An article last week in the Contra Costa Times – "Behind the scenes, developers influence Concord Naval Weapons Station planning" – leaves the impression that Council members and city staff are secretly meeting with developers to find ways to change the adopted Reuse Plan.

That's not happening.

First, while it is true that market-rate developers have not, so far, actively submitted formal comments during the Reuse Plan process they were in attendance at the various workshops and CAC meetings that were held.

As crazy as it seems – given that this process has been going on for over four years – it's still too early and too uncertain for most builders or developers to care about or spend resources on the Base Reuse project.

Further, I think it is smart the Council has asked staff to have the Base Reuse plan's economics re-examined and NOT getting the development community's expertise and advice in that process would be a huge mistake.

Second, the story doesn't explain that ALL the other groups – labor, affordable housing, social justice, education, environmental, neighborhood, sports, etc. have held numerous informal meetings, workshops and even rallies with Council members and city staff invitees in attendance over the past four years.  I know.  I attended many, if not most, of them.  

It's the Council and staff's responsibility to hear the viewpoints of the various stakeholders and make recommendations and decisions in the best interests of the entire community.

The Base Reuse process is far from over and everyone should continue to express their views and advocate for their cause.  So far I think the process is working well.  The fact not everyone is completely happy proves it.

I'm glad to see that the City has been able to negotiate a new management agreement for the Pavilion with Live Nation.  The City Council will consider the agreement at their meeting next Tuesday (March 22).  

It's unfortunate that the agreement is only for two years and that the changing realities of the music/concert business has yet again reduced what Live Nation is willing to pay the City for the management rights to the Pavilion.  Fortunately the City was able to refinance most of the outstanding Pavilion expansion bonds in 2009 and thereby lower the City's annual payments.  This agreement with Live Nation covers those payments and eliminates the need to use any General Fund dollars to subsidy the Pavilion over the next two years.  I think the Council should approve the agreement.

Then we wait.  We wait to see if the concert industry ever recovers.  We wait to see if the entertainment industry's business model will ever favor a Pavilion sized venue.

Or we act.  Long ago community activists, benefactors and music lovers started a Jazz Festival that grew and that effort resulted in the Concord Pavilion.  Can't we begin an equally challenging effort to restore community support and pride for our Pavilion?

I know times have changed and the professionals tell us it won't work.  But in 1996 many of those same professionals told us – incorrectly – that investing $19 million to expand the Pavilion would ensure its success.  They were wrong.  I think a new community effort, working collaboratively with Live Nation, may be the only chance we have to both protect our General Fund and enhance the long-term viability of the Concord Pavilion.

What do you think?

Concord's voter approved half-cent increase in the sales tax (Measure Q) goes into effect on April 1.

The Board of Equalization has sent this special notice to all businesses required to collect and file tax reports with them.  The notice lists all jurisdictions that will be changing their sales tax rate.

The increase in the sales tax will last five years and is expected to generate approximately $8 million dollars per year.  These funds will be used to protect core city services and replenish the city's budget reserves.  The additional revenue will not be used to restore city services or staff positions cut over the past two years as the city worked to balance its budget against declining revenues.

In approving the temporary sales tax increase (Measure Q) the voters also directed the City Council to appoint an Oversight Committee.  In January 2011 the Council decided the Oversight Committee should consist of seven members – 4 residents, 2 Concord business people (who may not live in Concord) and 1 who could be either a resident or business person.  The Council is expected to interview and appoint the initial Oversight Committee sometime in the next month.

I have applied to serve on the Oversight Committee because I would like to ensure the commitments the city made to Concord voters about the use and temporary nature of the additional sales tax are kept.

I know tax increases are unpopular.  The alternative – further cuts in city services after two years of program reductions, staff reductions and employee compensation concessions would also be unpopular.

The new sales tax revenue will give the city some flexibility as it struggles with yet another "take-away" by the state with the near certain elimination of redevelopment agencies in this year's state budget package.  I hope our legislators work with Governor Brown to create a new mechanism voters can approve to fund a new style of redevelopment and/or economic development efforts.

I appreciate the vision Concord voter's expressed when they passed Measure Q last November.  Now it will be important to see that the new revenue is used properly to stabilize city services and replenish our budget reserve – so that in five years we are prepared when this revenue source expires.

It's been over 10 years since a woman has served on the Concord Planning Commission.

And yet only three of the 19 applicants the City Council will be considering for appointment to the Planning Commission next Tuesday night are women.  Why? [Link to staff report.]

The issues coming before the Planning Commission over the next two years are important and include both policy questions about the Base Reuse Project and the Citywide standards in the new Development Code.  On those two matters alone the Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council will help shape the future of Concord for decades.

Here's my advice to the Council:

1. Ignore those who tell you not to put possible opponents (future Council candidates) on the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission is a training ground for future Council members.  Putting someone on the Planning Commission tests their abilities and gives them a small dose of the reality of serving in public office.  It is the best kind of succession planning.  And if ultimately the voters decide someone should serve on the City Council – I'd certainly prefer they have this experience.
2. Your staff is stretched thin.  Bringing new commissioners up to speed on the important, pending matters will take staff time and effort. While you are now filling 3 of the 5 Planning Commission seats, you have one "open" seat created by Ron Leone's election to Council last November. Think carefully before making more "change" than that. Now is not the time to discard the institutional knowledge and experience of Commissioners Bob Hoag and Kevin Costa.
3. Appoint a woman. 

As I reviewed yesterday's election results from Concord I noticed a interesting fact. About 13,000 votes were not cast in the City Council election – that could have been cast.  According to the County Elections department there were 25,001 votes cast for and against Measure Q.

That should mean in a Council race for three seats (everyone has three votes) – that about 75,000 votes could be cast for City Council.  Yet look at the returns for Council…

Only 62,059 votes – or about 13,000 fewer than allowed/possible were actually cast.

Ironic.  More votes were not cast than the top vote-getter received.  Campaign strategy?  Voter forgetfulness or inattention?  Probably both and other reasons as well.  Still, what if…

P.S. – THANK YOU to Concord voters for passing Measure Q and providing funding protection for vital city services!

NOTE:  The tables shown in this post were not the final results – just what was available the morning after the election.