Although the city had told the public the Hall park construction would begin in 2010, there has been great concern that the city did not have enough money saved up to open the park. The official budget projections show Phase I as being under funded. The ETA, Council candidates and the Parks and Rec Commission have repeatedly asked city staff why the construction cost estimates are being withheld from the public. Staff respond by saying they do not want to share what has been provided by the consultant to date. They claim the information that has been submitted to the city indicates the costs will be substantially less than originally predicted and imply that funding is not an issue.

Mayor Bond was quoted yesterday in the NCTimes:

The proposed Hall property park, which is south of Santa Fe Drive and west of Interstate 5, may go from the planning stages into the early construction phase in 2011.

“We’re going to have to take a look at what we need, rather than what we want,” Bond said, adding that the city has most, but not all, of the money it will need for the first phase of construction.

The contract for the park construction plans has no deadlines within it.

Berkeley citizens grew tired of their city council dragging their feet and have gotten enough signatures to take an initiative to the voters that would:

• Bigger Soapbox: Public commentators would have an extra minute (three total) to talk about an issue and could, if they wanted to, speak to every single agenda item at a meeting. During public hearings, the amount of time for speakers to say what they want to say is greatly expanded.
• Miniaturized Initiative Process: Members of the public would be able to place an item on the City Council agenda if 100 signatures are mustered – 50 signatures for any commission.
• This Venue is Too Small: If at any time there is not enough space in the council chambers to accommodate the number of people present, the council would have to adjourn to a larger location while still providing other mandates in the process, such as a live television feed.
• Behind Closed Doors: The council would have to not only report how members voted during closed session, regardless of whether action was taken, they would have to vote again in public.
• Preparation is Perfection: Agenda packets would have to be distributed no later than 11 days before the meeting while a number of restrictions also apply, such as no emergency items by the council except under extremely narrow circumstances.
• Let the Records Flow: Any record that is not restricted to the public would be made available online, such as economic conflict of interest forms, campaign finance data, and appointment calenders. Even certain restricted information would be shined on, such as certain communiques between the city attorney and council about pending litigation.
• Who Watches the Watchers: The ordinance would give birth to an Enforcement Commission that would, essentially, be “above” the council in certain regards: independent legal representation, the ability to draw from the legal fund, powers to sue the City over sunshine violations, and the authority determine whether allegations of sunshine wrongdoing are founded.
• With Whom Are You Having Lunch? The ordinance would require top city officials to keep their appointment calendars online, and to update them weekly.
• Early Bedtime: Berkeley City Council meetings, which have been known to go on for hours, would have an 11 pm curfew under the proposed ordinance.

Read more about Berkeley’s move here.

Read about the 4-1 vote against a Sunshine Ordinance for Encinitas here.

From a motion being filed in San Diego Superior Court:

The City denied Cummins’ request for the public records concerning the condition of the streets, contending that disclosure of the consultant’s report would disclose what the City was thinking since the City took the report made some changes to it and ultimately used it as the basis for street maintenance recommendations to the City Council.  (Verified Petition, ¶¶ 7-11, 16.)  This action for a writ of mandate (Code of Civil Procedure § 1085) and for declaratory relief (Code of Civil Procedure § 1060) followed.

On November 19, 2010, after receiving the City’s Responses to Cummins Special Interrogatories (First Set), Cummins counsel requested in writing that the City participate in a “meet and confer” concerning the inadequate responses, but received no response.  (Declaration of Dennis A. Winston (“Winston Declaration”), ¶¶ 4, 5.)

On November 30, 2010, after scheduling this motion and being informed of the Court’s program to “meet and confer” on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, Cummins counsel requested in writing that the City participate in a meet and confer under the Court’s auspices.  Again, the City did not respond to this request at all!  (Winston Declaration, ¶¶ 6, 7, 8.)

What does this mean? The city won’t answer questions about the facts in the case and they won’t meet with the open government attorneys.

Could it be that the City’s story has been full of beans?