PRESS RELEASE - Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan

PRESS RELEASE

City of Fullerton

April 23, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

City of Fullerton to extend deadline to recruit volunteers for The Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC)

Fullerton, CA  - On April 23, 2013, The City of Fullerton Planning Department announced that it will continue to accept applications for the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC) until Friday, April 26, 2013.  Although the City has received several applications from well qualified candidates, the goal is to have representation from all of the eight “neighborhoods” represented on the project plan as well as members from the business community, the Korean community, the Latino community, a senior community member and a youth/young adult representative.  To ensure the community has had ample time to review the application and respond, the deadline is being extended until the end of the week. 

The Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan is an planning effort intended to guide the future vision for the Downtown Core and Corridors areas and ensure our downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods are thriving and sustainable. To assist with this effort, a committee representing the multiple interests of the study area will be appointed to provide input and guidance throughout the work program. The “Advisory Committee” will be responsible for reviewing information, providing feedback on topics, recommending priorities, soliciting the participation of the community at large and working to represent specific interests of the community. To ensure  the Advisory Committee includes a balance of perspectives and interests, the group is intended to be composed of the following cross-section of the community:

• West Commonwealth – 2 members

• East Corridor – 2 members

• University Neighborhood – 2 members

• Orangethorpe/Magnolia Neighborhood – 2 members

• Brea/Harbor Neighborhood – 2 members

• Downtown Core – 2 members

• Orangethorpe/Euclid – 2 members

• Orangethorpe/Brookhurst – 2 member

• Orangethorpe/Harbor – 2 members

• Community Serving Partner Organizations (e.g., Faith based, St. Jude, etc.)– 1    member

• Korean Community Partner – 1 member

• Latino Community Partner – 1 member

• Development Community – 1 member

• Broker/Realtor – 1 member

• Business Community – up to 3 members

• Historic Preservation – 1 member

• Parent Teacher’s Association (PTA) or Elementary/Middle School – 1 member

• Youth Community Partner – 1 member

• Senior Community Partner – 1 member

• Non-Profit Community Based Organizations (Fullerton Beautiful, NUFF, etc.) – 1 member

The study will involve the active participation of City Staff, a team of consultants, the public at large, and the City Council. The Advisory Committee will play a key role in providing insight and guidance during the Specific Plan process. Please be aware that selected Advisory Committee members will not receive any financial compensation for their service. The first meeting is planned for Thursday, May 9 at 6:30 pm. The Committee members will need to attend approximately eight (8) evening meetings during an eighteen (18) month period. It will be important that each Advisory Committee member attend all meetings throughout the process. If you are interested in being considered for the Advisory Committee position, based on the information above, please complete the application form, available on the City’s website www.ci.fullerton.ca.us or by visiting www.fullertonplanningforum.com, and submit to Heather Allen, Planning Manager at HeatherA@ci.fullerton.ca.us, by April 26, 2013.

####

MARK YOUR CALENDAR - More meetings...

The Citizens Infrastructure Review Committee (CIRC) is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, April 4, at 6pm in the City Council Conference Room.  This is a PUBLIC meeting and PUBLIC COMMENTS are encouraged.

What does the CIRC do?  As the name implies, the committee reviews the City's infrastructure program also known as the Capital Improvement Program.  We look at prioritizing projects, funding sources, and act as the ears for the City Council.  The committee serves as an advisory body and has no authority to do anything accept approve previous meeting minutes and make recommendations to the City Council.

The Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, April 9, at 6pm in the Main Branch Library.   This is a PUBLIC meeting and PUBLIC COMMENTS are encouraged.  

The Ad Hoc was formed to vet the initial water rate study which was conducted in 2010 and reviewed by the committee in 2011.  As part of the study, the committee asked questions about the in-lieu franchise fee ($2.7-million water tax).

The Ad Hoc is made up of two committees, CIRC and the Energy and Resource Management Committee (E&RC), as well as 5 community members.  Many of the CIRC and E&RC members have chosen not to participate for personal reasons such as scheduling and the depth of commitment necessary.

$62.1 BILLION - CalPERS Unfunded Liability

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released a new actuarial report showing the 30-year cost of providing health and dental benefits for state retirees is $62.1 billion.

"Even as California continues its struggle to get back on firm fiscal footing, we must begin to address our obligation to pay health and dental benefits for current and retired state employees," Chiang said.  "Even slight amounts set aside will help lessen the impact on future generations, and ensure that we fulfill our responsibilities to the state workforce and our taxpayers."

The unfunded obligation as of June 30, 2011, grew $2.2 billion from the $59.9 billion obligation identified as of June 30 2010.  The accrued liability grew less than expected due to favorable healthcare claim experiences linked to a combination of fewer claims, less expensive claims, less utilization of services, and the implementation of new California Public Employees' Retirement System’s (CalPERS) health programs designed to reduce costs.  

While state pensions are pre-funded, allowing investment returns to reduce liabilities, California pays for retiree health benefits on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, or the minimum amount needed to fund the costs as they are due.  The latest actuarial report estimates California’s obligation for retiree health and dental benefits, also referred to as Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB), based on two different funding scenarios:

• The current pay-as-you-go policy results in an actuarial unfunded obligation of $62.1 billion, which represents the total the State would need to pay for future retiree health benefits earned as of June 30, 2011, by current and future state retirees.  Based on this unfunded obligation, California should pay $4.7 billion in 2011-12 to pay for present and future retiree health benefits. In the 2011-12 Budget Act, the State provided $1.71 billion to only cover current retirees' health and dental benefits.

• If the State shifted to fully pre-funding the costs of future benefits, the actuarial unfunded obligation would be cut by more than $21 billion to $40.7 billion.  Under a full pre-funding approach, the State would set aside money in a separate trust solely for future retirement health care benefits.  The investment income generated by the trust would be used to reduce the costs to the State and its employees of paying for future benefits. To take advantage of the tremendous cost savings resulting from fully-prefunding, the State would need to contribute $3.3 billion in 2011-12, or $1.6 billion more than the State currently pays.

Recognizing that fully funding the health and dental benefits obligation is unlikely given the State's tight budget, Controller Chiang noted that even incremental steps toward pre-funding the obligation would significantly reduce the State’s liability (see chart ).  For example, if the State pre-funded just 10 percent of its obligation, it would only need to pay $160 million more than its current pay-as-you-go contribution.  However, that additional payment would shave $2.7 billion off of the State's unfunded liability.

Pre-funding 25% of its obligations would cost the State $400 million more than the pay-as-you-go contribution, but would reduce the total unfunded liability by $6.54 billion.

In 2004, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 45 (GASB 45) required states and local governments to publicly disclose the future costs of paying for post-employment benefits other than pensions for current state retirees and employees.  Chiang commissioned California’s first report shortly after taking office in 2007.  This report is the fifth to be issued under his administration.

While GASB 45 does not require states to fully fund its obligations, all three credit rating agencies have urged states to at least have a funding plan in place to avoid any future downgrades.

The actuarial report  and a chart  showing how much pre-funding would cut future costs can be found on the Controller's website at www.sco.ca.gov.

Why does MWD continue to raise rates?

Drought-like conditions? Out of control employee costs?  Corruption?

The answer could be YES to all.

Your Fullerton City Council is about to approve passing the bill for these along to you, Fullerton water consumers.

Lending to the tails of MWD corruption, the Surf City Voice is offers further revelations into MWD's chairman, Jack Foley whose continued lack of ownership over his failure to disclose his income as well as his wife's income for consulting with water districts and related groups becomes public. 

It makes ratepayers like me very suspicious of "pass-through" rate hikes that are unsubstantiated by the City's own MWD and OCWD representatives.

With a recall election looming, I wonder what it will take to wake up Fullerton voters?

North OC Fire Authority? Tri-City Fire Authority?

Yes.  For the last several years Fullerton Fire Chief Wolfgang Knabe has been working on merging the command staff of Fullerton's and Brea's Fire Departments.  Those efforts came to fruition last year with Chief Knabe being appointed as Fire Chief of both cities.  No, he doesn't get two pay checks.

The next step, actually merging several fire departments, began to take shape with the Anaheim City Council voting earlier this week to continue studying what it would mean to the participating cities, Orange, Anaheim, and Fullerton. 

The OC Register has a write-up on it here...

Will the police departments do something similar?

Water Rate Study Session Recap

First, thank you to everyone who attended the study session.  I listened carefully to the ideas, opinions, and concerns of everyone who spoke and have taken those comments to heart.

The information that was presented, although helpful, raised more questions than it answered. 

Bearing the Cost for MWD

Among these, why does the City charge some entities (AT&T, Time Warner, Gas Company, etc.) but not others like MWD to use the City's right-of-way for pipelines?  The answer from Mr. Schickling, the Water System Manager, is that MWD is a water wholesaler and not a retailer.  The argument used by the City thus far to explain why an "in-lieu-of property tax" fee is charged to the City's Water Fund is that other utilities pay the City to place utilities in the right-of-way and that the Water System is just like the other utilities which burden the City.  That argument, however, is not applied to the Metropolitan Water District which has miles of pipelines under Fullerton roadways.  There are other utilities with lines buried in Fullerton's streets which the City doesn't receive a dime for as well.

Taxation Without Representation

Another major problem with the franchise fee or "in-lieu tax" is that Resolution 5184 (see below), the 1970 resolution which raised the tax from 2% to 10%, was enacted specifically to pay for services rendered for managing the Water System by "the Finance Department of the City and of the City Administrator, City Attorney, and City Clerk".  Therefore, while the resolution says that the 10% transfer is to the General Fund, the resolution also earmarks what the transfer is to pay for.  Currently, 80% of this transfer goes to pay for public safety salaries and benefits- that's illegal. 

Double Taxation (Without Representation)

Something that does not seem to bother anyone is that Resolution 5184 (see below) says that the 10% transfer from the Water Fund to is to be based on "gross annual water sales".  The current practice is to also include the "meter fee" (a fixed fee or tax based on the size of your water meter) as part of the "gross annual water sales".  This means you get taxed for the size of your meter and taxed again on 10% of the meter fee as well as the actual water you purchased.

That's sounds like another illegal tax for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to look into.

No Transparency, No Accountability

All this time I have avoided mentioning the proposed rate increase.  In my opinion, we cannot consider a rate increase until we can assess all of the facts and figures.  To date those facts and figures have been illusive. 

Frankly, the accounting for our water system and the Water Fund has been non-existent for decades and is a complete wreck. This needs to be addressed before we can quantify, much less qualify any increases in water rates.

The water bill needs an overhaul as much as the rest of the water system. And the fees, taxes, charges must all be itemized and transparent to water rate payers.

Is this too much to ask?

Click on image to view full size.



 

Where is Fullerton's Independent Advocate?

Fullerton water rate payers are becoming increasingly weary and suspicious of politicians and managers who have relied on the City's Water Fund to help offset the rising labor costs at City Hall. 

Inflation is at about 3.15% on average for 2011 and keeping up with it is challenging in a recession. Being somewhat predictable, we can manage to keep pace with it and plan for future investments in the water system.

However, Fullerton, much like Los Angeles, relies on the water rate payers to help offset and pad the ever-rising costs of labor. That's not fair.

So who at City Hall can Fullerton's water customers turn to when the City Council is dazzled by brilliance and baffled by BS?

No one.  There is no one left in City Hall to turn to when City staff draft a report - true or not - that paints a grim picture of the City if rates are not immediately increased.

To counter the misleading and false emergency to generate cash-flow which will be used to make up for poor fiscal management and planning, some communities, Los Angeles included, have turned to independent advocates or rate payer advocates.

The problem is that the advocate, which might be a single individual or a committee, is appointed by the very people who have their hands in the cookie jar thus making the advocate less than independent.

Fullerton is special.  Not because of the large number of schools or the inexcusable level of apparent police corruption but because Fullerton already has an independent advocate.  The Fullerton Association of Concerned Tax Payers (FACT) was created in 1996 after the last recall effort of 1993-1994 when the City Council voted to create a utility tax.  FACT founder, Bruce Whitaker, was elected to the Fullerton City Council in November 2010.  Time and again, FACT has fought for Fullerton taxpayers.  Current FACT president Jack Dean took over the organization in 2003 and has since launched http://www.pensiontsunami.com/.

FACT has helped residents, business owners, and taxpayers tackle the issue of excessive and unnecessary taxation.  FACT has a close relationship with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association (HJTA) which came together recently and challenged Fullerton's illegal and unnecessary in-lieu franchise fee which skims 10% of the total revenue from the Water Fund.  Some say the "fee" is nothing more than robbing Peter (the Water Fund and water consumers) to pay Paul (employee salaries, pensions, and benefits).

FACT has saved Fullerton taxpayers more than $150-million since its work to repeal the utility tax. 

FACT was the sole Plaintiff in lawsuits against the Gray Davis administration and, later the Schwarzenegger administration to block the issuance of pension obligation bonds of $2 billion and just under $1 billion respectively.  The second lawsuit was successful at the Sacramento Superior Court and later at the Court of Appeals and has since provided protection against the State issuing bonded indebtedness without voter approval.

FACT remains the only guardian against unfair and unwarranted taxation, whether disguised as a fee or buried in your utility bill. 

If you are having a hard time digesting City-imposed fees and taxes, and if you are tired of the lip service of politicians, please support the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers - your ONLY independant advocate in Fullerton.

Despite $1.7-Million Savings, City Still Operating MILLION$ in the Red

Between the City of Fullerton's Press Release and the Orange County Register, you would think that last night's passage of employee MOU labor agreements was the best thing to happen in Fullerton in many months.  Maybe for the employees it is.

The city's press release is quick to state that the City will "save" nearly $1.7-million in FY2011-12 and FY2012-13. 

The problem is that the budget mentioned had an $8-MILLION deficit. 

Between these MOUs and some recent financial reports with some cost-saving measures, the City has closed that gap to a little less than $6-MILLION.

But there still exists a multi-million dollar deficit.  Unless someone can show me the financial reports that explain how that gap was closed, I'm inclined to continue my fight to cut at City Hall.

Remember back on April 26 of this year when Administrative Manager Julia James said the budget was short by $8-million?  And remember when she said the City would make up the deficit by renegotiating with employees??  You don't?  Well, here is the report she issued, read DISCUSSION:

click to see full-size

click to see full-size

It was a nice thought but a complete failure.  We are still $6-MILLION in the red.

The Taxpayer-Subsidized Racing Boat?

The City Council would like to give Sunny Hills High School $2,500 and sponsor the school’s participation in the annual Solar Cup Race.

Interestingly, the race is being put on by our water supplier, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

The idea behind the race, according to the City of Fullerton staff report, is for the high school students to build and race solar powered boats. 

And what are the benefits to the taxpayers?  According to the same staff report, the benefits to MWD and its member agencies include:

• Promote stewardship of natural resources, water quality and recreation
• Increase understanding of water conservation and many issues, perspectives, and science of water
• Greater ties to secondary education audience (high schools) in our service area
• Legislative outreach opportunities both locally and regionally
• Intense collaborative effort between MWD and sponsoring agencies
• Community outreach opportunities to service groups retirees or organizations – Lions, Elks Clubs
• Increase awareness to paths into water industry careers

And where will the $2,500 come from?  The Water Fund.  This is the same fund that, just a few short months ago, city staff were crying was underfunded and that they just had to raise our water rates.  They said they wanted to sell tens of millions of dollars in bonds to fund replacement of the City's ancient water system.

How is it we went from “Captain, Captain, the ship is sinking!” to floating a $2,500 sponsorship fee (made payable to a public agency – MWD) for a high school outreach program? 

What could have changed?  Did ending the decades-long franchise tax on the Water Fund result in more cash on hand for “outreach” efforts like this?  Was there a sudden revenue spike in Water Fund revenue resulting in a massive surplus?

Is this water education allocation a good use of public funds at a time when we are being asked to pay nearly double on water rates?  Does the Water Fund’s “water education” allocation need some scrutiny?

If any of these questions have raised the hair on the back of your neck, you might want to ask your City Council to justify this $2,500 expenditure.  In 2009, the City Council voted to support the Sunny Hills Team for the 2011 race in name only and not give them any funding.  That was responsible.

So what changed since 2009?  Our City Council voted to approve a two-year budget with a $8-million deficit and passed a $29-million tax bond that will cost Fullerton taxpayers $45.5-million!  Oh, and in 2010, the City Council voted to resume sponsorship of the team.  Now we’re broke!

Time and again, we see Fullerton’s failed leadership implement meaningless policies with little benefit to the taxpayer who makes it all possible. 

Waste at any level is waste and when we have a massive deficit coupled with out of control spending, it's time to stop the party bus. 

I know some of the teachers involved in the Solar Cup Race at Sunny Hills.  These are truly some of the brightest minds our high school district has to offer.  My opposition is to the City's use of our funds for the sponsorship and not extracurricular activities that help students learn.

I suggest the Sunny Hills team have fundraisers like the other clubs and athletic teams.  They should start soliciting donations from the District’s Board Members and Superintendent. 

The team should contact all of the City's, as well as the District's, employee unions and ask for donations.  Come election season they always seem to be flush with cash for campaign signs and glossy mailers - surely their members would like to contribute to such a worthy cause.

They can even call me, I'd love to chip in.  When the City said no in 2009, Marty Burbank jumped in and donated.  (MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU, MARTY!!)  But please don’t ask for money from City Hall until we can pay off the mounting debt and balance the budget. 

Stockton's Redevelopment Failure Gives Fullerton a Dismal Outlook

A Bloomberg Businessweek article on Stockton (CA) Redevelopment's possible default should have many of Fullerton's Redevelopment Agency supporters biting their nails. 

Stockton declared a fiscal emergency in May and is now warning that the RDA may default on a 2006 bond obligation with the debt service outpacing revenue to the tune of $858,000. 

Fullerton has several outstanding redevelopment bond obligations.  In July 2010 the Fullerton RDA announced spending $22.7-million for low-income housing and then in October 2010 the RDA passed a $29-million bond which is expected to cost taxpayers $45.5-million of the following 16 years.

Putting these figures in perspective, the Fullerton RDA receives about $17-million per year to cover all of the agency's debts and project development.

And we cannot forget yet another expense incurred by Fullerton's RDA, something I call the "Brown Taxes" after our own Governor Brown.  Sacramento's ABX1-26 & 27 is aimed at recovering tax revenue from redevelopment agencies, Fullerton's RDA paid out $6.26-million in Brown Taxes.

This is the same redevelopment agency which planned to spend $6-million to move a McDonald's 200 feet! 

With several bond obligations, Brown Taxes, slumping property tax increment revenue, poor direction, and pending litigation, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency would be doing us all a favor if they just closed their doors for good.

Reasons I Oppose Fullerton's Water Rate Hike

Tuesday night's City Council agenda is set and among the many items for consideration by council members is a water rate increase. 

The increase would raise water revenue by 7.8% but it is not clear how that increase would be spread among different rate classes.  Some will feel the increase more than others.  This cloud is just one of the many reasons I oppose this rate increase.

Other reasons include the hidden water tax, economic timing, city management's long-standing philosophy on infrastructure, the likely law suits due to improper notice by the City, shortsighted conservation efforts, and the general feeling of distrust by consumers.

10% of every water bill gets diverted or skimmed from the water fund and transferred into the City's General Fund.  80% of the General Fund goes to cover public safety employee benefits.  Outside of City Hall only a handful of people know about this tax.  In my opinion, it gives the appearance that the unions are embezzling public funds.  The General Fund does not contribute any funds back into the water system.  Removing this hidden tax would allow the water system to retain about $2.5-million for pipe replacement.

Fullerton residents and businesses are struggling to survive.  The elderly and disabled have never had this magnitude of cuts in services and funding now on the table and being debated in Washington.  There are other measures yet to be instituted which could provide a financial buffer for the next year or two.  City management must exhaust all avenues before resorting to a rate hike in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

For decades, city management has turned a blind eye to the infrastructure.  Unless the repairs or replacement was in a redevelopment district, the City would put of any work.  Instead, the city sought to spend $6-million on moving a McDonalds 200 feet, $30-million* in bonds for housing (*will amount to more than $50-million when paid off), and more than $12-million to revamp the Lions Field athletic complex.  Meanwhile, our water lines are failing, our roads are crumbling, our streetlights broken, and who knows what else is in disrepair.  The proven ability of city officials, from council members to department heads, to go along with whatever hot new trend presented itself despite the obvious deficiencies in our infrastructure is unforgiveable.  While some were getting bronze plaques with their names on it, the rest of us are left to foot the bill.  Enough already!

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has indicated that the Proposition 218 rate increase notification received by some water customers last month does not comply with the requirements of the law.  Fullerton's notice is insufficient according to Timothy Bittle, Director of Legal affairs for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.  "[T]hey can't tell anyone yet what the new amount of their fee will be. That's not compliance with 218!" says Bittle.

A recent survey of 122 public agencies by the Sierra Club shows Fullerton's water conservation efforts sadly on par with the infamous city of Bell.  The survey gives Fullerton 8 points out of 20.  Out of the 122 agencies surveyed, only 16 scored worse.

Finally, people have lost a great deal of trust in their government at all levels and why wouldn't they lose trust once they realize the City has been charging them with a hidden tax that does not benefit the water system.  Most people who do not deal with City Hall regularly get frustrated at the run around they receive.  One person tells them to do one thing and someone else tells them to do something different.  Many are simply discouraged by driving on Fullerton’s poorly maintained streets.  Others, like me, have watched the same section of water line replaced three or four times in just 24 months. 

For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose this water rate increase.

As a side note, water rates will have to increase; it is just a matter of time.  However, I believe our city can and should do better to serve the public before considering any rate hikes. 

What's in the "Capital Improvement Program"

What’s a CIP and why do we have one?

The City of Fullerton’s Engineering Department webpage does not offer an easily found answer as to what the CIP is or why one exists.  However, the currently proposed 5-year CIP or Capital Improvement Program says that “the CIP is a planning tool for short- and long-term capital improvements and development.”  The CIP continues, adding “It links Fullerton’s fiscal planning process to physical development. “  I look at it as the 5-year budget plan for the City’s infrastructure.

According to the proposed 5-year CIP, the City projects spending $46,060,450 for 2011-12 and $32,866,050 for 2012-13, with a five=year total of $206,920,550.  The Fullerton Redevelopment Agency has a projected five-year total of $6,020,000.

As you can see, these are not exactly small figures and therefore should not be taken lightly. 

The funding sources include property taxes and various excise taxes attached to services. 

More importantly, what does it cover?  What will get fixed?

One of the first things Fullerton residents and business owner’s hope will get covered are the City’s roads.  Rest assured, the roads are addressed in the CIP but not as fast or frequent as many of us might like.

To understand the road repair portion we have to look at what constitutes our streets.  There are curbs, gutters, sidewalks, asphalt, trees, and all of those utilities. 

Of the $46,060,450 for 2011-12 about $4,043,000 is to be spent on resurfacing existing roadways.  About $270,000 will cover curbs and gutters.  Last year Mayor Pro Tem Bankhead said that Redevelopment funds pay for those sidewalks around town that need repair. The Redevelopment Agency’s total planned contribution towards curbs and gutters is just $20,000.  And of the $4,043,000 to be spent on resurfacing our roads, $1,000,000 is from the Redevelopment Agency.

Now let’s consider our water system and keep in mind two things: 1) our water rates will increase at least 7.8% in just the next year; 2) the CIP does NOT include the rate increase; 3) there is 10%-11% that is skimmed from our water bills to cover general funding obligations like police, parks, and fire in the form of a franchise tax.  The tax amounted to $2.5-million last year that does not go back into our water system.   The total projected spending for the water system is $1,600,000 for 2011-12.  Now imagine taking that $2,500,000 that is diverted each year and put it back into the water system.  That would give us $4,100,000 to invest in our water system without having to raise water rates.

Now let’s look at what many taxpayers might consider pork.  Here is a short itemized list of proposed expenditures of the next 2 fiscal years:

$60,000 - Target Retrieval System for the gun range at the Police Department

$155,000 – Duane Winters Field Fence Replacement (this is the baseball field across from City Hall.  The Flyers are in negotiations to use the field for their independent league)

$350,000 – To design and install a pump to circulate water used for the spray ground at Valencia Park.

$150,000 – “Safety enhancements” at various public facilities.

$25,000 – “Public Art Program” from Redevelopment Agency

$183,000 – Replace gates and fencing at Basque Yard (Director Hoppe noted at last week’s Planning Commission meeting that the gates are poorly designed and require constant maintenance.  Nice to know we got our money’s worth!)

$158,600 – “Downtown Plaza Stage Improvements”

Taking the cake is $50,000 in my book is the item shown as “window coverings” at Basque Yard!

So, if we aren’t spending all of our CIP on roads and the water system, then where is it going?

Aside from some of the “pork” noted above $40,417,450 will go into the 57FWY/Chapman intersection ($238,000) as well as widening Bastanchury east of St. Jude ($625,000) and the grade separations ($28,800,000There is also the sewer system which will receive about $4,500,000.

Looking over all of these items and funds I am compelled to ask the question WHY?  Why are we allocating $50,000 for window coverings for one of our newest facilities while our water system is crumbling and we are looking at closing the Hunt Branch Library?

A similar question was asked to Public Works Director Don Hoppe who responded by saying that these allocations represent the standard maintenance and replacement plan for these facilities.  It’s a good answer if we applied a similar philosophy to our countless roads, waterlines, street lights, etc.  Unfortunately, it looks like we are not thinking outside the box when it comes to investing in our infrastructure.  It will take City Council Members and a City Manager with courage to take a hard look at the budget and make sensible decisions that reflect prioritized needs.  I’m not holding my breath…

Crony Capitalism and Social Engineering: The Case against Tax-Increment Financing

Thanks to MORR for bringing this to my attention.  Go subscribe and get daily updates on issues regarding taxpayer funded redevelopment agencies.

Here is a brief excerpt from the Cato Institute and as the title alludes, taxpayer funded redevelopment is nothing more than "Crony Capitalism and Social Engineering".

_____________________________________________________________

Policy Analysis no. 676

Crony Capitalism and Social Engineering: The Case against Tax-Increment Financing

by Randal O'Toole

Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.

Tax-increment financing (TIF) is an increasingly popular way for cities to promote economic development. TIF works by allowing cities to use the property, sales, and other taxes collected from new developments — taxes that would otherwise go to schools, libraries, fire departments, and other urban services — to subsidize those same developments.

While cities often claim that TIF is "free money"... Read More Here

Water District's $571,400 Ethics Office

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is spending $571,400 to fund their internal Ethics Office according to the approved 2011 budget. 

According to the District's website, the Ethics Office "helps maintain an ethical culture at Metropolitan by enforcement of ethics-related rules and laws; education for directors, officers and employees; and enhancement by promotion of the District's six core values."  Are MWD employees so unethical that they need this office?  Maybe, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of educating employees and board members.  I vaguely recall an attempt 2 years ago to get a 25% retroactive pension spike.

The six core values mentioned by MWD are integrity, diversity, stewardship, leadership, open communication, and teamwork.  Too bad personal and professional responsibility wasn't included.

$571,400 to "help maintain an ethical culture". 

The funds pay for one Ph.D. and two others identified as an educator and an administrative liaison.  With failed overhead like this, it is no wonder the MWD Operations & Maintenance budget projects an 18.4% increase in salary and benefit costs as well as a 23% increase in construction related costs and a 23% increase in Water System Operations! 

It's also no wonder why Fullerton's water rates are anticipated to nearly double. 

This Monday, May 23rd, the City will be holding a public meeting with an ad-hoc water rate committee in the City Council chambers at City Hall (303 W. Commonwealth) at 6:30PM.  I encourage ALL Fullerton water users to attend.  You will be given an opportunity to voice your concerns and let committee members know where you stand. 

If you would like a copy of the Fullerton Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Briefing, please email me at GregSebourn@yahoo.com and I will email it to you.

Speak now or pay later!

Controller Releases April Cash Update

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California’s cash balance, receipts and disbursements in April. Total revenues for the month were $397.6 million above (4.0 percent) estimates found in the Governor’s proposed 2011-12 State Budget.
“While April’s revenues were nominally higher than estimates, they did not provide much breathing room in the budget debate,” said Controller John Chiang. “We are a long way from closing the books for this fiscal year. June is still a very important month for revenues, and in that month our outlook could improve or deteriorate significantly.”
Sales taxes were over projections by $45.2 million (5.0 percent) in April, and personal income taxes were up $272.7 million (4.0 percent). Corporate taxes were down $48.2 million (-3.1 percent).
Year-to-date tax revenues are approximately $2.5 billion ahead of projections. But from a cash perspective, receipts are actually up $1.3 billion. The difference comes from the aborted sale and lease-back of State properties which Governor Brown canceled this spring. That arrangement was originally projected to generate $1.2 billion in March 2011.
The State faced a $17.8 billion cash deficit on April 30. That deficit was covered by $7.8 billion of internal borrowing – short term loans from special funds – and $10 billion of external borrowing.
April 2011’s financial statement and the summary analysis can found on the Controller’s Web site at www.sco.ca.gov.

Fullerton Water Rates & MWDOC

Here is the latest email blast "eCurrents" from MWDOC, the agency from which the City of Fullerton buys its water. 


Message from the President
By Joan C. Finnegan, MWDOC Board President

On Friday, May 20, 2011, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), Orange County Water District (OCWD), and the Disneyland Resort will host the fourth annual OC Water Summit at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel in Anaheim. As President of MWDOC, I want to encourage each of you to attend and participate in this year’s summit.

The OC Water Summit is an innovative forum that tackles water supply issues and sets real solutions in motion. The event brings together experts to engage southern California business professionals, water industry stakeholders, elected officials, community leaders, scientists, environmentalists, and others in discussions about the ongoing water supply challenges facing our state and how they impact our economy and quality of life.

Online registration is available at http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=xr8waecab&et=1105327706317&s=11443&e=001zO9X0Tgvtqw7VPGYssoACEpbNFfmv0j0SJ2a21chI0QN5CWE3QOK1zmP0Sydkwhn9jOOO5kMHZZRKWTbnkhEGO78UPnAlK6FtngeLDTKuPi9uB8bLHPfVg==.

This year’s program highlights include:

• Edward G. Means, Principal Investigator of “The Value of Water,” a study funded by the Water Research Foundation.
• Curt Schmutte, P.E., Engineering Consultant for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
• Congressman Tom McClintock, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.
• Michael Hiltzik, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of Colossus: Hoover Dam and the Making of the American Century.
• Dr. Lucy Jones, Chief Scientist of the US Geological Survey Multi-Hazard Demonstration Project for Southern California

Some of our speakers have contributed articles for this issue of eCurrents that will provide prospective guests with a glimpse of what they will be presenting at the summit. For additional information about the summit or to register online, please visit http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=xr8waecab&et=1105327706317&s=11443&e=001zO9X0Tgvtqw7VPGYssoACEpbNFfmv0j0SJ2a21chI0QN5CWE3QOK1zmP0Sydkwhn9jOOO5kMHZZRKWTbnkhEGO78UPnAlK6FtngeLDTKuPi9uB8bLHPfVg==.

We look forward to seeing you at the OC Water Summit on Friday, May 20, 2011 at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel.

Communicating the Value of Water: A Key Component in Establishing Public Support for Future Investments.
By Edward G. Means, Principal Investigator, Water Research Foundation "The Value of Water" Study

In the modern competitive business environment serving more and more well-informed clientele, today’s water purveyors face an unrelenting challenge of delivering recognized value through the products and services offered by them in providing safe, reliable, affordable, and secure supply of potable water. The ailing infrastructure of the nation adds to the complexity and continually requires greater levels of funding. In a poll of 71 water and wastewater utility managers and other experts, an overwhelming majority identified the need for significant additional financial resource needs to adequately address this challenge as a top issue facing water and wastewater utilities. Currently, very little Government funding is available for such efforts, and most of the utilities need to rely on financial resources from their customer base.

In order to effectively carry out their duties of continuing to deliver safe and good tasting water to their customers, water utilities continuously seek new and effective means to communicate the value of their products and services to their customer’s (general public), the community decision makers (the elected officials), and the significant influences on the decision making process (the media).

Click here to read more about The Value of Water.

Delta Seismic Risks: What is at Stake for California?
By Curt Schmutte, P.E., Engineering Consultant, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water system, home to a unique ecosystem and a diverse agricultural and recreational economy. This portion of California’s geography is extremely complex, highly altered, and not sustainable in its current form or function. The problems range from declining health of the Delta fish species, on-going island subsidence, potential levee failures due to earthquakes, upstream and in-Delta diversions, predicted sea level rise, water quality degradation, and urbanization.

Significant portions of Southern California’s water supplies are pumped through the Delta and are vulnerable to long-term outage due to an earthquake. The true level of risk has only been appreciated in recent years through separate efforts by university researchers and government agencies. As the Delta land surface sinks further below sea level due to farming activity, it creates a bigger hole to fill with seawater and increases Delta levee stresses. The levees were never designed to resist soil liquefaction and are very expensive to upgrade. Finally, the chances of a large shaking event striking the Delta are known to be high and increasing according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Click here to read more about Delta Seismic Risks.

California Forward Moves Closer to Finalizing its Government Reform Proposals
By David J. Cordero, MWDOC Director of Government Affairs

Last month, readers of eCurrents were made aware of two government reform efforts out of Sacramento that both placed a particular emphasis on potential changes in the governance and financing of the more than 2,000 independent special districts that exist throughout California. The first entity looking into potential reforms was the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review (AAR). The second was California Forward, a non-profit, bi-partisan organization that was formed in 2008 to advocate for state and local government reforms, with the intention of enacting them into law either through the Legislature or the ballot box.

Representatives from California Forward have traveled throughout the state in recent months holding “Speak Up California” events for community and business leaders, elected officials, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties. These outreach events have provided California Forward with opportunities to make its case for state and local government reform, share its evolving reform framework entitled, “Making California Work Again: Restructuring State-Local Relationships,” and solicit input and secure conceptual “buy in” for its proposals.

California Forward released its final draft framework earlier this month, and a final round of regional meetings around the state (Inland Empire, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bay Area, and the Central Valley) will soon begin to again solicit stakeholder feedback.

Orange County special district and other local government officials will have an opportunity to engage California Forward in a policy dialogue about the organization’s recommendations at the meeting of the Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) on Friday, May 6, 2011. The meeting is from 7:30-9:00 a.m. in the MWDOC/OCWD Board Room (18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley).

Click here to read more about California Forward's government reform framework and proposals.

Click here to download a copy of California Forward's reform framework (April 19, 2011), executive summary, and four-page short summary.

MWDOC Releases Draft Urban Water Management Plan
By Warren Greco, MWDOC Policy Analyst

The Municipal Water District or Orange County (MWDOC) is currently in the process of preparing its 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan for adoption this summer. The Urban Water Management Plan is a document required under state law to be updated every five years to ensure that water agencies across the state are planning for adequate water supplies to meet existing and future water demands in their service areas. A draft version of MWDOC’s Urban Water Management Plan has been released and can be downloaded here. A public hearing on the plan will be held during MWDOC’s regular monthly Board Meeting on May 18, 2011.

An important new requirement for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plans is the establishment of water conservation targets to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by the year 2020, as required under the Water Conservation Act of 2009, commonly referred to as 20 by 2020. In the past year and a half, MWDOC staff has participated in various stakeholder committees charged with drafting the guidelines under the 20 by 2020 law, and we have worked to ensure that all of the water suppliers in Orange County get credit for the significant investments that they have already made in conservation and recycled water.

Click here to read more about MWDOC's Draft Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Fullerton's Proposed Budget Unveiled - $274.9-Million to be spent

The City of Fullerton unveiled the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

The budget appears to be largely a rearrangement of the deck chairs with no real cuts proposed.  There are proposed cuts in certain projected spending to help make up for significant increases in employee benefits.

There were no explanations about the benefits increasing which Councilmember Whitaker took issue with. 

Councilmember Quirk-Silva reminded staff that last year there were several ideas proposed for generating revenue and increasing fees such as the tow franchise which will be heard by the Council later this year.  Quirk-Silva expressed appreciation that the tow franchise was moving forward but would like to know about the other measure proposed last year.

One of my major concerns continues to be the infrastructure.  As Public Works Director Hoppe pointed out, we still have a nearly $150 million dollar paving deficit to deal with.  The current paving plan does not adequately address this nor does this proposed budget.  I hope the council members and City Manager Joe Felz will give serious consideration and address our infrastructure with this budget.

Below are the summaries for the proposed budget. (click on image to read)  The big question remaining in my mind is how does $274.9 million in taxpayer expenditures next year benefit my family, my neighborhood, and the quality of life in my community?

Fullerton City Council Special Meeting Tonight - The Budget

Does Government Work Require Government Employees?

I have to thank Fullerton's own Travis Kiger and Jack Dean for forwarding a link that answers this question (as if you didn't already know).  During last year's election I proposed a plan to improve police and fire services while cutting costs to taxpayers.  I suggested the City of Fullerton hire more reserve police officers and begin hiring reserve firefighters.  I caught flack from everyone and for various reasons. 

Some said the unions wouldn't allow it, as if the unions ran the City, and therefore shouldn't bother with it.  Others said it would result in poor service and create dangerous conditions.

That idea is has been implemented in Redlands California where it has proved to be a massive savings for tax payers while improving the actual services.

The story at Governing.com features Redlands PD describes what has happened after drastic cuts were made.  The following is a brief excerpt. 

At a time when most city and local governments are preparing to do less with less, officials in Redlands are taking a different approach: They’re attempting to maintain current levels of service through other means. Ramping up the use of volunteers is one of them.

It’s easy to see why. Three years ago, the police department in Redlands, a city of 71,000 people east of Los Angeles, had 98 sworn officers, 208 civilians and about two dozen volunteers. The police budget was $23.8 million, nearly half of the city’s operating budget. Today, the department employs 75 sworn officers and 138 civilians and relies on 291 active volunteers, who last year contributed more than 31,000 hours of their time to the city.

Later the article says, Pleas read the article and discover how Fullerton might incorporate some of the solutions Redlands has implemented.  As the article suggests, "Do-it-yourself government is here for good."

“We have fewer resources,” says City Manager N. Enrique Martinez. “We had to cut staff. My challenge is to maintain the same service level if not better. The public is not interested in whether you have 15 fewer people than before or not.”

Nor should they be. At least that’s the argument Police Chief Jim Bueermann makes. “The fallback position for most local government bureaucrats like me,” he says, “is that it’s so much easier to say, ‘We have $3 million less so you are going to get fewer services.’ But there are multiple ways to get to the outcomes that taxpayers expect their police department is going to deliver.” Prominent among them are a greater reliance on technology and a greater use of volunteers.

Water Rates - Is the grass greener in South County?

Tonight the Moulton Niguel Water District which serves Laguna Niguel will take up water rates. 

The OC Register is reporting that much of the outrage and confusion over the new increase is "as result of a previously approved 16.2 percent water rate increase that becomes effective June 1 – just one month before the billing structure would take effect."

Fullerton is facing a similar challenge.  Our water rates create a moving target for infrastructure planners.  As rates increase and usage declines, our ability to maintain the water system declines. With everyone cutting back and being a little wiser about water usage, revenues to support the water distribution system are being underfunded.  As MWD Director and former candidate for the state assembly said, “...the whole world of water is ballet.”

It doesn't have to be that way.