private paramedic model in Orange County. The fire
fighters union is sure to wage an attack against any OCFA Board of Director or City Council
member that endorses such a study. However, the OCFA Fire Chief, Costa Mesa Fire Chief,
and Irvine City Manager can endorse conducting such a study. They do not have to worry
about losing campaign funding or an endorsement in any upcoming election. This action will
further solidify their reputations as being true Fire Department reform minded individuals.
10.All of the proposed Triton Group study models were rejected by the Costa Mesa City Council.
However, the Costa Mesa Triton Group study, as well as the Irvine ESCI Fire Department
study, did not include a private paramedic EMS model. In my opinion, they both should have.
11. The Costa Mesa City Council discussed the need for a new EMS model study that
incorporated the use of private paramedics.
12. In the Costa Mesa City Council meeting, I also learned that the union four member engine
staffing requirement has been renegotiated and reduced to a three member staffing
requirement in the Costa Mesa Fire Department contract. It is of interest to note that the union
insisted four member staffing requirement is only applicable for fire suppression and not for
EMS responses.
Does the OCFA labor negotiator even know about this Costa Mesa contract modification
development? Is he fighting to implement a similar minimum staffing requirement reform in our
contract? If not, why not? This item continues to be ignored in OCFA Board meetings, along
with all/most of my other written recommendations, some of which the Costa Mesa Fire
Department is now considering.
13. The Costa Mesa Fire Department is currently studying whether to require all new recruits to be
certified paramedics. It makes sense and is a recommendation for the OCFA also to
implement as detailed in my attached December 24, 2015 letter. Why isn't the OCFA
considering this hiring requirement for workers, who are to be paid $230,000 in total yearly
compensation?
14. The Costa Mesa Fire Department is also studying a peak staffing system change. It simply is
to get rid of the 24 hour shift, wherein firefighters/paramedics are paid to sleep, eat, work out
and enjoy large overtime payments, when the full complement of firefighters/paramedics is not
even needed in non -peak hourly periods. It is interesting to note that private ambulance
paramedic companies routinely employ this peak staffing/non-24 hour model for their
paramedics without any impact to public safety. Why isn't the OCFA considering a change to a
peak staffing/non-24 hour shift?
15. Costa Mesa is considering an expanded Reserve Fire Fighter Program, which would
dramatically lower costs without any impact to public safety. It could certainly be employed in
early hour/off peak call periods. Costa Mesa acknowledged that there are significant benefits
to a Reserve Fire Fighter Program. However, just the opposite has taken place at the OCFA.
Also, has Irvine given serious consideration to this recommendation?
The OCFA firefighters union has successfully negotiated a dramatic reduction in this cost
effective program. The result is more overtime for the firefighters and paramedics, when the
staffing could be done by Reserve Program trained fire suppression personnel. Why isn't the
OCFA labor negotiator working to negotiate an expansion of the Reserve Fire Fighter Program
that would benefit the public?
Brad Reese, former OCFA Board of Director from Villa Park would be a perfect individual to
consult on this issue. He formerly was a Reserve Fire Fighter Captain in the Program. Since
major union backlash can be expected against any OCFA Board member that would endorse
the expansion of the OCFA Reserve Program, it is incumbent that the OCFA Fire Chief
proposes ways to promote the hiring of additional Reserve Program members.
16. Implementing an effective private paramedic model would finally eliminate those criticized
ALS/BLS rebates, which the OCFA lobbyists have been successful with the Orange County
Board of Supervisors in pulling from simple public discussion for two successive years now.
It will be interesting for the public to know some day, which County Supervisors have stopped
even a public discussion of the merits of the OCFA ALS/BLS rebates to the complete detriment
of seniors and the taxpaying public. It will give these groups additional information regarding
casting votes in a future election. The old rule will finally come into play, "Forget what they say
they are doing for your benefit; pay attention to what they actually do or do not do for your
benefit."
To me the above issues are simply aligned with a union money and staffing issue. It provides a
powerful incentive to the union to block all OCFA reform measures that address excessive wage,
benefits, overtime and pensions. The opposition to these reform measures has very little to do with
providing effective cost services to the public.
The public has virtually no real representation on the current OCFA Board of Directors, since only a
small minority of the Board of Directors work to place the public's interests first. Many of the Board
members are totally concerned with their own future political and financial gain, and not the interests
of the public. As such, they do not endorse any study or reform measures that would incur the feared
potential wrath of the union, and thereby jeopardize union campaign endorsements and funding
contributions to them.
In closing, where is our labor negotiator on these issues? He has already received failing grades of F
and F- on the last two union contracts he negotiated. However, in my taxpayer eyes, they both were
negotiated for the benefit of a privileged few, at the complete expense of the non -represented
taxpaying public.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Wontrobski
E:ocfacrostud y02-10-16
Cc: Orange County Board of Supervisors; Costa Mesa City Council Members; Irvine City Council
Members; Tammi McConnell (EMCC Members); State EMSA Director; Orange County.Grand Jury
Ste hen Wontrobski
December 24, 2015
OCFA Board of Directors
1 Fire Authority Road
Irvine, CA 92602
Ref: EMS Paramedic Response Time Reforms
Dear Board of Director Members:
OCFA 911 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response times, substantially below accepted norms,
jeopardize the lives and health of the public. They have long existed at an unacceptable rate at the
OCFA. This is despite the fact that approximately 90% of the OCFA responses are for EMS, and only
10% for fire callouts.
have sought OCFA improvement in its EMS response times. However, those requests fell on deaf
ears of the following groups:
a) OCFA Executive Staff
b) OCFA Board of Directors (absent the sole director from Rancho Santa Margarita, Carol Gamble)
c) OCFA Firefighters Union
It is so ironic, but so monetarily and politically guided, that all of these groups continually voice their
never ending concern for the public safety. Yet, the real proof of their concern lies in action and not
words. All of these groups were aware of the unacceptable EMS response times given in OCFA
reports to the OCFA Board of Directors. But none of them took any steps or even offered
recommendations to correct the problem. Public lives were at stake and nobody even attempted to
institute any corrective action.
Then, the litany of past OCFA problems reached a boiling point, and the exiting fire chief was
replaced with Chief Jeff Bowman. It did not take him very long to immediately grasp this obvious
problem and put into effect a pilot program to improve EMS response times. On behalf of the public,
once again thank him for this action.
I believe the pilot program is only the start of needed reforms that will increase the EMS response
times. These reforms will finally put the interest of public safety at the top of the list and replace the
primary political and monetary interests of many of those members of the OCFA executive staff,
Board of Directors, and union.
Reform Proposals
From a review of response time data and 911customer complaint records to the OCFA, I offer the
following EMS paramedic reform proposals, if not already implemented, for your consideration.
1. Approximately 3,000 applicants apply for each fire academy new enrollment of about 30 available
slots. This equates to roughly 100 applicants for each available OCFA opening. Institute a
requirement that applicants for admission to the fire academy class enrollment be limited to those
applicants, who have existing paramedic state certification.
2. Require that all individuals seeking promotions to fire captain status have paramedic state
licensing certification and county accreditation in effect.
3. Require that all paramedics, who have switched over to administrative positions, be required to
take a refresher course for paramedics to acquaint themselves with new paramedic advances before
allowing them to come back in an active paramedic/non-administrative job responsibility.
4. Require all fire captains, who are not also licensed paramedics, to obtain a paramedic license
within one year.
5. Hire more paramedic applicants with Vietnamese and Spanish speaking abilities. This will
address public complaints regarding communication problems with Spanish and Vietnamese 911
patients and their caregivers.
6. Hire more female paramedics to address the complaint of lack of respect for female modesty.
This will address the complaint of allowing other mostly male firefighters to be unneeded female
examination onlookers.
7. Limit the number of firefighters in a room where two paramedics are examining a patient. Why are
there instances of seven firefighters in a room gazing at a female patient, when only two paramedics
are conducting the medical assessment?
8. Have individual fire captains instruct non -needed non -paramedic personnel to leave the room
while an examination is being done by the paramedics. Why this issue has simply been ignored,
despite complaints from the public of overcrowding in the room and lack of respect for female
modesty, needs to be immediately addressed.
Conclusion
If these simple recommendations are implemented, the following beneficial public safety results will
immediately take hold.
1. Only one unit and not two units will need to respond to a 911 EMS call
2. A maximum of four firefighters would arrive on the scene. With the expansion of the Chief's EMS
enhancement response model, only two firefighters would need to arrive for many calls.
3. Respect for female modesty demands would be addressed.
4. There would be a maximum of three OCFA personnel in a room, two paramedics and a fire
captain. With the completion of all fire captains paramedic licensing, this could be reduced to two
personnel in a room.
5. Vietnamese and Spanish communication problems would be sharply diminished.
6. Women OCFA applicants would be able to secure more much needed female paramedic
opportunities.
7. Additional units would be freed up to respond to future fire and EMS calls.
I thank you for your consideration and action on these reform proposals.
Stephen M. Wontrobski
E: ocfaparmedreform12-19-15
Cc: Orange County Board of Supervisors; Tammi McConnell (County EMS Program Manager)
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PUBLIC COMMENTS
MEJIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting - How to Get Documents to Council Members
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Regina Mundekis
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:43 AM
> To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
> Subject: City Council Meeting - How to Get Documents to Council Members
> Good morning.
> At the next City Council meeting, I will be speaking during public comment about Fairgrounds and
Pac Amp issues. The Fairgrounds has not been in compliance with a settlement agreement
regarding the Pac Amp.
>
> I want to let the City Council and residents know what is going on. I will be bringing copies of the
settlement agreement and performer contracts to show what is not getting done. City Council can't
act on the issue, but they should be aware of it if problems develop.
> How should I get the documents to the Council? The documents are PDF's. I can bring a hard
copy of the set to review and a CD of the same. Let me know how you want to proceed.
> Thanks,
>
> Reaaie Mundekis
9-1
Please forward to the Costa Mesa City Council for the February 16, 2016 meeting.
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to address the council on this matter. The OC
Fairgrounds is not complying with a legal settlement agreement regarding the Pacific
Amphitheater. We all need to work together to prevent a return to the Nederlander years
where profits tools precedence over the good of the community.
The OC Fairgrounds is separated from the city by a sidewalk, which does not prevent problems
on the Fairgrounds from becoming city problems. Actions by Fairgrounds staff impact the
homes, church, schools, and parks around the property, all of which are in your jurisdiction.
Their problems can easily cross the sidewalk and become your problems to deal with.
In 2012, the OC Fairgrounds entered into a settlement agreement with the Orange County
Fairgrounds Preservation Society regarding the Pacific Amphitheatre. The 2012 Pac Amp
Settlement Agreement is a court ordered settlement which requires compliance with sound
limits and that performers be contractually obligated to comply with the settlement.
At no time in 2013, 2014, or 2015 did all the Pac Amp contracts comply with the settlement,
The terms of the noise settlement are not allowed to be changed by either the performer or
their agents or by staff of the OC Fairgrounds. The contract must be signed by both the
performer or their agent and the OC Fairgrounds before the concert starts. An unsigned
contract is not a contract and is not binding on either party. An unsigned contract is not in
compliance with the 2012 settlement. In 2015, contracts were signed as late as August 31,
2015, weeks after the concert was held. Concerts should not be held if the contract is not fully
signed.
This matter has been brought up to the Directors of OC Fairgrounds on multiple occasions.
In 2016, the problem may repeat. So far the following acts have been rebooked -
• The English Beat — In 2015, the show was on August 14, 2015. The band signed the
contract July 20. 2015 and CEO Kathy Kramer signed on August 18, 2015. The contract
includes attachments which conflict with the 2012 Pac Amp Settlement terms. Changes
were made to the attachments, but since the contract was signed after the show, the
changes are not binding. The show should not have happened if there was not a signed
contract.
• Three Dog Night — In 2015, the show was on July 31, 2015. The band signed the
contract June 30. 2015 and CEO Kathy Kramer signed on August 31, 2015. The
contract includes attachments which conflict with the 2012 Pac Amp Settlement terms.
Changes were made to the attachments, but since the contract was signed after the
show, the changes are not binding. The show should not have happened if there was not
a signed contract.
• Styx — In 2013, the show was on August 2, 2013. The band signed on July 26, 2013
(date from Performance Offer page) and Interim CEO Doug Lofstrom signed on August
29, 2013. The band made substantial changes to the contract which negate the 2012 Pac
Amp Settlement Agreement terms. Doug Lofstrom is a retired Ca1PERS annuitant who
was brought in as in interim CEO, remains on staff, and was tasked with mentoring CEO
Kathy Kramer. This show should not have happened if there was not a signed contract.
It is difficult for citizens to find out information about what is going on at the OC Fairgrounds
because of a lack of transparency. The board meetings are once a month, at g am on a
Thursday morning, when work and school take priority. Meetings are not televised or recorded
for later playback. Agenda packets do not contain staff reports like those created by City staff.
The public has a difficult time finding out what is going on besides ticket sales for upcoming
events at a facility that is across the street from their home, church, school or park.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ca C73
pti
-n
E
Reggie Mundekis
c
C3
�,
C)
Attachments:
;
w
C
2012 Pacific Amphitheatre Settlement Agreement
Ln
ra
N
`
English Beat 2015 contract
Three Dog Night 2015 contract
Styx 2013 contract
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - CC -3
Q) 4
L
0 Q3
C O Di
`
4'
yz
Q)E
_U
��. °i
o�
od cz)
�i
�
0'
c��'
fl
v,
o
�j"' o F�
>
>-cw
Y
cat
Q>.m�
U
Q
Qw�co
jz
N&-
O
a C
� ti�
rz cuC
co
cn
L
W C
O U
q� M m
C
a rrj
o
�,�Q�
op o
�¢i�a �`
� o Z
o
" c°Q
°�
o°
cQ
�w10S co
wN
as
QQ
to
oQ>
v
��
QQa
E
O, °b 4--
m
�'v,�
X
Q)
O Q
L O
O O
.� O
._
O
» Q) fi
p 4) O
w
zav� co
F- �4
m:
cuzs;Y c�
Z•fi o[3
0
0
c:}
0
0
E o
Lit
ti
O
co
Z
0a<
U")
coo
�
Q
2
0Lo
m
U
Cp
N
07
V-
C
co
co
co
O
Z
Qr
O
O
r
O
r
O
~CD
CD
O
Q
O
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
Lo
(D
CL
•�
(� r
C V1
O
U
Q)
C
Q)
U)
¢_O
4)
U "O
C
C
_
O
Q3
Y (�
N (D
m
N
Qi
J U
C '5
LLJ o
O Q
(D
L � Q)
C
U w
0_ . .�
U 1
(D co
— 20-)
i
CC
cfl
cfl
cm
m
6D
N
OD
N
m
N
07
N
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
O
O
N
m
O
E
lqr
m
(7)
CT)
0')
a
r
r
r
r
O
O
O
O
� rMrraeo
A OEC MEMBERSHIP
5 a Val
��aNAL000�'�� 2016 APPLICATION IPifERiIAiIOHAL
caoewuecu
CHAPTER
Each member will receive monthly meeting notices and minutes, and discounts on Chapter sponsored
seminars, Also included Is access to the "member only" section of the Chapter website. Make checks
payable to 'ICC -OEC' (the Chapter is currently not set up for debit or credit card payments). Please
complete an application (separate entries on page 2 for each additional member in the same
agency) and return all with payment to the following address:
City of Orange — Building Division
Geri Ford, Membership Chair
300 E Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Email: gford@cityoforange,org
First Name: Khanh Last Name: Nguyen
Jurisdiction/Affiliation: City Of Costa Mesa Title: Building Official
Phone: 714.754.5604 Email: khanh.nguyen@costamesaca.gov
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP:
DUES
❑ Class A Designated voting representative for a jurisdiction
$ SO
❑ class B Jurisdiction employee other than designated representative,
Industry professional, consultant, and others $ s0
❑ Honorary As approved by the membership $ l 0
❑ Student full time student $ 0
I
MULTIPLE MEMBERSHIPS: All transferable within the same agency
Al Class A or B Up to 9 Class A or B within the same jurisdiction/company $ 350
❑ Class A or B 10 or more within the same Jurisdiction/company
$ 450
❑ Premier Includes one year advertising on the Chapter's website and
10 or more Class A or B memberships within the same
jurisdiction/company $ 800
orrlaNAL: —
[i Discounted Discount for (9) regular lunch meetings prepaid
Prepaid Lunch (excludes the December Holiday Luncheon and Board Installation event) $ 200
Member lunch cost is $25 per meal
❑ Contribution Fund for Chapter Scholarship $
❑ Contribution Fund for CALBO Foundation $
OEC Federal Tax ID No: 33-04 37036 TOTAL $ 556
Signature l�//^�
u % 7 Date —� iii
pa,�,e 1 of 7 ��
Gy,4MPIRfr
W
®EC MEMBERSHIP Is.ffi1,
2'0"16 APPLICATION CODErinnoeni
P"rohA� o `a 1WERNAuiicir
CHAPTER
Additional Members in the same Jurisdiction /Company (make copies as necessary)
First Name: Charles
Title: Chief
—Plans -E;
Email: c"�t n; ,r
First Name:
Title: Chief
Email:
Last Name: Chamoun
r Phone: 714.754.5614
Randy Last Name: Buck
of Inspection Phnna 714.754.5231
First Name: Danny
Last Name:
Azevedo
Title: Building Inspector
Phone:
714.754.5345
Email d G „ fi✓p '/� /D
- a w.Q
GG r O
First Name: Mark
Last Name:
Perkins
Title: Combination Inspector
_ phone:
714.454.4945
Email: mark.perk!nsa@costamesaca.gov
First Name: John
Last Name:
Joseph
Title: Combination Inspector
Phone:
714.754.5624
Email:
`
First Name: Manny
Last Name:
Villa
Title: Building Inspector
Phone:
714.754.5619
Email: tM rxr9 Vr
First Name: Phil
Last Name:
Patrick
Title: Building Inspector
Phone:
714.754.4958
Email: //
First Name: Chris
Last Name:
Kalbakian
Title: _Bu—ild-iing Technician II
Phone:
714.754.5676
Email: Invi 7, E—L . _
_w--
nnpo 3 04 x
■Rxp numb sn2.AYl/u wmlxou 0Q�!4311 G,ao a.00 U,00
r pa)N mgH nelVloXed up,
Wl
CITY on coemn MESA
lv 11, or
omw Mea, on 99626
��^TWCMY�I'OUR
634 ANo XX/ 100 U9 COLLn R�^1
R dUL1V6R.IB
6]4 t
OfFlAMT.NS1OC,G 92054
m�ml Amnnn<
R90U
vnW Db wanly
o.00
nxrnulie Tnxm 4mx1Fum Nnnunl
000 $24.00
n.evrs oemmnlc/
pm4 cam Ui, 0194430
cwlo moeg az 92m6
ItwWlvU
Void Apo190 D6ys
Dnlo 01M/2016 N,Amount VY11n1-
CIT Y OF COSTA MESA � • s � Maps �aae1'c OLIVER � ��r c�`
Expense Reimbursement Dept.; POLICE
VIA PETTY CASH OR WARRANT +% .•• .°• Da e: ."
•° ": Approveasgepartment); w �'
... ... .. ...
Approved (Finance);
MILEAGE/MEALS/PARKING •". :..::°•-*WMILESX.666=MIL AGE*
DATE
PURPOSE :
: LOCATIiA':
# MILES"
MILEA
MEALS
PARKING
05122
.—.-
K-9 HANDLER UPDATE
RIVERSIDE
8.00
05123
K-9 HANDLER UPDATE
RIVERSIDE
505514
8.00
MEALS
05124
1
K-9 HANDLER UPDATE
RIVERSIDE
101
POST
8,00
STC
230500
On
ACCOUNT
FUND
ORG.
PROGRAM
PROJECT
TOTAL
41
505511
MILEAGE
505514
MEALS
PARKING
5055501
101
POST
10133
STC
ACCOUNT
FUND
ORG.
PROGRAM
PROJECT
TOTAL
520501
505511
505514
5055501
101
15100
10133
e;? .�
230500
OTHER
DATE DESCRIPTION ACCT, FUND ORG. PROG. PROJ. TOTAL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT;
REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED BY:
2402-22 ONLINE (R.V.2113)
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BANK OF AMERICA
3233 Park Center Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
16,66/1220
Date 01/29/2016
0194452
Void After 90 Days
PoyAm000t $2,574.00***
Pay ****TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVFNTY-FOUR AND XX J 100 US DOLLAR****
To"I'lic GLENN LUKOS & ASSOCIATES INC
Ordea, of 29 ORCHARD
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-8300
I IIIIIIIIIII I I I IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ III I I I I
ofin T -VO 9 associates Inc
CheckDate— 01/29/2016
Cheek No. 0194452
Invoice Number I Invoice Date
I VOT her
4rp8S Amount
Discount Available
Paid Amount
•
24464 12/26/2015
00144734
2,534.00
0,00
2,574.00
Vendor Number
Vendor Name
Total Discounts
0000011626
Glenn
Lukas 14 Assock es Inc
$0.00
Cheek Number
Date
Total
Amount
Discounts Taken
Total Paid Amount
0194452
01/29/2016
$2,574.00
$0.00
$2,574.00
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BANK OF AMERICA
3233 Park Center Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
16,66/1220
Date 01/29/2016
0194452
Void After 90 Days
PoyAm000t $2,574.00***
Pay ****TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVFNTY-FOUR AND XX J 100 US DOLLAR****
To"I'lic GLENN LUKOS & ASSOCIATES INC
Ordea, of 29 ORCHARD
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-8300
I IIIIIIIIIII I I I IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ III I I I I
December 26, 2015
City of Costa Mesa
Attention: Baltazar Me"
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
:'. ervvUiw�
• W
f'1 CtEi `' �, `krb'OS ASSOCIATES
) ' p2 ulatory Services
4151,4.
A.
• 1V. • a s•• ••
Invoice #; 24464 .
Contract Number: P.O. 0000009635
GLA Project Information Biological Services for Restoration, Protection and
Project: 04930006MANA Management of Fairview Park Vernal Pool in Costa
Mesa, California
For the Period; October 31, 2015 through December 11, 2015
Professional Services:
Contract Maximum:
Previous Billings Against Maximum:
Current Billings Against Maximum:
Balance After This Invoice:
$46,090.00
$42,488.35
$2,574.00
$1,027.65
Rate Hours Amount
Bomtcamp, Tony 195,00 13.20 2,574.00
Sr. Project Manager/Biologist/Regulatory Specialis
Total Professional Services
CITY -ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
13.20 $2,574,00
Invoice Amo ant: $2,574.00
Dssarlptiortc;�„ a 1�t�iQ�, ��-�'. �al�l
�t Terms: Net 30 Days
29 Orchard Lake Forest Calffornla 92630-8300
Telephone; (949) 837-0404 Facsimlle (949) 837-5834
ICC ORC,
ChechDate: 01/29/2016
e • e a
•
Check No,
0194459
Invoice Number
Invoice Date
I Voucheu ID
• ,
*Gross Amount
I Discount Available I
Paid Amount
Lunch Mtg-LI Randy
01/26/2016
0034818,',
,' •
200.00
0.00
200.00
Mbrshp16-9 Employees
01/25/2016
0.4� 4806..'«
•
.'5,50,00
0.00
350.00
♦�:
��•
Vendor Number
Vendor Name
Total Discounts
0000011842
ICC OEC
$0.00
Cheek Number
Date
Total Amount
Discounts Taken
Total Paid Amount
0194459
01/29/2016
$750.00
$0.00
$750,00
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Pair Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BANK Or AMERICA
3233 Park Center Dr;
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
16-66/1220
Date 01/29/2016
Pay ****SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND XX / 100 US DOLLAR****
To The ICC OEC
Order of %GERI FORD CITY OF ORANGE/BLDG DIV
300 E CI-IAPMAN AVE
40 ORANGE, CA 92866
11111111 1111..1111I.IJL,LLJ
Void Ater 90 Days
Pay Amount $750.00***
0194459
/\/ • e jwive•• 1 ��ww1 fr•: 0s. r.}�.^( p1lq� % 1,1
HIP
INTERNATIOL
2 16-AR.P. P;A,T10N C N€couNew
. .. . . . CHAPTER
Each member will receive monthly meeti nEfiees Jdd mihutes, and discounts on Chapter sponsored
seminars. Also included Is access to the "41gVq er,only" section of the Chapter website. Make checks
payable to "ICC -OEC" (the Chspteril cfrtrje y n(71.4t,pp for debit or credit card payments). Please
complete an application (separate entries lin pagi 2 for each additional member In the same
agency) and return all with payment to the following address:
City of Orange — Building Division
Geri Ford, Membership Chair
300 E Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Email: gford@cityoforange.org
First Name: bandy Last Name: Buck
Jurisdiction/Affiliation: City Of Costa Mesa Title: Chief of Inspection
Phone: 714.754.5231 Email: randall.buck@costamesaca.gov
INDIVIDUAL MEMBeRSHIP: DUES
❑ Class A Designated voting representative for a jurisdiction $ —
[]
Class B
Jurisdiction employee other than designated representative,
Industry professional, consultant, and others
$
❑
Honorary
As approved by the membership
$ tl
❑
Student
Full time student
$ 0
MULTIPLE MEMBERSHIPS:
All transferable within the some agency
❑
Class A or B
Up to 9 Class A or B within the same jurisdiction/company
$
❑
Class A or B
10 or more within the same jurisdiction/company
$
❑
Premier
Includes one year advertising on the Chapter's website and
10 or more Class A or B memberships within the same
jurisdiction/company
$ _
OPTIO AL
0 Discounted Discount for (9) regular lunch meetings prepaid
Prepaid Lunch (excludes the December Holiday Luncheon and Board Installation event) $ 200
Member lunch cost Is $25 per meal
❑ Contribution Fund for Chapter Scholarship $
❑ Contribution Fund for CALBO Foundation $
OEC Federal Tax/ No: 33-0437036 TOTAL $ 200
Signature , Date i 16 _
Page 3 of 2
... • s • • • • � iYR}sfF1 SfA i.:6�h'i'i'"l � I�T� 1���'
Olt'?-A®OOUNI s•A• ABL.
Description:
Acct F'_,. I
Miilur� Gardens Inc
Cheek Da 01/29/2016 ---
• • • •
• Y
Check No, 0194480
Invoice Number Invoico Date
Voucher H) '
G4oss Amount
Discoeant Available
Paid Amount
107538 12/31/2045
0%346a04*-
•� 2, 00
0,00
2,880.00
Y Y•
•
,
r ♦
Vendor Number
Vendor Name
Total Discounts
0000017059
Midori Gardens fc
$0.00
Check Number
Date
Total Amount
Discounts Taken
Total Paid Amount
0194480
01/29/2016
$2,880.00
$0.00
$2,880.00
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BANK 01" AMERICA
3233 Park Center Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
16-66/1220
Date 01/29/2016
Pay ****TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY AND XX / 100 US DOLLAR****
To The MIDORI GARDENS INC
Order of 3231 S MAIN ST
10 SANTA ANA, CA 92707
161 11.11 d161I I I ddLlll
0194480
Void After 90 Days
Pay Amount $2,880,00***
M
• • Y • y
• • O
i • Y • .
#.:gid • . .
(714) 751-8792
3231 S. Main Street Santa Ana, Ca. 92707:
weeeewaweiufwae4ef�man.•...•••.•••••••%3YMxdYdYdaadddxdxe.l4d.4.}fMkJ%.0#ISAf ♦ • •
To; 00900
CITY OF COSTA MESA,
ATTNf ROBERT RYAN
1`4, BOX 1200
COSTA MESA CA 92620
x"34/Pt0 107538
11,33) 10Y530
Doc No
Doc Type : INVOICE I.
.'. :..::•• ,.. Job: 01906
•
FAIRVIEW WETLANDS
• : :' TRIMMING
• •'• ••' i : P,O #CITY 1699-1350
999
Date ;1291/15
Net 30 days. All past due Invoices will be charged 1 1/2% late charge/rnonth. Legal foes and ether charges related to coilectlon shall be paid by the Involcse.
Item #
Qty
Description
Unit
Total
PER"'PROP11SAr 111122 DATED 1 3-
TRIM VESETAION
2.000,00
SUBTOTAL
y2.000.00
SALES TAX
0.00
LESS RETENTION
0.00
------------
7.,000.00
rr=Anne enin nnniniTtnntc
01906 C 00900 Data Ck# Amt / Doc)U7g30
Net 30 days. All past due Invoices will be charged 1 1/2% late charge/rnonth. Legal foes and ether charges related to coilectlon shall be paid by the Involcse.
MAINTENANCE SERVICES [DIVISION
Voucher No. Due Date:
Description: Trimming of plant material to clear trails at
Fairview Wetlands, P.O.# 1699-1358
Acct Fund Ora Program Proiect Amt
525201 101 19500 40111 $2,880.00
Total $2,880,00
vision A rov I
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS -
OLD BUSINESS ITEM #1
MEDIA, JESSICA
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 1:56 PM
To: MARCACCI, MARK
Subject: Pedestrian Access Point on Old Victoria Street
Mark Marcacci,
am a parent of a 311 grader who attends Victoria Elementary. I understand that there a proposal to block the
pedestrian access on the west end of Old Victoria Street on the south side of Victoria Street. I am OPPOSED to
this proposal.
We live at 19th and Whittier. We must drive east on 191h and north up Placentia Ave to Victoria Street as there
is NO DIRECT access to the school through the neighborhood by car since there are permanent barriers to
block traffic on Continental Ave, Monrovia Ave, and Federal Ave. All residents on the south side of the
permanent barriers must drive around to reach the school.
I drive and legally park on Republic Ave and walk with my son west on Old Victoria Street, through the
pedestrian access and on to the school campus. There are many children who walk from this part of the
neighborhood. Without the pedestrian access point, how do you propose we access the school safely? Victoria
Street (not Old Victoria Street) has no sidewalk on the south side of the street from National Ave until after
the pedestrian access. There is almost no parking available by the Oak St access point and that is a very long
walls to access the school for those who live right off of Old Victoria Street.
Please reconsider blocking the pedestrian access at the west end of Old Victoria Street without a plan in place
for our children to safely access the school from Union Ave to Federal Ave south of Victoria Street to Oak
Street. Come meet us in the morning and see what the safety challenges are for this part of the neighborhood
without that pedestrian access point.
Annamarie Minion
M EJIA, JESSICA
From: John Raphoon
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 7:01 PM
To: MARCACCI, MARK
Subject: Closing of The Wall
I am very against closing the opening of the wall at the end if Victoria Street because my daughter and many
other students that attend Victoria Elementary, walk through that wall do get to and from school.
MEDIA, JESSICA
From: Reyna Pizarro
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:52 AM
To: MARCACCI, MARK
Subject: [BULK] Closing Wall
Importance: Low
Hi! I'm against possible closure for the wall at the end of Victoria St!!!! I live on national Avenue and
that's the way my kids walk through every day to school. It would put me in a very difficult situation
always been worried for them but the big intersections thank you have a great day.
Sent from my Phone
MEDIA, JESSICA
From:
kimberly alcala
Sent:
Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:30 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Public service
I am against the possible closure of the wall at the end of Victoria street.
Sent from my Phone
MEJIA, JESSICA
From: Ismael Alcala
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:33 PM
To: MARCACCI, MARK
Subject: Public service
I am against the closing of the Wall at the end of Victoria Street
MEJIA, JESSICA
From:
Elena Peralta
Sent:
Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:37 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Public Social
I am against the closing of the wall at the end of victoria street
MEJIA, JESSICA
From: sammy alcala
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:39 PM
To: MARCACCI, MARK
Subject: Public Services
I am against the possible closure of the wall at the end of Victoria street.
MEDIA, JESSICA
From:
Teri
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:43 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Victoria Wall Closures
I am opposed mainly to the closures along the south side of Victoria, which makes walking kids to and from
school safely, possible. I also notice many of the bus stops for Tewinkle are made more accessible by these
openings.
If these neighborhoods are cut off to this access, it will cause even more traffic then there already is going in
and out of the school, which had recently become ridiculous! The immediate neighborhood adjacent to the
school on American cannot support the number of cars that would be forced to park there, for parents wanting
to participate in flag deck each day!
Vagrancy and theft is an ongoing problem throughout the city. A problem that won't magically go away by
closing these access points. I feel the City should use its resources and energy to target know drug houses (of
which there are several in and around the problem areas)and irradicate the draw into these neighborhoods. And
spend money finding a solution to house the homeless so they aren't wandering around all night.
Thanks for your time,
Teri Kurzen
MEJIA, JESSICA
From:
Oscar Viramontes
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2016 6:26 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Closure of Victoria Frontage Road
Hi my name is Oscar Viramontes and I'm emailing in regards to the possible closure of Victoria Frontage Road.
My kids go to school at Victoria and I use this path to walk my kids to school every day M -F. Closing it and
putting sidewalk on the outside of the wall is a dangerous alternative. Kids walking by, kids on bicycles... there's
tons of car traffic there and it does not make me feel safe. I hope you guys reconsider closing it off because
doing so will make children navigating to and from school dangerous. What will happen if there is ever an
accident involving a child? 1 hope the dangers are taken into account before making a final decision. Thanks for
your time sir.
Sincerely,
Oscar Viramontes
MEDIA, JESSICA
From:
Elizabeth Basile
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2016 8:55 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Victoria wall closure
Dear Mark Marcacci,
According to the city, a few residents who live near the openings complained about unwanted foot
traffic (likely at night). While I understand their concern, in order to close the wall, I have heard that
they will have to put a sidewalk on the outside. In doing so, all the mature trees on that side will
require removal.
However the primary issue is safe passage for the residents of the neighborhood. Several kids walk
to school through those openings and we ride our bikes to places like work, EI Ranchito, and the new
pizza/cafe opening up on the corner of Placentia and Victoria. I hope you will consider alternative
solutions to closing off my neighborhood to neighboring businesses and residents.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
M
MEDIA, JESSICA
From:
Allimann949
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:42 PM
To:
MARCACCI, MARK
Subject:
Victoria Passageway
Hello,
My name is Allison Mann and my family and I live at 919 Arbor St. in Costa Mesa. We have 3 children ages 7,
6 and 4... Our kids attend Victoria Elementary and we more than often ride our bikes to school and use that
passage way to get there. I feel it is too unsafe having them ride their bikes or even walk on Victoria St.(which
seems more like a fwy when it's packed) than riding or parking in the neighborhood and walking through the
passage to get to our school.
We live on Arbor St. which is near Canyon Park and we constantly have people parking in front of our house
and taking up parking spaces... But we realize that the streets are for the public and especially for people in our
neighborhood (desirable or not). I love our little community and am hoping we don't have to start barricading
our streets up.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Allison Mann
Sent from my iPhone
MIEJIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: comments re wall openings/closures
-----Original Message -----
From: Shirley Werner [mailto
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:50 PM
To: CITY CLERK <CITYCLERK@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us>
Subject: comments re wall openings/closures
Closure of the wall opening near the Victoria Manor apartments at 989 Victoria, that is, the wall
opening that provides safe access from the local neighborhood to Victoria Elementary School, would
be very detrimental for the students and parents who depend on that safe access to get to the school.
Were that wall opening closed, kids and parents who live to the south of Victoria would have to cross
Victoria Street to use the sidewalk on the north side of the street because there isn't any sidewalk on
the south side of Victoria, specifically between National and the school.
If a sidewalk is not installed on the south side, that would mean pedestrians would have to cross
Victoria to the north side only to have to cross back to the south side to get to the school. That
doesn't make any sense. Mornings would mean kids and parents would be crossing Victoria at two
different locations just to get to school. Afternoons would mean reversing the process. Four
crossings for students in a day. Eight crossings for parents who walk their children to and from
school. Again, that doesn't make any sense.
However, tearing out current landscaping and replacing it with a sidewalk would be unnecessarily
costly. And, any new sidewalk on the south side of Victoria only places pedestrians in a more unsafe
situation. Eastbound traffic moves very fast. It just doesn't seem that it would be safe for pedestrians
to be that close to traffic. It only takes one errant vehicle or distracted driver to jump the curb or
perhaps a playful kid who strays too close to the oncoming traffic. Why take that chance?
As for myself, I use a walker to get around. On those occasions (although rare at this point in time)
that I want to walk to Victoria to see my grandson in a school activity, it would be personally
devastating to attempt a walk from my house, going what would be 'backwards' for me to National,
perhaps having to cross Victoria to the north side, cross again to the south side, and reverse the
process to get back home. I couldn't manage it and would have to eliminate any thought of walking to
school.
My opinion is that the wall opening near the Victoria Manor apartments NOT be closed. Unnecessary
costs. Unsafe walking conditions or very impractical routes. Again, NO on closing that wall opening.
Shirley Werner
2124 Republic Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
1
M EJIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: Presentation for Tuesday's council meeting
Attachments: Victoria closure presentation.pdf; Victoria closure presentation.pptx
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:04 AM
To: MEDIA, JESSICA <JESSICA.MEJIA@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: FW: Presentation for Tuesday's council meeting
CBrenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
From: Jim Erickson
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:52 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; EMRICK, BRENDA<BRENDA.EMRICK@costamesaca.gov>;
MUNOZ, ERNESTO<ERNESTO.MUNOZ@costamesaca.gov>; SETHURAMAN, RAJA
<RAJA.SETHURAMAN(@costamesaca.Pov>
Subject: Presentation for Tuesday's council meeting
Hello all,
As I've mentioned previously, I would like to speak on the Victoria wall openings this Tuesday night. I have
prepared a presentation for use during my speech, and it is attached in Powerpoint and PDF formats. If you
need anything else from me please respond.
I understand I must fill out a green card before the start of the meeting. Is there anything else I must do? And
who do I work with, to advance slides during my presentation.
Jim
H
cr
z
w
2
LU
J
w
_Q
O
U_
Q
LU
Z
w
LU
C7
H
Z
O
LL
O
H
U
sI
v 'yrs .f
1
�
w
'
��L
�•� iirr
�.ilrtllHfru,�+ir
� � �+tll!lN11!11!#111!#j
@Y
-..ash
llllllllll`�'-�,4
iie�iiei
� o .�'
-
7i1111� -
�l �'�fl ° � A, � lJl�frlrf lf�A• �hS
� - :
`�
'aiyr vvu
J
sI
v 'yrs .f
1
�
@Y
llllllllll`�'-�,4
iie�iiei
� o .�'
-
7i1111� -
or� ., ��
b',FirPlU3r�lYld
`�
'aiyr vvu
J
�
•Iwrr
4
D
rs
v
a�
w !
a
C
R
U
C
d
Q
o
z
0
m
LJJ
U
Z
Q
Z
w
H
Q
}
H
Z
W
2
W
J
W
LL.
0
U
LL
0
Q
d
N
d
'f' I m
v v
Y
O p V(33
E
10
i UJ
L L
'p d C _ •V C
O O u V C 4J
7 •" m O cu
0
- -o
t = o E
m E '� v cu '_ '-' v
w aoi
w C6IC 0 N m `l p p C V O
E an V1 [O Y O
m 12 ,C O V V N N V �"
Y �. .i "0 .V u O � (!I .N aL.+ V �. V1 ate•
t C N N > @ N
O�
C C C O
d d L O O L 6! > V W
j w �y U D N E � E = C j ��
Q
Z
LU
LLJG
J
LU I
LL
0
U
1
I
J
O
U
0
Lr)
W
F—
D
O
r)
W
F—
V)
w
C7
D
)..L
O
d
Q
•t� ® VI1N3w'1d
. nA1p11 •G
` G
' wwlwurav Ar 1 nnw '
_
NMI.,
.uw1N .L 1 1 ZT T
JLC �� 1F !Y rnuurY 5 �
i
a n
Ar
.i YYY1Y Ar ll 1.1
�z T
WzpQ1
g �1�MY W� AO U.1,11 ry 3
5$ U L ^^ _
O
nY JF 1y.ny < O
1111.1.1.1! wJ l Ln
L
A�
' Yl NliaYdMRm oe f_
V Z 44, vc,l"n Ayl,p1+P A I
` N ka, V m O
Tj A t cn rn s ar,av� ort i U +,1 4`
U .tinM/1t (t 6 cu Q: 5
fy AiIIM 1111 � O f
W )
�N 5 (D U
Q) r
O rn
}! L5 V
0
Y
� 5 I
O
.c
cn
� c c
o o
Q`
'17 tD O p1 It N 1p O
ami C) Q �- t6 -�
i v p v V 'TJ Ut O Q
O7 h O M m O o
D O
z Ul V USI i— Ul a K Ln
w y
+ ' LU N � �
FM
0
J
O
U
N
Z
O
Q
ul
0
00
z
W
Y
H
U
a
w
(7
H
Z
O
Cff
LL
Q
O
_U
z
O
O
U
Y
J
Q
W
r)
N
W
z
0
J
I"
I F
t14
a
O
O
m
O
m
C7
LU
z
m
O
Z
N
0
N
0
W
Z
a
z
D
0
z
a
a
LU
J
m
O
a
J
W
W
0
I
O
LL
Y
U
O
J
m
LU
Z
0
W
N
D
O
LU
LL
O
w
D
U
J
a
W
a
O
z
9
MEDIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: Dorset/ Fairview Wall
From: John Feene
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:11 AM
To: MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.M0NAHAN@costamesaca.eov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMERCdcostamesaca.eov>;
GENTS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesa ca.eov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN
<STEPHEN.MENSINGERCa@costamesaca.eov>
Cc: HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.eov>
Subject: Dorset/ Fairview Wall
Unfortunately, we will not be able to tonight's City Council meeting. We have lived on Dorset Lane for over 40
years. Currently, the neighborhood primarily consists of senior citizens and young families with children.
The wall opening on Dorset lane has become a major problem. Syringes with some black substance have
been found behind the trees that are next to the wall on the Dorset Lane. Homeless people sleep along the
Dorset Lane side of the wall. Sex acts have occurred along the Dorset Lane side of the wall. Drug deals occur
on the Dorset Lane side of the wall. Please vote to close the wall opening at Dorset Lane and Fairview. Thank
YOU,
Best regards,
John & Ernie Feeney
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PUBLIC COMMENT
CMPD
Poke offer making $100,000 currently 109000
Retires in 5 years at 90% of pay
Contributions at 7.5% Interest
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
$ 9,810 $ 10,546 $ 11,337 $ 12,187 $ 13,101
$ 9,810 $ 10,546 $ 11,337 $ 12,187
$ 9,810 $ 10,546 $ 11,337
$ 9,810 $ 10,546
$ 9,810
$ 56,980 $ 61,254 $ 65,848 $ 70,786 $ 76,095 $ 81,803 $ 87,938 $ 94,533 $101,623 $ 109,245 $ 117,438 $126,246 $135,715 $ 145,893 $156,835 $ 168,598 $ 181,243 $194,836 $ 209,448 $ 225,157 $ 242,044 $ 260,197 $ 279,712 $ 300,590 $ 323,242
Increase in Pension benefits because of raise
90% of 100,000 at retirement $ 90,000 $ 91,800 $ 93,636 $ 95,509 $ 97,419 $ 99,367 $ 101,355 $103,332 $ 105,449 $ 107,558 $109,709 $111,904 $ 114,142 $116,425 $ 118,753 $ 121,128 $123,551 $ 126,022 $ 128,542 $ 131,113 $133,735 $136,410 $ 139,138 $ 141,921
90% cf 109,000 at retirement $ 98,100 $ 100,052 $ 102,063 $ 104,105 $ 106,187 $ 108,310 $ 110,477 $112,686 $ 114,940 $ 117,239 $119,593 $121,975 $ 124,415 $126,903 $ 129,441 $ 132,030 $134,670 $ 137,364 $ 140,111 $ 142,913 $145,771 $148,687 $ 151,661 $ 154,694
$ 8,100 $ 8,26.2 $ 8,427 $ 8,596 $ 8,768 $ 8,943 $ 9,122 $ 9,304 $ 9,490 $ 9,680 $ 9,874 $ 10,071 $ 10,273 $ 10,478 $ 10,688 $ 10,902 $ 11,120 $ 11,342 $ 11,569 $ 11,800 $ 12,036 $ 12,277 5 12,522 $ 12,773 $ 246,417
$ 76,825