Huntington Beach mayor defends airshow settlement, now in state’s crosshairs
After Huntington Beach officials Wednesday released details of a settlement agreement with operators of the Pacific Airshow, enshrining entitlements that could cost the city millions over the next 40 years, the city’s mayor responded with allegations of her own.
But despite the public “clap back,†those who question the terms of the arrangement and how it was reached are taking their case to the state, seeking to clarify how deeply the settlement could impact the city.
In a statement issued through the city’s communications team Thursday, Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark accused council members Dan Kalmick, Natalie Moser and Rhonda Bolton of “political gamesmanship†for their remarks that the settlement could possibly constitute a gift of public funds to a for-profit business.
“They are claiming that this is a ‘bad’ deal that should be investigated by the attorney general,†she said in the statement posted Thursday on the city’s website and Facebook page. “If this is true, which it is not, why did [they] sit on this information for over a year and a half?
“Had they believed there was anything improper, nothing stopped them from contacting the attorney general then, or the district attorney or any other law enforcement agency.â€
Van Der Mark accused the three officials, all registered Democrats whose terms will expire in November, of using the settlement as a means of campaigning for reelection.
“While these three dissenting council members cast aspersions at the integrity of the City Council, the City Council majority has been doing everything in its power to exercise its best judgment to make the city safer, to fight Sacramento’s destructive policies for cities, to enhance economic vitality and to maintain a high-quality, patriotic way of life,†she said.
Kalmick countered that view, describing the mayor’s message being sent out by Huntington Beach’s public affairs manager “an inappropriate use of city facilities for political speech.â€
He said he did not speak publicly about the Pacific Airshow settlement until this week’s release because council members cannot disclose what is discussed in closed session meetings to the public and must instead rely on the city’s legal counsel to determine a course of action.
“Normally, I would go to my city attorney, but my city attorney is complicit in this deal,†he said Thursday. “So, why are we doing this now? Because now I have a public document to point to.â€
Kalmick said he never received a copy of the full settlement and contradicted Gates’ claim Wednesday that city staff conducted a “costing†of the proposal. Kalmick maintains no financial analysis was done.
The settlement stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Kevin Elliott, chief executive of Code Four, the event management company that stages the annual three-day Pacific Airshow. Elliott claimed when the final day of the event was canceled in 2021 due to an oil spill he lost millions in revenue.
In addition to a settlement payment of $5.4 million over a six-year period, the deal allows Code Four, should it enter into a contract with the city, to host the Pacific Airshow at any time of the year it wishes and to use and monetize up to 3,500 city parking spaces during the event. The contract term is 10 years with three 10-year renewal options, at Code Four’s discretion.
The nine-page document includes a list of terms that, if enacted, could grant Code Four and its head Kevin Elliott a series of entitlements for the next 40 years.
It further makes those rights transferable to a third party, should Code Four sell the enterprise, and includes a stipulation that the city will waive all fees and permits associated with the event throughout the life of the contract.
Kalmick wondered Thursday whether Elliott might have already been compensated for the lost day of revenues, either through an insurance policy or a separate settlement with Amplify Energy, found to be at fault for the 25,000-gallon spill.
“Did [Code Four] get made whole from the oil company? Did they have insurance?†he wondered. “Did they get made whole on multiple fronts and then come to the city to get more money from us? I never got an answer to that.â€
Local resident Gina Clayton-Tarvin — who serves on the Ocean View School District’s Board of Trustees and won a court ruling that forced Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates to release the complete settlement document — said the terms of the agreement confirmed her worst fears.
“It’s a shameless giveaway to Airshow operator Kevin Elliott†she said Thursday, claiming that over a 40-year period the city could stand to lose around $20.5 million in payments, waived fees and lost revenue.
Clayton-Tarvin forwarded the document to the offices of California’s attorney general and state auditor, the latter of which was advised in May by the state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee to review the controversial transaction.
“I intend to keep pushing and to keep monitoring the situation and to make sure those who have potentially wronged the taxpayers are brought to justice,†she said. “You simply can’t make up your own rules in California, in the United States of America.
“Nobody is above the law. And they’re going to learn the hard way.â€
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.
