Metropolitan Water District Director's Letter to Fullerton City Council

You are probably all aware of the series of events that have taken place during the first 2 weeks of April. The month started off with the snowpack report for April 1st. The snowpack in the state of CA is at the lowest in recorded history. Governor Brown attended a snow measurement station in the Sierra's. After witnessing the measurement he ordered a mandatory cutback of 25% on urban water use.

 

The MWD had been analyzing our water supply and the possibilities of an allocation for the last few months. It was agreed upon and agendized for discussion at our April committee and board meetings. Governor Brown beat us to the punch with his April 1 announcement.

 

The MWD was very successful at moving water to the San Luis Reservoir during the large December storms. The discussions in February and March were centered around a Level 2 allocation, but as March went by it became clear that the snowpack was going to be very low. The snowpack measurement combined with Governor Brown's mandatory reduction caused the MWD to rethink it's allocation level. The allocation debate at the water planning and stewardship committee meeting on April 13th had varying opinions. The discussion was centered around a Level 3 or Level 4 allocation. A Level 3 being a 15% cut, and a Level 4 being a 20% cut in water use by MWD customers. The arguments for either level of allocation had merit. In the end, it was agreed to go with a Level 3 allocation with a monthly review that potentially could bring a revote to change the allocation.  

 

The MWD's water supply situation is not completely finished for this year. We may face some shortfalls in our water transfer program. The MWD contracted for a 100,000 acre feet of water from the rice farms north of the delta. We were informed on Friday April 10th, that the transfers were being halted by the state. That transfer is uncertain. Our fallowing program with the Palo Verde irrigation district will be utilized fully this year, but our stored water in Lake Mead has a slight chance of not being released if Lake Mead's level falls into emergency status. This condition seems unlikely, but nonetheless there is a small chance. These scenarios could trigger a deeper allocation.

 

I discussed the Level 3 allocation with our water manager Dave Schickling. His opinion is that we can meet a Level 3 allocation without penalty from the MWD. The penalty is over $1,400 per acre foot. It goes without saying that we should make every effort to conserve water over the next 9 months. Governor Brown's order for a 25% reduction will be tougher to attain, but if we can reach that level, or near it, the MWD's Level 3 allocation will not be an issue.

 

I have attached General Manager Kightlinger's letter to the state water resource control board. This letter outlines the MWD's position and provides a proposed framework for the mandatory cutbacks. I have also attached a letter to Governor Brown from Chairman Record. These letters were crafted through discussions in various committees, and they are enlightening about past water conditions, conservation, and our current situation. They are well worth reading.

 

On Tuesday April 14th, the board of directors voted to support a Level 3 allocation. I voted in support of the Level 3 allocation. I have also attached the summary report for April. There are 2 other items worth noting. We appropriated 41 million dollars to rehabilitate the filters at the Weymouth treatment plant. These filters are almost 80 years old. The new filters are an enhanced design that is compatible with the new ozone equipment being installed at the Weymouth plant. The other item of interest took place in communication and legislation committee. This action authorized the general manager to express support for SB 385 (Hueso, D-San Diego) primary drinking water standards: Hexavalent Chromium. This bill sets attainable standards for the presence of Hexavalent in our water supply.

 

As always if you have any questions, give me a call.

[redacted]

Pete Beard

OC Register Endorses Sebourn, Paden for Fullerton Council

Editorial: Paden, Sebourn for Fullerton Council

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Published: Oct. 15, 2014 Updated: 5:14 p.m.

Fullerton is recovering from a largely negative bout in the public limelight. A high-profile prosecution for police brutality cast shame on city governance, prompting a recall of three council members and engaging the city in questions of oversight for law enforcement.

The resulting scrutiny bore fruit: Fullerton became a pioneer in using police body cameras and is pondering a civilian review board. Yet, residents are now facing another important election, one that will no doubt greatly influence how the city engages a whole range of issues: Homelessness, infrastructure, pensions, development and more.

To continue the city on its positive path, the Register recommends the mayor pro tem, Greg Sebourn, and challenger Sean Paden for City Council.

Read more...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sebourn-638666-city-paden.html 

Sean Paden, JD

Greg Sebourn, PLS

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Endorses Sebourn Council

This week the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association joins the Lincoln Club and Atlas PAC with their endorsement of Greg Sebourn for Fullerton City Council.

I am thankful that the HJTA supports my longstanding commitment to keeping taxes low in Fullerton.  The endorsement will certainly lend visibility to the fragile state of Prop 13 and the necessity to protect the future of our aging population to live within their means.

Each of us as renters or property owners benefits directly by keeping the increase of property taxes to a sustainable rate of 2%.  Don't buy into the "split role" nonsense.  Any change to Prop 13 threatens our economic future.

HJTA was founded in 1978 to protect future generations from property tax spiking.  To learn more about the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, please go to http://www.hjta.org/.

Counterfeit COIN - Just the Facts

by Mayor Pro Tem Greg Sebourn, PLS & Council Member Bruce Whitaker

The issue of open negotiations in government finances is nothing new.  In fact, Fullerton considered this at its November 5, 2013 City Council meeting in which the matter was tabled for nearly seven months.

Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to manage your tax dollars and the public has the absolute right to know how and why their tax dollars are being spent.  This right to know is underscored since unionized labor is the single largest budgetary line item for the City and the fact that the City is still operating with a City Council approved (3-2) structural deficit of at least $1.6-million! 

Fullerton taxpayers have a long history of being shortchanged by City Hall.  From illegal taxes to redevelopment waste, Fullerton taxpayers have every reason to question who is proposing to spend how much and on what.  Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN, offered a glimmer of hope to Fullerton taxpayers before being surreptitiously replaced with a Counterfeit COIN. 

On June 17 the Fullerton City Council voted 2-3 (Ayes: Whitaker & Sebourn; Noes: Chaffee, Flory, & Fitzgerald) to approve COIN based on the original model approved in other jurisdictions including Costa Mesa.  COIN would have provided a new level of openness and transparency into labor negotiations.  Unfortunately, after that motion failed, three Council Members (Chaffee, Flory, & Fitzgerald) voted to approve an ordinance that gives the illusion of transparency and rigor to a backroom process that has to this day remained secret.

Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN ordinance lacks the two most critical components that make COIN an effective process for taxpayers and city workers - transparency and accountability.  Supporters of Counterfeit COIN point to the model guidelines “LABOR NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES AND PRINCIPLES” by the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC).  The guidelines offer up sample language and suggestions for COIN-like ordinances but Counterfeit COIN ignores the first rule of the guideline, Use of Outside Negotiators, as well as the second which calls for use of an independent auditor for financial analysis.

COIN and Counterfeit COIN both have a process for disclosure to the public regarding what the Council and public employee unions have negotiated behind closed doors.  Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN, however, only applies to written offers.  Further, it does not specify when the details of the proposed agreements, offers, or counteroffers must be made public.  This means there may be countless secret “trial balloons” offered by both sides before settling on written terms.  This is where Counterfeit COIN fails the transparency test.

Accountability is completely absent from Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN as well.  COIN required that all negotiations and economic analysis were to be conducted by professionals that were not subject to a public pension system and far removed from City Hall.  They are to be independent from the negotiating parties in every way.  Counterfeit COIN offers certain criteria that must be met in order bring in any outside parties. Even if the criteria is met, Counterfeit COIN requires the Council appoint a representative as a representative to the outside Negotiating Team, and further requires that representative be a public employee who stands to benefit by the outcome of the negotiation process.

COIN is really quite simple despite attempts to create the illusion of complexity or difficulty.  There are just three key components of COIN:  Independent Negotiator, Independent Economic Analysis, and Timely Public Disclosure. 

The lack of labor union opposition to Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN sends the message to taxpayers that this new ordinance brings no substantive changes to the backroom labor negotiations. 

Until a clear majority of the Fullerton City Council is willing to recognize that feathering the beds public employee unions is contrary to their fiduciary duty, Fullerton’s legacy of backroom negotiations lead by city staff to benefit city staff will continue. 

More of the same, same as before.  

WATER RATE INCREASE - Just say NO!

This week I received a notice from the City of Fullerton that they would like to raise water rates...AGAIN!  

The proposed rates are specifically for pass-through costs from Metropolitan Water District, Orange County Water District, Southern California Edison, and the City of Anaheim (we purchase electricity from Anaheim for Fullerton's wells in Anaheim).  

We know MWD (the agency that gave each employee a $6,000 bonus) recently raised rates to help cover salaries and pensions as well as some infrastructure needs.  We are required to purchase about 30% of all water from MWD.  The OCWD charges us a pumping tax that is significantly less than MWD but those rates keep creeping up. 

And those pesky electric bills keep going up as well.  

Let's recap a few important changes to your rates:

In 2012, a post-recall Council directed staff to refund about $7.4 million: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-374846-water-bills.html 

In 2013, a new council majority (Chaffee, Flory, & Fitgerald) voted to redirect staff to only refund about $3.3 million and concocted a new scheme to keep the rest and continue their slightly smaller skimming operation: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/customers-522970-water-city.html  & http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/03/fullerton-water-heist/

Now, the City will charge you more and as a direct result skim more, and claim it in the name of pass-through costs.

Fill out your protest form that was attached on your bill.  If you didn't get the notice for any reason, fill out this form and send it in immediately.  Share with all of your neighbors, employers, friends, and family in Fullerton!

(Click image to view/print)

MWD Holds On To Surplus Revenue

A message from MWD Director Thomas S. Babcock for the City of Fullerton:

The discussion today with a 3 hour Board of Directors board meeting (usually it has not gone over 1/2 hour). The Board majority approved the distribution of the $75M excess surplus after restoring the reserves to be distributed equally into 3 areas; repair and maintenance (PAYGO); OPEB ($575M underfunded retiree health benefits) and a water transfer fund to allow a restricted fund to purchase water as needed should MET need to purchase water to restore reserves as necessary.An alternative option to this distribution was to refund to the agencies $28M allocated on water purchases to reduce the budgeted 5% increase for 2014 to 3%. With the selection of "Option 1", this option was not considered.  However, a separate motion was made which I seconded to refund the 28% while agreeing to fund the 3 areas in Option 1.  While there were votes for this motion, it failed 75% to 25% based on the agencies assessed value weighted distribution voting. Had this passed, Fullerton would have received a refund of 2014 water purchases for approximately $150,000.It is generally believed that with the current drought condition, MET will sell more water than budgeted for in the 2014 budget and again have a surplus of funds this time next year when the 2015/2016 two year budget is considered.  With the financial reserves at their maximums, I am reasonably sure we will have this agency refund discussion again next year.Another item that was approved was a "freeze" in the ad valorem property tax rate for one year at the .0035% in an effort to stabilize the fixed portion of agency revenues. This is allowed under the Administrative code of the Metropolitan Act.  The current rate represents  a tax of approximately $10.50 for a $300,000 property. The tax would have dropped approximately $0.60 for the same $300,000 had this action not been taken and will result in a $4M increase in Metropolitan's fixed income sources.We had quite a few speakers addressing these 2 items for and against during today's meeting.  There was also a rather lively discussion among Directors.I felt these items were important enough to provide a summary in addition to my report which I will provide at the end of the month. Thomas S. BabcockDirector to the Metropolitan Water Districtfor the City of Fullerton

Council Meeting and Study Session

Please join me Tuesday, October 2, at the Fullerton Public Library Main Branch for a Study Session on affordable housing followed by the regularly scheduled council meeting.

Click HERE for the City's page with more information.

CITY OF FULLERTON

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

OCTOBER 2, 2012 - 4:00 P.M.

Fullerton Library Conference Center

353 West Commonwealth Avenue

Fullerton, California

CITY OF FULLERTON

CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

OCTOBER 2, 2012 - 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber

303 West Commonwealth Avenue

Fullerton, California

CITY OF FULLERTON

CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY /

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OCTOBER 2, 2012 - 6:30 P.M.

Council Chamber

303 West Commonwealth Avenue

Fullerton, California

CalSTRS Fails

Press Release from State Controller John Chiang

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his review of the California State Teachers' Retirement System's (CalSTRS) ability to detect and prevent pension spiking. The review found CalSTRS does not adequately audit more than 1,900 reporting entities (including school districts), has missed opportunities to reduce instances of suspicious or unjustified salary increases and also failed to adequately use existing electronic systems designed to identify cases of pension spiking. It also includes recommendations to address each of those shortcomings.

"Starting with more rigorous auditing and better use of existing technology, CalSTRS must fortify its ability and resolve to crack down on those seeking unjust enrichment at the expense of their fellow educators and taxpayers," said Chiang. "These recommendations aimed at strengthening CalSTRS' anti-spiking efforts will complement the recently-enacted pension reform package and shut down this form of public theft." 

The review specifically examined the electronic methods that CalSTRS uses to detect and prevent pension payments based on unusually large or excessive final compensation amounts, the auditing processes the system uses to oversee the state's school districts, and the efforts conducted by its newly-formed Comprehensive Review Unit during the review period of July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011. The scope of the review was expanded to include records from three school districts, one community college district and one county office of education.

The review found that the CalSTRS audit program did not adequately detect or deter pension spiking. Although more than 1,900 agencies are a part of CalSTRS, the pension plan averages only 40 audits a year. During the review, CalSTRS was implementing a new stand-alone Compensation Review Unit charged with specifically detecting pension-spiking activity, which should result in more audits. However, the Controller said more auditors are needed to provide adequate oversight of the reporting by districts to CalSTRS.

The review evaluated pay increases granted prior to retirement to determine whether they were adequately approved, justified and documented. A geographically diverse sample of five local education reporting agencies was chosen: Pajaro Valley Unified School District in Santa Cruz County, the San Francisco and San Diego unified school districts, Foothill-De Anza Community College District in Santa Clara County, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Two of the five, or 40 percent, lacked documentation to justify pay increases granted to their employees immediately prior to retirement, such as board or executive approval or written performance evaluations. 

For example, at the San Francisco Unified School District, one executive received a 26% pay increase six months prior to retirement, and another executive received a 20% increase one year prior to retirement. The district was unable to provide any documentation supporting those raises.

After similar and repeated requests were made to the San Diego Unified School District, officials ultimately responded that documentation supporting raises was missing from their files.

CalSTRS uses a system that electronically identifies instances in which an employee's monthly pay increase exceeds a certain percentage, or in which an employee's "special compensation" exceeds a specific dollar amount in one year. However, the review found that during the period evaluated, CalSTRS did not review, verify or follow up on pay increases that were flagged by the system. The Controller urges CalSTRS to review all of the cases that were flagged by the system, require the agencies to provide adequate documentation supporting those increases and better determine if the pay increase thresholds are appropriate to detect pension spiking. 

The findings and recommendations from this review will be presented at the September meeting of the CalSTRS Audit and Risk Management Committee. The Controller also plans to perform a similar review of pension-spiking prevention measures at the state's largest pension system, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).

City Council Meeting Tuesday Night

Fullerton City Council Meeting August 7, 2012 at 6:30PM at City Hall, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave

The Agenda has some big-ticket items that you should be aware of.  Among them is the massive issue of water rates and determining what costs should be appropriately charged to the Water Fund.  

There are a total of 27 items on the agenda and I hope to hear you speak about them.  Your voice matters so please speak up.

Click HERE for the Agenda!

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Meeting - Be Heard!

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

 

Main Library Conference Center

353 W. Commonwealth Avenue

June 11, 2012

6:00 P.M.

                                                                                                                                               

1.  CALL TO ORDER

2.  ROLL CALL

3.  CONSENT

     Approval of the Minutes of April 9, 2012 Ad Hoc Committee meeting

4.  ACTION ITEMS

Consideration and final recommendation.

·         Utility Impacts of Street Maintenance

·         Lease of Office Space

·         Public Safety

·         Lease of City Property

·         Payback Options

5.  PUBLIC COMMENTS  

Public comments will only be heard on items appearing on the agenda.  Persons addressing the Ad Hoc Committee will be limited to three minutes.  

6.  CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

7.  ADJOURNMENT

OC Register Columnist Avoids the Obvious

OC Register columnist David Whiting shows the same trait as the Fullerton City Council members being recalled- denial.

Whiting gives his impression of the Fullerton recall election and the reaction of the public since the video was released.

While Whiting is entitled to express his opinion, he chose to use his creative writing skills over his journalist skills to express his support of the three doomed council members Jones, Bankhead, and McKinley.

I suppose when the facts are present, one need only close their eyes and the facts go away.  I'm sure my toddler would agree.

Unfortunately, sticking one's head in the sand doesn't resolve anything.  It only drags out the inevitable demise that is certain to follow.

Whiting gives the before and after impressions of the soon-to-be ex-councilmen and uses some mild quotes. He ignores, as city council candidate Matt Rowe pointed out, numerous tasteless, insensitive, and demeaning comments made by McKinley.  Bankhead and Jones also made plenty of similar remarks that have reflected poorly on our city.

From Matt's Facebook post at the OC Register on-line:

Here's some better quotes for Councilman McKinley.
---
Theme: Compassion
On sexual assault and the FPD (Rincon).
"Those ladies weren't people like this." 
This is not compassion. This is judgement. Does Pat McKinley side with the victims here or with the officer? You decide, then read the next one.
"It was just inappropriate touching. Not a good thing, but it ain't a dangerous thing."
This is not compassion. Pat McKinley actively dismissed what it feels like to be sexually assaulted and defended the officer's actions. Need more, read below. 

On Kelly Thomas.
"You can't get six people around one guy."
This is not compassion. This is attacking witnesses to the crime. As the video demonstrates, you can certainly get six officers on one guy. They piled on and crushed Kelly to death. Again, this is not compassion, this is Pat McKinley defending the FPD on national television. Need more?
"I've had my eyes bloused a few times myself... facial injuries are not life threatening."
This is not compassion. This is Pat McKinley minimizing the injuries that Kelly Thomas received. He's making a foray into medicine and is not acting appropriately for a councilman. No eye blousing every received by Pat McKinley should EVER be compared to Kelly Thomas's injuries. Need more?
"I can guarantee neither of these officers intended for Kelly Thomas to die. They had no intention of murdering him."
THIS IS NOT COMPASSION. This is Pat McKinley, again, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. He has no idea what the officers' intent was. Here he is AGAIN advocating for the FPD and not advocating for a citizen of Fullerton, a victim of the FPD. Still need more?
"This should be an interesting trial and Mr Barnett is an extremely competent lawyer, and he has said that he has other information."
This is not compassion. This is Pat McKinley alluding to evidence held by the defense that may exonerate the officers. He has no business stating this, true or untrue. He's supposed to be advocating for citizens, for Fullerton, and for victims of crime inside the city limits. Making a statement about how good the defense attorney is and how interesting he's going to make the trial is not compassion. If it is, it's only for the FPD.
---
Theme: Police Discipline:
"I probably hired them all."
Yup. You probably trained them, too. Not exactly who I want ensuring my rights aren't violated.
"We changed the entire culture of the department."
I have no doubt you did.
"We put Rincon on administrative leave, immediately."
Really? This is a lie. Pat McKinley left Rincon on the job after receiving multiple complaints. He assaulted many many women. What did Pat McKinley do about it? He left him on the street, retired, then blamed the incoming police chief. View it yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg3uCUnivlU&feature=youtu.be
---
I have no idea why the person writing this article wrote what they did. What I can tell you is that we're not all on the same page. The quotes presented by the author, at best, occurred weeks and months after Kelly was killed. What the author should be presenting is what the council members said before the press got a hold of the case. That's the justification for the recall.
I guess this really sums up the reporter's journalistic ability: "As one speaker in council chambers put it, 'The world is watching this meeting.' I'm not so sure about the world."
The speaker was Ron Thomas. The world is most definitely watching. 10 million views and counting.
YES ON RECALL.

Well said Matt!  

Sticking our head in the sands of Fullerton have left us with over $1-BILLION of debt, no less than a dozen law suits, several former police employees incarcerated or on trial, accounting gimmicks and misappropriation of public funds, illegal taxes, and a blood on our streets.  \

The only cure for Fullerton's failed leadership is to replace the council with competent and caring leaders who will not look the other way while Rome is burning.

CAUSE: head in sand, EFFECT: (see images below)

A DUI crash mock-up. Unlike many

other Fullerton images, no one died

or was injured in this picture.

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Canceled

The Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee meeting has been canceled with no reason given.

The meeting was scheduled for this Wednesday but City manager Joe Felz canceled the meeting.  No reason was given.

The meeting would have been held to review the City Manager's list of "costs" associated with operating the City's Water Department and determine how much should be billed to the Water Fund.

Meanwhile, Fullerton Water Department customers are still being overcharged 10% on their water bills.  

Precinct Walk Today!

Today at 2PM we will be walking precincts throughout Fullerton. 

If you would like to help, please click HERE to RSVP and for more details!

Redevelopment Debt $642 Million

I was reminded by an automated email from the City that the Redevelopment Agency's Oversight Board has a meeting coming up on Tuesday May 22 at 3PM in the City Council Chambers.  

I was also reminded just how much debt our City Council (acting as the Redevelopment Agency) has incurred on our behalf over the past couple of decades.

According to the report from the City to the State we taxpayers are on the hook for $641,969,234!

And what did you get for your money?  High-density apartments, parking garages, and a number of employees to figure out how to give us more debt.  I know that sounds harsh but that is what we are left with.  There were very few projects that made improvements to the infrastructure and even those were relatively minor.

Its sad that we have squandered so much and received, as a community, so little in return.

Reducing the debt will take hard work, dedication, and vision.

Preview of Tonight's City Council Meeting - What's in it, what's not

Tonight's City Council Agenda is spectacularly huge.  There are 23 items on is and that doesn't include the study session for the Task Force On Homelessness and Mental Health Services or the Closed Session conferences with legal counsel.  One of the countless law suits alone could cost Fullerton taxpayers more than $10-million and no one was killed.  Indeed, it is a strange world we live in.

I'm not sure what to expect for the Task Force's study session and the agenda is void of information.

The Consent Calendar is where we often see expensive plans put quietly in motion and tonight is no different.  The 15 items consist of General Plan update, legal contracts, labor contracts, insurance report with recommendations from staff, November's general election, Successor Agency debt update (more on this in a moment), Measure M funding, custodial services contract, agreement with Brea for sewer replacement, rezoning, property acquisition, sewer lining, Chapman Ave (at Fox Fullerton) right-turn lane, and the Walnut/Lincoln sewer replacement.

All told, these represent $647,106,698 in spending.  Of that, $641,969,234 is from the Redevelopment Agency's debt courtesy of the City Council.  That leaves $5,137,464 in new expenditures/allocations.  And where is this buried?  The Consent Calendar.

There are Public Hearings on four items.  
Agenda item 16 is the OCTA Bike Share Pilot Project.  This is a 66-month trial run to see if people will use bikes dispensed from an automated bike rack like a vending machine.  The staff report claims huge success in major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, and Mexico City.

Item 17 proposes the use of tax dollars to subsidize a low-income apartment building proposed for 345 East Commonwealth, dubbed the Alexander Senior Housing Project.  Besides the issue of using public funds for private housing, there remain discrepancies in the City's numbers.  The Joint Powers Authority that the City wants to partner with has approved $14,000,000 while the City seems to think they will get $14,500,000.  I have repeatedly brought this up and City staff just shrug.  I oppose the project for several reasons including substandard parking, zoning, and open space, as well as the use of public funds for private development.  Deals like this are bad for taxpayers and ultimately bad for the real estate market.  It gives one developer, The Richman Group or TRG, an unfair advantage by giving them $14,000,000 and numerous development concessions as noted above. And TRG has little to no risk.

Item 18 is the tow franchise and repeal of a chapter from the municipal code.  This is the by-product of the Fullerton Police Department's failed attempt last year to ramrod a contract through to Anaheim/Fullerton Towing and To' and Mo' Towing.  Last year you may recall that the FPD compiled and reported to the Council the nitty-gritty details of employees who worked for the other responding tow companies.  Most saw the report for what it was, cheap shots to justify keeping a 40-year contract in place.  The FPD then pushed through a commercial truck route law that punished tow operators on City streets.  Everything the FPD has had to do with towing seems to be under a dark cloud of cronyism and special favors.

Item 19 is the proposed revised budget that was continued from the last meeting.  City Staff were ordered to return with a balanced budget.  Although the balance sheet works, the premise behind the more than rosy numbers is questionable.  For example, the budget assumes the City will receive $20,000 in outdoor dining fees for restaurants with patios in the public right of way, like Florentine's bar on the northeast corner of Commonwealth and Harbor except Florentine's won't be paying a dime for their use of the sidewalk.  Ask the council members being recalled why.  The budget also shows a "potential revenue from citywide fee study" with $50,000 generated.  Since when does a study in and of itself generate tax revenue?  Then there are the so-called cuts or savings.  Staff assume that there will be a $260,000 reduction in contract costs for legal services, graffiti, animal control, and custodial service.  The proposed custodial contract is $16,430 less than the current contract which allocated $425,801 to cleaning City Hall.  Strange how we can get the contract workers to take a 4% cut but not our own employees.  There are several other glaring issues that should have been addressed but weren't.

And finally, Regular Business...
Item 20 is All the Arts for All the Kids Heart Project.  This allows those big decorated hearts to be placed all around town without going through the permit process.

Item 21 tackles the skate park and its operations.  It asks that the Skate Park Ad Hoc Committee pick up the slack and help with cleaning and maintaining the park.  That's a first and not a bad suggestion if their are community members interested in taking on that role.  I'm glad to see it opening up again (pending approval by the Council).  there is an estimated $50,000 cost to make some much needed upgrades and maintenance.

Item 22 is the Boys & Girls Club lease agreement.  The deal looks a little shady.  The City asked the Club to lease the facility in exchange for a $1,000,000 contribution.  The Club will purchase their own furniture and computers ($300,000) and will pay the remaining $700,000 in monthly payments of $3,333.33.  At that rate, it will take the Club 17.5 years to make their "contribution" to the City.  In the mean time, Park Dwelling Funds will be used to backfill the shortfall.  I like the Boys & Girls Club but this creative financing is not good.

Outdoor dining is last on the list as item 23.  Aside from playing with the numbers, one of the proposed price lists uses type of beverage served.  No alcohol means you will pay $0.30/SQFT, beer and wine will cost you $0.60SQFT, and full liquor means you get saddled with a $0.90SQFT cost to use the public's right-of-way.  As noted above, Florentine's seems to be immune to these taxes despite his outrageous encroachment onto public property for the consumption of alcohol.

So what's missing?  WATER RATES!!!  Why aren't they being adjusted?  

There is a lot to cover tonight and I hope you come out and speak.  Speak from your heart and be heard.

Fullerton and Hercules, More Reasons to Vote YES On Recall

Here is a press release from State Controller John Chiang.  His office audited the City of Hercules and found poor record keeping and accounting practices that called into question how the City spent State and Federal grant funds.  

After learning that Fullerton has similar issues, I cant help but wonder how long it will take for State and Federal officials to take notice and followup with action.

Here are two quotes from Chiang that can be as easily applied to Fullerton as they were to Hercules:

"During my time in office, this could be the worst set of city accounting records I have seen," said Controller Chiang. "The City’s books were so poorly managed, that I must question their use of every single federal and state dollar granted to the City."

"The manner in which city officials approached their fiduciary responsibilities falls below every reasonable standard of care and begins to explain why Hercules is under water," said Chiang. "The longer the City goes without accounting for its taxpayer dollars, the greater the risk that federal and state authorities will withhold money from the City, further increasing Hercules' difficulties." 

More reasons to recall Don Bankhead, Dick Jones, and Pat McKinley!  

City Council Meeting Tonight - Tuesday May 1

Please come to tonight's City Council meeting and be heard!  

DEBT

Tonight's agenda includes a revised debt obligation report (Item 3) showing the City's Redevelopment debt at $625,165,719.  MORE THAN HALF A BILLION OF DEBT!  This gem is in the Consent Calendar which means the report can be approved with other actions in one motion.  Ask for Item 3 to be pulled from the consent calendar so that we can tell the City Council that $625,165,719 is too much debt.

BUDGET

Also on the agenda is the Revised Budget for Fiscal Year 2012-13.  The revised budget relies on using City reserves to close the structural deficit of at least $1.5-million and make the broad assumption that your water bill will remain the same or go up.  It addresses the 10% cut by the City Council when they halted the illegal water tax however it assumes that there will be two new "fees" in the tax's place to "recover costs" that do not exist.  You and I will continue to pay more and as soon-to-be-Recalled Councilman Dick Jones suggested, the illegal water tax has two new names: Right of Way Impact Fee and Property Lease Fee.

You would think after the backlash over these artificially created "costs" that they would have forgone the fees and dealt with reality.  No.  Business as usual.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

The General Plan Update or Fullerton Plan is also on the agenda (Item 7).  Depending on your view of social engineering, the General Plan Update may be great or terrible.

I don't like social engineering and therefore am inclined to disagree with the update.  The update incorporates many of the far left's goals to get people walking and cycling by penalizing those who operate gasoline powered  vehicles.  The word "sustainable" is used about as often as "green".  And we know how well these "green" initiatives have worked for the City with the installation of the Library's solar array.

As the name implies, it's all about "cap & trade".  CAP or Climate Action Plan makes the broad assumption that man has changed the Earth's climate and laws like this will change it back.  For that matter, there are several issues with the CAP but I'll focus on just one today.  The software used to dream up the plan's data for cap and trade, greenhouse gas emissions, and other statistical data was developed and disseminated by the very organization that lobbied for AB32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act- as if we can solve the world's problems with one law in CA).  That sounds like a conflict of interest but I'll let you do your own homework and figure out the particulars.

Tow Trucks and Commercial Routes

After a barrage of complaints of selective enforcement that favored one tow company over another, we have  the issue of "Truck Routes" back on the agenda (Item 8).  According to the staff report, some revisions to the municipal code should resolve the problem.  However, the revisions are minor and do not address the larger problem: are tow trucks "commercial vehicles" and therefor required to adhere to the truck routes?

The revised code references the California Vehicle Code's definition of "commercial vehicle".  Here is the actual language:

260.  (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. 

(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3. 

(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. 

(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

This means that all tow trucks, delivery vans, maid service cars, ice cream trucks, plumbers, general contractors, electricians, or any vehicles that advertise a company or service and weigh 10,000 pounds or more are not permitted to travel in the City except along designated truck routes.

Of course there is a nice exemption for any vehicles being operated by city contractors, such as their contract tow company.  I see no changes that will resolve the issue of selective enforcement.  The municipal code gives tacit approval for Fullerton Police Officers to chase tow truck competition out of Fullerton and disenfranchising private business.  Only the City's contractor has free reign over Fullerton.

Conclusion

Clearly we are faced yet again with an agenda that supports a select few and contains little connection with the reality facing Fullerton's residents and business owners.  

Voters will have an opportunity to make a difference on June 5th by RECALLING Jones, Bankhead, and McKinley.  

Water Tax Repealed, Rate Decrease Anticipated

The City Council voted 5-0 to do the right thing: Rescind the 1970 City Council Resolution that granted an automatic transfer of 10% of gross water sales to the General Fund.  The money was then used to cover General Fund obligations, 80% of which is for salaries, benefits, and pensions.

The end of the water tax does not mean the automatic reduction of 10% of ratepayers water bills.

That will be explored by the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee in the coming weeks.

For now, though, let's savor the moment.

One year ago I said that ending the water tax would allow for ratepayers' money to go where they had intended it to be spent, the water system.  "Oh no.  That would mean a $2.5 million cut to the General Fund" said the tax's supporters.  "We can't have that!"

The fact is, that money was not supposed to be going into the General Fund and reliance on those funds demonstrates a clear disregard of fiduciary responsibilities by our city officials.

The money was earmarked for water purposes and any other use is a clear misappropriation of public funds.  Suddenly with the water tax gone, the Water Fund has all the money necessary to begin replacing 4 to 6 miles of pipe per year instead of 1 mile per year.  This is a leap in the right direction.  However, there is much more work ahead.

You can expect another tax and spend plan to come forward to try to make up the $2.5 million annual cut in illegal funding.

Keep a wary eye out for gimmicks, games, and gambling with your money by city officials and vote June 5 to recall Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley.

Illegal Water Tax Not Quite Dead

Ending the illegal 10% water tax is only part of the solution

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the end of Fullerton's decades-old water tax will not mean the end of Fullerton's financial woes.

As far as anyone can remember only a handful of Fullerton employees fill out time sheets and account for their time spent on specific tasks or projects.

This was the case in 1970 when the City Council voted to tax the Water Fund 10% of the gross water sales.  The blanket application of a percentage-based tax instead of the actual specific costs for service is indicative of poor management from people who had no idea just how much time and effort their employees spent working on water projects and tasks.

The City Manager has placed the elimination of the water tax on Tuesday's City Council agenda citing legal reasons, not economic reasons.  He has very few economic reasons to support any tax because he has no proof of the time and effort spent by employees working on the system except for certain water system employees and engineering employees.

That being the case, how did the City and their consultant, Municipal & Financial Services Group, produce this chart?

Somehow city staff and the consultant concluded these figures and presented them to the Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee as facts for consideration when determining just how much water rates should be increased.

If we take a leap of faith that these numbers are remotely accurate, then there are no other costs.  Therefor, any newly discovered "costs" are truly fabricated from thin air.

And then there is yet another problem.

Tuesday's City Council agenda contains a resolution which will, in essence, stop the water tax for May and June of 2012 and from then on.  However, the 1970 resolution states that the 10% tax will be applied at the conclusion of the fiscal year.  In other words, NO MONEY SHALL BE TRANSFERRED until June 30.  Somehow, the City Manager has taken it upon himself to transfer funds BEFORE June 30.  That's illegal.

Read the resolution for yourself, in particular the last paragraph:

Also, the agenda includes a rate hike to cover the "pass-through" increases from Metropolitan Water District and the Orange County Water District.  The problem I have is that MWD will not be raising rates on Fullerton until January while the rate hike to you and I goes into affect on July 1.  

The bottom line is that you, the ratepayer, must attend the City Council meeting on April 17, 2012 at 6:30PM (303 W. Commonwealth Ave.) and speak out on the continued gross financial mismanagement.