Council Meeting Tuesday July 17

Do you know what's on the agenda?

Review the agenda HERE.

Show up.  Be heard.

Why can't the City of Fullerton track labor for the Water Fund (or anything else)?

After listening to the City Manager and various department managers discussing their budget woes at the City's Budget Workshop on Tuesday night it occurred to me to ask a basic question.

Having worked for a few different employers over the years one learns that employee time sheets are an important tool for allocating labor costs and client billing.  "If you cannot measure it," says professor Barry McCarthy "you cannot manage it."

Something I heard, I can't recall just what specifically, caused me to rise out of my seat and approach the dead microphone.  The question was so simple I thought I might be asking a "stupid" question.

My question: "Do employees bill their time to specific projects or funds?"


The answer: "No."

A short time later, Director of Engineering Don Hoppe told me his Engineering Department does track time based on the engineering project.  So, while nearly all of City Hall fails to track employee time, a fundamental principle of management, Don Hoppe's engineering team gets an "A".

If the City were anything like a business, it would have failed decades ago.  But they can simply raise taxes (fees) and continue their charade until someone notices.  Like when water rates skyrocket.

Several managers that I spoke with after the Budget Workshop said they wanted to know how much time their employees are spending on specific projects and tasks but that the current (and new) accounting system just isn't set up for that type of data input.

Of all of the jobs I have ever had, in the public sector and private sector, only two employers did not have employees fill out time sheets and list what work they did.  Both companies went out of business years ago.

The City's inability to account for labor and, therefor actual costs, is at the heart of the issue.  It also blows a titanic hole in labor  arguments about efficiency and effectiveness of employees.

And so City Hall, when faced with running out of money, looks to the taxpayers for the bailout.  Its time to end taxpayer funded bailouts and require employees to track their time based on project funding - just like that which the City requires of their own consultants and contractors.

How much overhead gets billed to the Water Fund?

Looking further into "costs" of service for our water, how many different ways is administrative overhead charged to the Water Fund?  This pie chart shows several.

1. "Administrative Services" (8% direct allocation from water bill)
2. "Other Expenses" (2% direct allocation from water bill to pay Community Development Department, Human Resources Department, Parks & Rec Department, the City Council, and the City Manager)
3. "Franchise Fee" (11% direct allocation from water bill to pay for the Finance department, City Administrator, City Attorney, and the City Clerk for their respective DIRECT SERVICES to the Municipal Utilities Department- see Resolution 5184 below) 

Resolution 5184, 1970

Good grief!  That's 21% of the Water Fund or $4,746,000.  If that number sounds familiar, it should.  That's the same amount being allocated to the Maintenance Services Department which are probably direct costs and not bloated overhead.

No wonder City Hall doesn't want the Water Fund audited!

The bottom line here is that everyone it seems has their hand in the Water Fund.  Adding additional taxes to current or future water rates is unacceptable and will not solve City Hall's spending problem.  

The Trench Tax

One of the attempted, and thus far rejected, justifications for a percentage-based franchise fee that was concocted by City staff was the Trench Tax.

The Trench Tax was created as a means to pay for the damage created by having wet utilities (water lines, sewers, etc.) buried in the street.

Keep in mind that the Trench Tax is part of the New & Improved Franchise Fee and does not include the cost of the Maintenance Services Department repairing the street each time their is a water leak or water line repair.

According to three licensed civil engineers that I have shown the transfer study to, trench settling occurs when the soil is not compacted appropriately.  Using the correct backfill material and compaction standards will create a base capable of supporting the road.  In lay terms, when done correctly, trench work does NOT accelerate deterioration of the street.  Also, when contractors want to dig in the street, a city inspector comes out to make sure that the street is constructed and restored correctly.  This is a double standard with no inspector verifying the City work.

Aside from the Trench Tax, Maintenance Services Department bills their time spent working on broken water lines to the City's General Fund, at least that is what Dave Schickling reported at the April 9, 2012 meeting.  I have found no evidence to support this claim but since there is no audit of the Water Fund, we cannot possibly know if money was paid to the General Fund to reimburse for the Maintenance Services Department's water-related work.  More importantly, this cannot be part of the Franchise Fee because that is suppose to cover certain administrative costs (which we were taxed twice for as well and is indicated in the pie chart - Franchise Fee vs. Other Expenses vs. Administrative Services).

And then there is this pesky but colorful pie chart which shows that the Maintenance Services Department accounted for 21% of the budgeted cost to maintain the Water System, or $4,746,000 in 2011.  

We are left contemplating just how many ways City staff will attempt to tax our water to fix the same piece of asphalt.  Here are at least two:

1. Trench Tax (a.k.a New & Improved Franchise Fee, less rent-back)
2. Allocation of Water Fund from water bill for Maintenance Services

But it gets worse.  How much bureaucratic overhead is paid for through your water bill and what does it actually cover?  Find out tomorrow.

Why Didn't Norby Speak Up On Fullerton's Water Tax? He did.

Back on May 6, 1997 a resident named Tom O'Neill told the City Council that he opposed the practice of transferring money from the Water Fund to the General Fund.  O'Neill said it's deceptive and builds mistrust in elected officials.  Then Mayor Chris Norby noted that the City attorney was reviewing this issue and would report on it at a future meeting.

Click image for full screen.

Then, in September of 1997, the Water Fund issue rises again as the priorities for Hill Crest Park were being considered.  The Water Fund and Redevelopment Fund were being eyed as the primary funding source.

The City's consultant tried to explain why these funds could be used.  His logic?  If a new waterline and reservoir were to be installed, many of the other park improvements could be logically tied to the water work.

Marie Whaling and Barbara Marr asked questions about the use of Redevelopment Funds and Water Funds for the park.

Mayor Norby explained that Redevelopment Funds were to be used for alleviating blight.  He went on to say that the concerns expressed regarding funding sources are legitimate and that Water Fund monies are for water purposes and expenditures must be related to water and its delivery.

Click image for full screen.

Click image for full screen.

City of Fullerton Gets Facts Wrong

My inbox alerted me that the City's latest Focus On Fullerton newsletter published by City Hall had been deposited.

Perusing the topics I found a "A Q&A: "Understanding the City's water fund transfer".  It sounded pretty honest until I got to this part:

Q: I have heard the City’s water franchise fee described as “illegal,” is this true?

Cities are entitled to recover all of their costs for utility services through their water service fees, including costs provided by the General Fund in support of the water utility. The City has determined, however, that it is appropriate to identify and quantify rather than estimate the direct charges that should be assessed to the Water Fund for the use of City-owned property and facilities in support of water system operations. The City engaged an independent rate consultant for this purpose.

As you might expect, I take issue with the answer.

First, the city did NOT determine that it is appropriate to identify and quantify rather than estimate the direct charges that should be assessed to the Water fund.  No, it was the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Courts that determined activities similar to those practiced by City Hall were illegal.

Second, it is absurd to think that Municipal & Financial Services, Inc. is an independent consultant.  This is the same firm that conducted the Rate Study last year and who told the Water Rate Study Ad Hoc committee that we shouldn't ask questions about the franchise fee because we''l be "opening a can of worms."  I'm confident that M&FS did exactly what they were hired to do: justify as much of the transfer as they could articulate.

So, while the City chooses to dance around the subject and smooth over the problem with distractions, I'll answer the question... YES, THE FRANCHISE FEE IS ILLEGAL AND IT IS STILL IN PRACTICE IN FULLERTON.

On a "minor" side note, the City also incorrectly tells us that we can only bring up the issue when it is on the City Council Agenda:

Does the public have any say?
Yes, members of the public may speak at Ad Hoc Water Rate Study Committee and City Council meetings when the item is agenized. They may also write letters to the City Council.

This is another piece of bad or erroneous information.  The public may speak to the City Council about anything within the Council's purview, such as water rates, rebates, and franchise fees even if the issue is not on the agenda.  This is what the PUBLIC COMMENTS section of the City Council meeting is reserved for.  You have a legal right to speak before your elected representatives whom serve you.

There are a few other topics in this issue of Focus On Fullerton which I take issue with and will bring up before the City Council tonight.  The meeting starts at 6:30PM with several presentations and proclamations.

OC Watchdog Bites Down On Fullerton's Illegal Water Tax

OC Register's Teri Sforza wrote this for the OC Watchdog today...

Way back in 1968, when there were still lots of orange trees in Orange County, the city of Fullerton tacked a 2 percent charge onto folks’ water bills to cover the cost of providing that water.

In 1970, the city hiked that charge to 10 percent – and there it has remained for 41 years.
This charge is “in lieu of franchise fees” — what a private company would pay the city for the exclusive privilege of providing water — and in lieu of property taxes, which many special districts collect to help provide water service.

That 10 percent fee generated about $2.5 million for Fullerton last year — and more than $27 million since 1997, according to city figures.

TROUBLE?
“We believe the fee and revenue transfers are illegal,” says a letter from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which arrived over the holidays in City Manager Joe Felz’s mailbox.
“If a private company provided water service to the residents of Fullerton, the City could charge the private company a negotiated franchise fee for occupying public rights of way with its pipelines,” say the Howard Jarvis folks. “That is not the case in Fullerton, however, as the City operates its own municipal water utility.  The rates the City may charge are governed by the California Constitution, which limits rates to just the amount required to provide service, and prohibits transferring rate revenue for use elsewhere.

Read the rest of the story here...

Tonight is the Water Rate Study Session at the Fullerton Public Library's Main Branch at 4:30 PM.  Arrive early and expect standing-room only.

Need Help Keeping Up To Date With City Hall and Your City?

If you want to know what's happening in Fullerton, one source to consider is the Focus on Fullerton newsletter.  You can subscribe through the City's eLists service by clicking HERE or at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CAFULLERTON/subscriber/new. 
Click HERE for the latest Focus on Fullerton.

Fullerton City Council Meeting - Tomorrow at 6:30PM

Speak up and be heard. 

6:30PM at Fullerton City Hall

303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Read the City Council Agenda HERE!

Fullerton Water Rates

Is there any basis for a rate hike? 

Administrative law judge Douglas Long thinks the Suburban Water District's recent attempt to hike rates for customers in Whittier and La Mirada nearly 40% was excessive. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported that the judge has recommended a reduction in Suburban Water System's rate-hike request now before the state Public Utilities Commission.

I can only imagine what the judge would think of Fullerton's recent attempt to jack water rates by 90%.

City Hall has had a tough time accounting for how they determine what you should pay and why.  It seems the rate structure is either a trade secret (think franchise tax) or too complex for words (think indefensible).

Keep a weary eye on your water bill...

FOCUS ON WEST FULLERTON - City Officials Seek Public Input

You’re invited to…

on November 2, 2011

A Dialogue with

Fullerton City Manager

Fullerton Police Captain

Fullerton Community Development Director

And other members of your City of Fullerton team

Joe FelzDan HughesAl Zelinka

WHY?

Over the next several months, meetings will be organized to facilitate dialogues between the Fullerton community and members of its City of Fullerton team.

The purpose of this planned meeting is to have a productive dialogue between West Fullerton community members and City staff about quality of life issues and explore approaches, ideas, and solutions related to them.

WHEN?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 – 6:00pm-8:00pm

WHERE?

Fullerton Main Library – Conference Center

353 W. Commonwealth Ave. Fullerton, CA 92832

MORE INFORMATION…

Fullerton at 714-738-3347 or alz@ci.fullerton.ca.us



For more information, please contact Al Zelinka, Community Development Director for the City of

FOCUS ON WEST FULLERTON

Mayor Throws City Manager & Interim Police Chief Under Bus and Apologizes

After FPD interim chief Kevin Hamilton apologized to the Nordell family and after Mrs. Nordell accepted the apology, Fullerton's Mayor Dick Jones said that it wasn't until the apology was placed on the council's meeting agenda did the council begin to get information.

Mayor Jones went on to blame the lines of communication between the council and police chief are poor. 

"Its not real easy to get information out of departments.  We don't have direct access to them," said Mayor Jones who added "Usually the information chain goes through the City Manager to us."

Mayor Jones apologized as both the Mayor of Fullerton as well as an individual.

The Mayor uses the excuse of poor communication as a way to not apologize for the council's clear lack of concern until a month ago after a year-long bureaucratic ordeal.  The Mayor's admission of poor communication tells us a few other things as well:

1. The Mayor is aware that his department heads and managers are not openly communicating very important information to the council;
2. Our fears of a dysfunctional City Hall are justified;
3. The severity and depth of corruption within the walls of the FPD is being kept from the Fullerton City Council;
4. The Fullerton City Council is ill-informed and, therefore, unable to adequately govern;
5. The Mayor and perhaps other council members do not seek out information on their own from department heads, choosing instead to rely solely on the City staff and the Council's meeting agenda;
6. If the Council is being kept in the dark, how much is being kept from Fullerton residents? 

The City Council should be given progress reports from each department regarding allegations of misconduct.  The Council should know that their were several reports against former Fullerton cop Albert Rincon alleging sexual assault, kidnapping, battery, false imprisonment, etc. all under the color of authority.  And when Federal Judge Andrew Guilford slammed the City saying, "the City’s failure to investigate or punish sexual harassment allegations suggests tacit authorization."

But the Judge didn't stop there. "As stated above, Plaintiffs raise a triable issue of fact as to exactly when the City first learned about allegations against Rincon. The sheer volume of incidents in 2008 alone relative to Rincon’s arrests is sufficient to call into question what exactly the City knew or should have known before November 2008."

It would appear that the command staff of FPD chose not to do anything. 

The sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and chief (McKinley at the time Rincon was implicated) ALL CHOSE TO DO NOTHING.

Last night I suggested the council publicly share what a contract with the Orange County Sheriff's Department might look like.  How much money would we save, not just from law suits but from the actual contract services? $5-million?  $10-million?  More??? 

And if you wondered why the FPD should be scrapped, please read this conclusion from U.S. Judge Andrew Guilford:

You can read the entire Motion for Summary Judgement at FullertonsFuture.org.

seven women certainly raises questions about the City’s custom and practice around sexual assault. Requiring Rincon to attend “pat-down” training is weak sauce that does nothing to hide the unpleasant taste of complicity. At the end of the day, the City put Rincon back onto the streets to continue arresting women despite a pattern of sexual harassment allegations. A reasonable juror could conclude, based on these facts, that the City imply did not care about what its officers did to women during arrest.

Most shocking is the City’s weak “Reprimand” of Rincon. If one woman had brought an allegation of sexual assault, then the Court could understand how the City might have concluded that the allegations were not believable, and find no misconduct on Rincon’s part. But to dismiss the accounts of

Clearly the Fullerton City Council has relinquished their elected authority and are no longer able to effectively communicate or lead.

How long will Fullerton residents allow this to continue before they have had enough?

Zelinka's Community Dialogues



Al Zelinka, Director
Community Development



Last night I attended one of Community Development Director Al Zelinka's "Community Dialogues" meetings.  About 30 residents and business owners attended the even at Grace Ministries Church on Brookhurst to hear Zelinka and voice their concerns.

Zelinka began with a state of the city from a planning perspective.  He noted that planning and community development had been out-dated and out of sync for perhaps several decades.

A shift from business as usual to long-term investment in the City's infrastructure was outlined.

The residents and business owners expressed their strong displeasure with the City's streets and the aesthetics along the main roads, Euclid, Orangethorpe, Brookhurst, and Magnolia to name a few.

Among the topics of discussion were the "abandoned" businesses like the old Dodge dealer on Orangethorpe.  Neighbors want the site maintained and free from vandalism.  Joining Zelinka was Building and Code Enforcement Manager Kirke Warren.  Warren said the City has been working for months to uncover who was responsible for the property and have come up empty-handed each time. 

Many questions about code enforcement were raised.  From graffiti to shopping carts, it seems residents are tire of the mess.  Although homelessness was brought up as was the task force on the issue, the discussion didn't progress beyond acknowledgment of the problem. 

Also discussed was a Planned Parenthood clinic on the west side, though details were sketchy.

My hat goes off to "Adam" who walked door-to-door in his neighborhood to tell residents about this meeting.  He was unanimously elected to represent the residents of those west side neighborhoods.  Zelinka gave him a credit for helping bring attention to these often overlooked areas and the quality of life issues they face to the attention of city staff.

Zelinka, a 3-year veteran of the City, is the first non-elected department head to step out into the community to ask how he can serve the people better.  After nearly 2 hours, Zelinka wrapped up with explaining that there is a shift afoot within City Hall to use Fullerton Redevelopment funds for the City's infrastructure.

The residents all commented that they want to know more about what goes on at City Hall.  They all expressed an interest in being involved.  As I said last night, the easiest way to know what's happening is to subscribe to the City's eLists. The site will take you through the process of setting up the customized service that will email you about upcoming public meetings and events.  And you have already paid for it with taxes!

You can also subscribe to this blog by entering your email address in the box on the right side of this website.

The next "Community Dialogues" meeting is scheduled for November 22 at the Fullerton Chamber of Commerce at 8AM. 

My thanks and appreciation goes to Al Zelinka for his willingness and effort to reach out into Fullerton and seek input.  I am impressed by his desire to empower residents with improving their neighborhoods.  Community input is a big step in the right direction. 

City Council Meeting Tonight

There is a City Council meeting tonight at 6:30 in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

So many of you have been coming out and expressing your thoughts and concerns about Fullerton and the pressure is mounting.  Keep the pressure on them and don't let up. 

We are all concerned about the elephant in the room, the death of Kelly Thomas at the hands of Fullerton police officers. 

We must also not loose site that city officials, beginning with the City Council, have continued to waste tax dollars and resources to pay for certain elite benefits and infrastructure boondoggles.  That money - OUR MONEY - can and should be used to benefit everyone, not just well-connected developers and powerful public employee unions.  

Fullerton's own Police Officers Association has demonstrated quite well their condescending and elitist attitude and abusive use of authority towards anyone who questions their actions or, god forbid, wants officers held accountable ever since Kelly was beaten into a coma on July 5th.  This is the same union that protects bad cops, uniformed thieves and badge-wearing sexual predators from justice.  Its the same union whose members give out tickets to protest supporters who honk their horn.  What has the Fullerton Police Officers Association done for the People of Fullerton?  Lies, cover-ups, and corruption. 

And in case you think I'm anti-cop, I'm not.  I'm anti-bad cop and pro-good cop.  There is a difference. 

Illegal taxes and misappropriations? Give the man a raise!

After putting a spot light on what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association has characterized as an illegal water tax and then discovering rampant misappropriations of earmarked funds, its frustrating to learn that City Manager Joe Felz is up for a raise.

According to the August 16, 2011 City Council agenda and associated staff report, Felz will get a salary of $201,000, for his salary, $41,000 for retirement costs, and $24,000 for benefits. It's not clear if the "benefits" include Felz's $625.00 per month car allowance.  Felz currently earns $166,250 per year.

Felz is the most approachable and humble city manager I have met but does that mean we should be giving him a MASSIVE raise in the midst of multiple crises?

Let’s recap.

We have an $8-million budget deficit which city staff says will be shored up through employee contract negotiation.  At this rate, are deficit will GROW, not shrink. It's not fair to ask other city employees to take huge pay cuts while the top dog gets a big raise.

The City has been applying an illegal tax on the Water Fund, siphoning nearly $3-million a year to cover salaries and benefits for public safety employees.

The current budget (with its deficit) shows that earmarked taxes for sewers and storm drain maintenance are being used to cover salaries and benefits in the fire department, community development, and human resources.

And then there is the most recent debacle, the complete mishandling of the death of Kelly Thomas at the hands of City employees.  Who knows how much this will cost Fullerton taxpayers...

I’m all for giving our new city manager time to right these many wrongs but I think pay should be based on actual performance and not intentions or platitudes.  

Dear Joe,

If you want a raise, close the budget deficit, end the illegal “franchise tax” on water, end the practice of misappropriating public funds, and put a stop to police corruption.

You know the timing couldn't be worse and think about how this will reflect on the City of Fullerton.  Please do the right thing and reject the raise. 

Fullerton's Trickle-Down Taxation

Last week I asked "Where did all the money go?".  I pointed out the various hands grabbing ear-marked taxes (sewer and sanitation funds) to cover unrelated departmental overhead.  As a follow-up, here is my take on the taxes we pay and the service received.  And let's not forget that we have an $8-million shortfall in our current budget which passed the City Council 4-1, Whitaker the single NO vote. 

Fullerton Puts Brakes on Rate Hike

After months of agonizing meetings, technical reports, missed dinners with my families, after researching the issue at great length, after so much hard work, the City Attorney recommended last night that the City Council pull the water rate hike from the agenda after receiving several communications that call into question the legality of the franchise tax and the manner in which the Prop 218 notification was conducted.

So for now there is NO rate increase!

One small but important detail I noticed was that the Agenda did NOT have the Water Rate Ad Hoc Commission's recommendations.  What was on the Agenda was some staff verbiage which lacked substantial information which the Ad Hoc had made very clear needed to be communicated to the Council. 

The Water Rate Ad Hoc made 3 distinct recommendations:

1) That the Council adopt Rate Alternative "B" as it was described in the Ad Hoc briefing of June 30, 2011;

2) That all new revenue from Alternative "B" be exempt from the franchise tax;

3) That the water bill be revised to address the general lack of transparency and add more detail as to where rate payers' funds go.

These were completely missing from the Agenda making ALL of the Water Rate Ad Hoc Commission's work pointless and wasted thousands of tax dollars with staff time. 

Fullerton Water Rates to Double

This Tuesday night the Fullerton City Council will direct staff on the implementation of a water rate study.  Based on the proposal from the City's consultant, Municipal & Financial Services Group (MFSG), the new rates will be increased by 10% for 5 years then 3.5% for another 5 years amounting to a 191% increase by 2021.  The reason for the tax hike is clear.  MSFG says, "However it should be noted that the planned spending on mainline replacement over the projection period is significantly more than the City has undertaken in the past. At a cost of approximately $190 per linear foot of line the City plans to replace approximately 6 miles of mainline per year at a cost of over 6 million per year.  At this pace it would take the City 400 years to replace the entire system (which consists of approximately 420 miles of pipe)."

MFSG's proposal spells out how exactly we got into this mess in the first place.  Unfortunately, this proposal and the implementation should have been undertaken decades ago.  Oddly, the proposal notes that the City could just ignore the problem (like they have been doing for so many years).

"While the capital investments have a pronounced impact on rates the projects are vitally important to ensure the continued operation of the water system.  The City could keep rates low initially by not maintaining the system but would pay a significant price later as system failures spike due to a lack of system maintenance, which would then result in increased costs and ultimately the need for even higher rate increases. Proactively managing of the water system through maintenance and capital investments allows the City to keep rates stable over time."

~Managing through maintenance and capital investment.~

That is a sentence that has been long missing from Fullerton.  The City council has pushed tax bonds to provide low-income housing and park facilities while ignoring the streets, sewers, and water lines.  And now Fullerton taxpayers must pay the high price of municipal mismanagement. Compounding our financial civic woes is that if the proposed rate hikes were approved, the City would have to borrow heavily through bonds to cover the actual costs of replacing the aging system. 

Join me at City Hall this Tuesday at 6:30PM to tell the Fullerton City Council that higher taxes won't fix decades of mismanagement and waste. 

Click HERE to view the proposal.

From the "And You Thought You Had it Bad" File

The Associated Press has an article on CBSNews.com that may give local elected leaders some comfort.

It seems we're not the only ones mad about higher taxes.  The witches of Romania are ticked off too about being taxed for their crafty work and are waging a spiritual war with Romania's leadership. 

And President Traian Basescu isn't laughing it off. In a country where superstition is mainstream, the president and his aides wear purple on Thursdays, allegedly to ward off evil spirits.

Maybe we could hire some Romanian witches.  Maybe they could concoct a little potion to combat the spending addiction that City leaders seem to have with breaking out the taxpayers' credit card (bonds) to pay for artificial housing needs. 

Or perhaps we could just agree to elect leaders who know how to cut waste! 

Swept Under the Rug at City Hall

Flashy and informative signs have dominated tourist areas and downtowns in an obvious attempt to attract business. So where is Fullerton’s electronic sign inviting commerce? With the sign moratorium being voted on today, we may never see it.

Last month, business owner Naeem Niamat wanted to upgrade the company’s old static sign for an electronic sign that allows the user to customize messages and advertise daily events, sales, and specials. According to one city official and supported by the Planning Commission meeting’s archived video, Fullerton staff tried in vane to derail and deny the new sign from the moment the application hit City Hall. The Planning Commission voted to continue the matter so that staff can define what conditions might be necessary for safe operation of the sign.

So why did the staff, represented by staff planner Christine Hernandez, try to shut this project down before it even went before the Planning Commission? To answer that question, we need only to go back to November 2008 when the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-08-52 which declared the Commission’s intention to amend Title 15 of the Fullerton Municipal Code. However, in a City Council Agenda package (Agenda Item #21, June 15, 2010) for PRJ10-00556 dated June 12, 2010, Planning Manager Al Zelinka and Community Development Director John Godlewski admit that staff dropped the ball saying, “Due to other staffing priorities, work on the ordinance amendment was not immediately pursued.” What some may claim as transparency, I see as an opaque admission of poor management and staffing oversight.

I am certain this matter would not have come to light if there was anyway for staff to burry it. Perhaps that is why they didn’t invite the applicant or his consultants to meet and discuss concerns. Instead of putting the sign ordinance amendment issue on the Council agenda when the applicant first filed for the permit, staff tried to run roughshod over the business owner figuring he would bow his head and walk out of City Hall as another defeated property owner. But that backfired when the Planning Commission voted down requiring CEQA findings and decided to table the matter pending review of reasonable conditions placed on the permitted use as may be recommended by city staff.

Fast-forward to tonight’s Council meeting and Agenda Item #21. Staff recommends grandfathering Mr. Niamat’s application while implementing an electronic message board sign moratorium on all other applicants until the matter can be fully addressed in with amendments to the Fullerton Municipal Code. What will Council do? I would imagine 3 out of 5 members will roll over and give staff what they have asked for, albeit nearly 2 years too late. How many other tasks have fallen through the cracks of City Hall?