Pacific Airshow settlement still a hot topic in Surf City
Did a controversial multimillion-dollar settlement reached last year save the popular Pacific Airshow for Huntington Beach, as then-Mayor Tony Strickland put it?
Or was it “criminal,” as Councilwoman Natalie Moser claimed?
Council members sparred over the settlement, released in full last month after a judge ruled in favor of plaintiff Gina Clayton-Tarvin, for about an hour at Tuesday night’s meeting.
In the end, the panel voted to look at an agenda item brought forward by Councilman Casey McKeon to evaluate city tax-sharing with big business throughout the city.
“This is common practice,” McKeon said. “I don’t think it’s fair to just nitpick one event, so let’s put it all out on the table.”
The city’s finance department was asked to bring back a report by the council’s scheduled Sept. 17 meeting. A potential problem: Sunny Han, the city’s chief finance officer, is resigning, leaving that department hamstrung and continuing the recent exodus of top city officials, Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins announced Tuesday night.
“Our CFO’s last day is the end of the month, and we have to do recruitment,” Councilman Dan Kalmick said. “I don’t know if there’s any capacity to achieve this goal in the time frame and still be able to manage the city … There’s one or two people left in the entire finance department at this point.”
Minority council members Kalmick, Moser and Rhonda Bolton had brought forward an item seeking to determine the total cost to the city of the Pacific Airshow settlement.
A substitute motion from Strickland asked for a second financial survey of the air show’s economic impact, separate from the one commissioned by Visit Huntington Beach and released in 2020.
The substitute motion passed 4-3 by the conservative majority, over Moser’s objections that it wasn’t the same thing as what the original agenda item asked for.
The discussion featured disclosure of some past closed-session talks about the settlement, after City Atty. Michael Gates made the rare move of asking for attorney-client privilege to be waived. The City Council unanimously agreed.
“This narrative has been developed by Dan Kalmick, Natalie Moser and Rhonda Bolton over the past few months about how they didn’t have the information they wanted,” Gates said Friday. “Everything’s been confidential, and I haven’t been able to defend the city or defend the actions of the greater City Council. The minority has essentially been able to get away with being able to say whatever they want, and there’s no ability to respond to it.”
Gates said every question a council member had about the agreement was answered at the time.
He further accused the council minority of being political in their intentions and having a “personal ax to grind” with air show operator Code Four and Kevin Elliott. Kalmick, Moser and Bolton are all seeking to retain their seats this year.
“It just reeks of political opportunity because they’re running for reelection,” he said. “I think they think that this issue is favorable to them.”
But Moser said Friday she, Kalmick and Bolton have been vocal against the settlement agreement ever since it was announced in May 2023. They voted against it in closed session.
“We have done everything responsible public servants can do in this situation, and we have been fighting for our residents,” she said. “I think that we called it out at the time, when they were doing their press conferences. We were saying, ‘This is not OK, this is criminal,’ out loud. We weren’t hiding.
“Let’s back up here,” she continued. “Why did we even have a settlement agreement at all? I think we would have won in court because we’re not the responsible party. We never said, ‘You can’t have an air show here.’ That never happened.”
Moser said she has never seen a list of damages sustained by Code Four when the last day of its 2021 air show was canceled due to an oil spill, leading to its lawsuit against the city. Also, she said, as far as the settlement agreement, all she saw in closed session was a term sheet.
“I never saw the signed or executed settlement agreement in closed session,” she said. “I don’t trust [Gates], so I asked for a copy of it. I’m glad I double-checked.”
Rather than giving her a copy, Gates invited her to his office to review the document.
“When there’s confidential information, we don’t essentially leak it out to public officials that are subject to public records requests,” he said. “We never give confidential documents to other public officials to have in their possession.”
Moser’s response was that it shouldn’t have been a confidential document.
“It’s a signed, executed contract, which should become a public document at that time,” she said. “It’s all agreed upon. He can say that, but it always should have been made available, not just to me, but to everyone.”
The council minority has called for the state attorney general to investigate the settlement and what it calls a potential gift of public funds.
In May, the California Joint Legislative Committee voted to have the state auditor examine the settlement.
The Pacific Airshow is currently without a long-term contract with the city or even a contract for this year as it awaits a full California Environmental Quality Act study and addresses concerns brought forward by the California Coastal Commission.
Still, the settlement agreement does provide a blueprint. Section 2B of the agreement says that future air show events will be “consistent with the terms of this agreement.”
“It’s a term sheet that was signed and is legally binding,” Moser said. “You can say that it’s not a long-term agreement, and it’s not yet, because we do have to have the [environmental impact report] and do the long-term agreement ... but the future agreement will expressly provide the same benefits to Pacific Airshow that the city conferred under this settlement.”
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.
