HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Closed Session - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
June 12, 2018
Closed Session
June 12, 20185 City Council Closed Session Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item IV. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
The Closed Session announcement lists seven of the ten employee associations with which the
City has Memoranda Of Understanding and with regard to which staff is reportedly seeking
negotiating direction from the Council (although on what issues, the public doesn't know).
It seems ironic that the thirteen or fourteen member Newport Beach Lifeguard Management
Association is among these, since the Council will not yet have even approved, as Item 9 on the
evening agenda, the results of the last negotiation. That apparently took about six months to
complete, and another month to prepare for presentation to the Council, and with the new MOU
having only a seven month term, it seems it is already time to start over again.
One might hope the goal with the seven associations is for somewhat longer term
agreements than this last one with the NBLMA. Otherwise the City will find itself in a state of
constant, and likely distracting, negotiation.
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
The address listed in this announcement, 3300 Newport Boulevard, is that of the old City Hall
site.
The subject of the conference ("price and terms of payment"), is less clear: is it merely to make
some minor adjustment to the existing lease or to authorize negotiators to arrange a sale?
This lack of transparency is disturbing because as Item 22 at its September 9, 2014, meeting, after
what was presumably thoughtful consideration, the Council publicly decided to enter into a 55 -year
lease, C -5567(B), for this property with R.D. Olson Development, a lease which was later
transferred to Lido House Hotel, LLC, C -5567(C).
The Council hopefully understands that closed sessions are not proper venues to discuss changes
in Council goals or objectives, but (in this case) only to discuss price and terms of payment,
presumably after a decision to do something has been made in public, and only when public
revelation of the price and terms of payment would put the City at a negotiating disadvantage.
Whatever the purpose of this closed session, the calling of it would seem to indicate someone is
unhappy with the current lease.
In my view, the discussion of that unhappiness, and the possibility of the need for a closed
session to revisit price and terms of payment, should have happened publicly.
At the very least, the announcement should have gone beyond the minimum requirements
of the Brown Act and revealed the reason for calling the meeting and who requested it.
June 12, 2018, Council Closed Session Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
Doing less than that creates great anxiety in the community and distrust of its governmental
institutions, as this announcement has done.
In addition to these basic concerns about transparency, if a decision to consider sale of the
property has been made (in apparent violation of the Brown Act, to the extent that the decision
would seem to have been made outside of a noticed public meeting), additional concerns arise:
1. Isn't the City required to conduct some kind of competitive bidding process, rather
than considering sale to a single preferred purchaser?
2. Are there state restrictions on the sale of public property, particularly in the Coastal Zone?
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The agenda lists closed session evaluations of two employees: the City Clerk and the City
Attorney.
It would seem helpful to remind the Council that these closed session evaluations are supposed to
be confined to evaluation of these persons personal performance and their attainment of the
personal goals set for them by the Council.
Regarding that, the personal goals of the three Newport Beach City Council employees (the City
Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney), and whether they have been attained, has never been
revealed to the public. I do not believe this is a necessity. As an example, the Costa Mesa
Sanitary District (within whose boundaries I live) each year publicly discusses the goals of its
General Manager, and his success or failure in meeting them (see, for example, Item E.2 on their
February 22, 2018, agenda). In my view, having these goals publicly scrutinized has not been
detrimental, but to the contrary has improved the governance of the District and public confidence
in it — a conclusion which I believe must be shared by the Board or they would not continue the
practice.
Quite aside from questions of personal performance, which it can be argued are best discussed in
private, are the larger questions of whether the departments they direct are providing the best
service they could to the public, Council and staff. Those are questions that should be, and I
believe are required to be, discussed in public; yet the discussion of which is long overdue in
Newport Beach.
I do not have time to explore this in detail today, but here is a sampling of non -personnel related
problems deserving of open public discussion:
City Clerk
Five years after moving to the new City Hall, the public is still lacking a means to
electronically view documents at the service desk in the Clerk's Office.
Despite the Clerk's best efforts, many find the agenda system difficult to navigate, yet the
possibilities and options for improvement remain unexplored in the absence of Council -
initiated public discussion.
June 12, 2018, Council Closed Session Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
• Much as I applaud the improved effort to respond to Public Records Act requests, most still
take 10 days. For example, a May 14, 2018, request to view the City Manager Recruitment
contract took 10 days to be responded to despite the contract (C-8550) apparently having
been quietly uploaded to the Laserfiche archive the day following the request.
• For reasons unknown to me, copies of old city contracts are maintained online in fulfillment
of the Clerk's City Charter Sec. 603(c) requirement to maintain a contracts book, but are not
accessible to the public unless they are still "active."
• Links, such as those carefully added to the present document, are not preserved when the
documents are archived.
• The Records Retention schedule, one of the City's key documents (and itself raising
questions of why, in an electronic world, documents are being erased at all), is privately
"copyrighted" and not available for online inspection.
City Attorney
• There are vast opportunities for improvement of this department, which seems to have
become instrumental in dictating and interpreting City policy (not just putting it in proper
"legal" format, which I believe was its intended function), yet whose operations are almost
totally hidden to the public.
• As an interpreter, its written opinions about laws applicable to the City should be available
for public inspection, and not require litigation to be revealed.
• The lack of clarity as to what closed sessions are being held for has increased dramatically
since the arrival of the current City Attorney.
• The department could clearly go beyond the bare minimum requirements of the Brown Act
both in announcing what is to be discussed in closed session and what actions were taken
in them, including disclosing the persons in attendance at them. Without such information
the public has no way of intelligently assessing whether they are being properly used.
• Nearly three months later, I am still awaiting information as to the nature or, even the title,
of the litigation the Council authorized initiating, by a 4:3 vote, at its March 27, 2018, closed
session meeting.
• A complete list of all litigation in which the City is involved, and its status, including
upcoming hearing dates, should be publicly posted, with an easy opportunity for the public
to see the pleadings.
• Settlements should be announced and posted as a matter of course, not just upon request.
Recieved After Agenda Printed
June 12, 2018
Closed Session
From:
Buzz <buzz@buzzperson.com>
Sent:
Monday, June 11, 2018 9:46 AM
To:
Peotter, Scott
Cc:
Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave
Subject:
Re[2]: Sale of former City Hall Property
Hello Scott,
I didn't see that you included any of your fellow council persons in your reply so I am copying them on
this as well as the manager.
First, although I disagree with most of your reply, thank you for the courtesy of responding.
Most glaring to me is your comment that because the City holds the underlining lease on the Lido
House that it isl of a sudden be in the hotel business.. Are you saying that if I own a piece of property
and lease it to a restaurant that, behold, I am a restaurateur? This is patently ludicrous and absurd.
I see it as a leasehold interest providing for a positive cash flow for many years with an asset that will
increase in value, as has every property in Newport Beach done year after year after year. Even in
the last major financial crisis that was brought about by greedy bankers and real estate brokers, the
values in Newport did decrease, but at a much lower rate than anywhere in California and
dramatically nationwide. My parents bought a house on Lido Isle for $27,500... when it was a lot of
money.... do you think it will be a negative for the City, in generations to come to own a property that
is greatly appreciated in value. I think not.
My recollection is that the lease on that property was entered into after multiple market studies,
appraisals and reports all reflecting that the value was correct and it would lead to a nice cash flow for
the City for years while NOT putting the City in the Hotel business.
As to reference to Marina Park, I spoke of lack of history in my previous note. You were not around in
1999 when a small boutique hotel was proposed for Marina Park. That debate went on for several
years culminating with a vote in the General Election in 2004, where the voters said NO to such a
use. I was here and participated in discussions afterwards and I had favored selling the property for
residential uses of this city property but that was not possible because of tidelands issues... After a
very long and arduous reach out to the community the city settled on a park, on what was not going to
generate much revenue for anyone and would placed on very expensive City property.. There was a
vote and the residents got what they wanted..... contrary to your guess....
Finally, as to you placing the voting whether to approve Certificates of Participation before the voters.
These are difficult enough for people in financing to understand, and certainly likely to be confused by
your average voter. I hope that's not your intent. They take away a tool that a City has available which
ties the hands of future Councils. I am vigorously opposed to any such notion.
I am sorry I will not be able to testify on these tomorrow as I am leaving for Europe in the morning.
Regards,
James C. "Buzz" Person
507 29th Street Suite A
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 673-9201
No Facsimile
email: buzzClbuzzperson.com
------ Original Message ------
From: "Peotter, Scott" <speotter _newportbeachca.gov>
To: "Buzz" <buzz(D-buzzperson.com>
Sent: 6/10/2018 5:01:42 PM
Subject: Re: Sale of former City Hall Property
Buzz we are not suggesting selling the Lido House Hotel site at this time. But unfortunately the previous council leased it
out to the hotel developer at a ridiculously low price and it is doubtful that it will ever bring in much income from the lease
of the land. The lease is for 75 years, so it is stuck at this low rate for almost 4 generations.
agree with you, another design with Lido Village and putting the property on the water might have made more sense,
but this is what the previous council decided and we have to live with it.
Although our lease, in effect, puts the city in the "hotel business" and I am not sure that is a proper role for government.
It is interesting that you comment on out debt proposal requiring voters to approve future debt over a certain
amount "This would be better than voting on a ballot measure, which I understand if proposed, that will
forever tie the hands of all future City Councils to finance major City projects, which borders on being
silly" When you want voters to be able to vote before we sell the Lido House site, but not a debt limitation requirement.
All the debt proposal does is require voter approval for more than (I am proposing $10M) in debt for a project. This would
mean that if a city council in the future wanted to borrow $130M for a new city hall they would have to get voter approval
first. The only projects that the city has built to date that would have come under this requirement would be the city hall
and Marina park, both of which, I suspect, would have been much different if voters had had a say.
THere would be exceptions for emergencies or natural disasters and of course if the city paid cash, then no vote will
be required.
SCOTT PEOTTER
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Representing the 6th District
From: Buzz <buzz@buzzperson.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:53:20 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Kiff, Dave
Subject: Sale of former City Hall Property
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you after having lived all of my 72 years in the First District either on Lido Isle, the
Peninsula and Cannery Village.
It is just been brought to my attention that, despite the good financial health of the City; despite the
lack of need for such and action; and despite the long term loss of revenues to the City from property
that will only get more valuable and produce greater income, one or some of you have decided it will
be in the best interest, for some unknown reason, to sell off the former City Hall property, now known
as The Lido House. This idea totally lacks any respect of not only history but a senseless disregard
for the long term good of the City.
I am vehemently opposed to any such action.
The problem with the majority of this City Council as well as many who have served recently, you
have no little regard for the basics that you need to have to protect this City's heritage as well as the
future. I attribute this mostly, for the majority of you, as a lack of history and understanding of the
City.
The City Hall property is an asset that the City has enjoyed all of my life. When I was young it
housed the Police Department and Jail, as well as the seat of City Government. As I am a regular
visitor to City Hall stemming back to my days on the Planning Commission in the '80's, I have seen it
in many variations. As we came into this 21st century, it was evident that unless it went up in height,
there was just no room left for the staff to occupy as the City itself grew far larger than anyone ever
anticipated. While not as convenient for me, the new City Hall is a fantastic facility worth every penny
that was spent on it. It will serve the City and its residents well long after I am gone.
I can"t say the same for what has happened on the former site, although a beautiful facility, the
property is overbuilt and not in a location which would have made the maximum amount of sense for
the long term, on the water at the Lido Marina Village site. Unfortunately, the planning staff and you
and former Councils did not pursue very hard that alternative, which would have eliminated a many
time over problem retail center and replaced it with a vibrant use on the water which would have
generated much more income for the developer and the City than the current location of the new
hotel.
In passing, I was here when Lido Marina Village was first built and I have seen in fall into disrepair
and lack of tenants in several 5-10 year cycles. The new version is nice but it did not address the
basic flaws with the site that dooms the site to mediocrity forever, namely the retail uses combined
with horrible visibility, circulation and design. I understand that already on many nights you can shoot
a cannon through the new anchor restaurant. Vision would have had the City working hard with the
property owners of both sites to make a hotel and/or a nice mixed use project happen..
That being said, if you want to sell the Lido House property, which belongs to me and my fellow
citizens, I would suggest that such idea should be put first to the voters of the City and have you
folks identify fully the need and purpose of the sale and the direction of where the funds are
going. Then maybe more sensible heads will prevail. This would be better than voting on a ballot
measure, which I understand if proposed, that will forever tie the hands of all future City Councils to
finance major City projects, which borders on being silly.
I urge you not to give any consideration any thought of selling this valuable City asset.
Thank you.
Regards,
James C. "Buzz" Person
507 29th Street Unit A
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 673-9201
No Facsimile
email: buzz@buzzperson.com
Received 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
Received After Agenda Printed
June 12, 2018
Closed Session
Nelson, Jennifer
From: Paul Watkins <paul@lawfriend.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Kiff, Dave
Subject: Sale of Lido House Fee
Dear Honorable Mayor Duffield and Councilmembers:
I grew up in the Pasadena area. When my Dad passed away, his free -and -clear large home was left to me and my two
sisters. The three of us discussed what to do with the home.
I was the minority vote in favor of holding the asset and leasing it out so that the three of us would realize significant
long term revenue while the property continued to appreciate.
Well, I lost the vote, and, as it turns out, we lost literally millions of dollars by selling the home soon after Dad's passing
rather than holding it for the long term.
Yes, holding the asset would mean that the three of us would be temporarily in the landlord biz, but, in hindsight, that
would have been a small price to pay for the ultimate return in the millions. I learned a valuable lesson from the
"instant gratification" strategy which we chose to pursue.
The ground lease model has worked well for the City at the Dunes and at the Balboa Bay Resort. Why change this
successful model?
I don't know whether the Lido House ground lease contains a very limited unrecorded Right of First Notice/Right of First
Offer (not a Right of First Refusal), but, in my view, this would be about as far as the City might go in appeasing Mr.
Olson.
Thank you for considering my point of view.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul K. Watkins for
Paul K. Watkins, APC
6408 West Ocean Front
Newport Beach, CA 92663-1929 and
485 East 17th Street, Suite 600
Costa Mesa, CA 92627-4705
Of Counsel: Self & Bhamre
Cell: (714) 403-6408
E -Mail: paul@lawfriend.com
1
Received After Agenda Printed
June 12, 2018
Closed Session
From: Don & Judy Cole <lagunahouse@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:42 AM
To: Dixon, Diane
Subject: LHH property sale
Good morning Diane!
Please support pushing this agenda item back to the 26th. It seems to have slipped under the radar without any public
discussion. Thank you!
Don & Judy Cole
Sent from my iPhone 7
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
Closed Session
Nelson, Jennifer
From: michelle almanza <shellalmanza@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Lido House Financials
Dear City Council,
The posted agenda indicates that you are going to be discussing the sale of the Lido House hotel property during the closed
session portion of tonight's meeting.
As I understand this, the land lease revenues are minimal for the first few years after opening, but after the hotel is established,
the lease goes to a market rate rent. it is expected to generate more than 75 million dollars for the city coffers over the term of
the lease. Compare that to a short term gain of 6 to 7 million dollars if the property is sold now.
You have a clear fiduciary responsibility to make the best financial decisions possible for the residents of our city and it seems
clear to me that maintaining the lease is the best course of action. Please do not sell the Lido House property.
Thank you,
Michelle Almanza