RIALTO AIRPORT: Move to San Bernardino advances or miss-use of Water Sale Money

14 Sep 2012 2 Comments

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Ca, Cancer, City of Rialto, Currupt, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Grace Vargas, In & Out, Inland Empire, Joe Baca Jr, June Hayes, Lewis Properties, Mayor Pat Morris, Protest, Public Safety, Target, Taxes, Water, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com, youth

Below you will find a story from the Press Enterprise Newspaper. The articles purpose is to highlight the work moving forward at the San Bernardino Airport with the closing of the Rialto Airport. We were told that the $30 Million the city would secure by selling off our water for 30 years and raising our rates over four years by more than 100% was going to go to allow the city to afford the types of upgrades necessary when your developing land where there isn’t drainage, adequate streets for expected traffic along with street lights and signals. Reading below at first sight you think your reading about the continued relocation of the airport to move forward with its closure, but that’s not the case to those of us who still fight against this evil deal.

The following was never made clear to the public:

Anything about the bulk of land sales going to the San Bernardino Airport for relocation costs.
That now that the land is worthless and not desired by anyone, the city made another bad deal on our behalf to give away the supposed Capital Development money obtained from the bad water deal.

What makes the water deal and now the Airport Closure stink are:

Closing of the Airport puts our own Helicopter program in jeopardy. We will have to take our own helicopter to another Airport creating an unnecessary delay in response time (which newspaper article will we find tells us where our helicopter will be based since the city hates telling the community what they are doing).
$30 Million isn’t allot of money when it comes to large development. If a BULK of the money must go to San Bernardino what money is left for all the BUSINESS they think they can attract to come to RIALTO?
Why wont the city tell us all the people connected to the city who will make millions at Rialto Rate Payers Expense.
The statement from Councilman and Mayor Candidate ED SCOTT that the settlement money from the perchlorate cases wont be enough to repay Rialto businesses who paid perchlorate fees for years right along with Rialto residents. So Ed Scott wants us to promote him to Mayor and trust him with the responsibility of attracting new business to the city. He has his hands super dirty in being on the committee that hired failed Superior for graffiti removal services, being a council member that still likes and wants American Water as the servicer of Rialto’s failed water deal and calls the police and makes false accusations against Rialto Residents because he doesn’t like what they say.
Target, Super Wal-Mart and In & Out are the three projects on tap for the $30 million, if we have to give most of that money to San Bernardino how will any of these projects happen?

Read the article below, then email your council members and city administrator and ask them to finally be honest with us!!!!!

Little activity goes on at Rialto Airport these days. The last few tenants could find a new home at San Bernardino International Airport.

Seven years after an act of Congress ordered Rialto Municipal Airport closed, the effort to shift tenants to San Bernardino International Airport took a small step on Wednesday, Sept. 12.

The San Bernardino International Airport Authority awarded contracts worth up to $1.8 million combined for the design of hangars that will serve private pilots and the San Bernardino County sheriff’s aviation operation.

TR Design Group, a Riverside-based company that built a city call center at Riverside Municipal Airport as well as structures near March Air Reserve Base, was awarded up to $902,720 to develop plans, including architectural and engineering, for the sheriff’s hangar.

An $868,500 contract went to Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. for design work and oversight of the eventual construction of amenities for private pilots and their planes that would be relocated from Rialto to San Bernardino’s 32-acre site.

Funding will come from the authority’s related Inland Valley Development Agency. The agency has so far received approval from the state’s Department of Finance to use bond revenue for the new hangars and amenities. State law dissolved redevelopment agencies earlier this year and forced them to seek approval from the finance department when they want to spend property tax revenue on unfinished redevelopment projects.

The IVDA has estimated it could cost $9.55 million to build the sheriff’s hangar, according to the list of financial obligations approved by the state. The general aviation improvements could cost nearly $7 million.

In 2005, Congress made the rare move to close Rialto Airport because the city — the airport’s owner — wanted to see the land developed with homes, retail and other improvements. A large portion of the money earned from selling the land was supposed to have gone to the San Bernardino airport to create space for the tenants forced to move. But the economy soured, land values plummeted, and no land was sold or developed. Tenants still pay rent month-to-month at Rialto Airport, where weeds are visible sprouting from the runway.

Recently, the city of Rialto approved a complicated deal to contract out its water management in order to earn money to reimburse San Bernardino airport for a portion of the costs.

Rialto Airport, which has been further tangled in uncertainty because of the dissolution of the city’s redevelopment agency, is expected to close by 2014, said Chad Merrill, project manager for the IVDA and San Bernardino airport.

Municiple Bonds Become Volitile, What Does This Mean For Rialto?

27 Aug 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Brad Mitfelt, Budget, Ca, Cancer, City of Rialto, Currupt, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Janice Rutherford, Joe Baca Jr, Josie Gonzales, June Hayes, Lazy, Lewis Properties, Mike Story, Neil Derry, Poor, Protest, RDA, Ron Pharris, Sheet Metal Workers Union, SOSRialtoWater@gmail.com, Taxes, Terra Vista Shopping Center, Water, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com, youth

“A decision by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. BRKB +0.28% to end a large wager on the municipal-bond market is deepening questions from some investors about the risks of buying debt issued by cities, states and other public entities.”

“Some investors said the decision to end the bet indicates that one of the world’s savviest investors has doubts about the state of municipal finances“.

Read more of the Wall Street Journal article at the link below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443855804577601413630604118.html

So what I find funny in a scary way about all this is Rialto/RUA is looking to take out a $177 Million loan with $27.4 Million in existing debt. I was told that the overall rate is going to be between 7.25% & 7.5%. Yet the bulk ($144 Million) we will be paying 4.33% to 4.83% so the rates average out to be so expensive once we tack on existing debt. Why is that?

First of all because California has borrowed itself into a hole. That’s why governor Brown & a ton of other people have qualified tax measures for the November ballot. They have borrowed us into a massive hole and wont stop spending to save this state.

Second cities, school districts, counties and the state have been using bonds as a dirty band aide for their budget woes. Bonds were seen as good long term investments because municipalities made sure money was there for the bond payments to keep AA & AAA bond ratings or good credit scores. Now they just don’t have the money so they are defaulting on payments or just faulting altogether with Bankruptcy.

I have said time and time again, this deal isn’t good for the RESIDENTS in RIALTO! Yes the infrastructure needs to be upgraded but Rialto and the RESIDENTS are not in the position take on such massive debt while reaching into the pockets of struggling families. Do you know how we are going to pay the interest on this debt; we are borrowing money to pay the first three years. So that means we are borrowing more money than needed to pay interest on debt we cannot afford.

I have heard that this deal is worth $1 Billion to the parties involved. We need to stop this deal in its tracks, hold on and once our economy is back on track look into moving forward. Rialto will be $5 Million in the hole this year. Meaning we are using our reserves for what we can’t get out of our unions in the way of contract negotiations.

The amount of money we are in the hole ($5 Million) is the same amount that staff said was nessicary to bring all the county areas up to city code ($5 Million) since the city and the mangers of the Lytle Creek Development were strong armed by Josie Gonzales and the rest of the Board of Supervisors on the county board. They said if we wanted to annex the county areas in the proposed Lytle Creek Development we must also annex the areas already within our city limits. So when Ed Scott tells you that the water deal isn’t part of the Lytle Creek Development what are we supposed to think with this info. Looks like $5 Million is coming from the borrowed money to fund yet another project.

Warren Buffets recent actions means he dosent trust municipalities ability to re-pay the loans!!!! Said Ric Edelman of Edelman Finacial Services (see the podcast link below, fast forward to the last 7 minutes).

http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/radio_show/past_shows?id=1837

I have been told that this deal is also nessicary for attracting new development. What I find funny is In & Out is good to go for next year and Wal-Mart has won its lawsuits and plans to move forward with plans to re-locate to the empty lot on the corner of San Bernardino and Riverside Avenues (I don’t like this store). So why do we need 30 million dollars? To pay off the back room deals that Ed Scott and Ed Palmer have made with the Lewis builders (Target Developers) and Ron Pharrise the principle owner of the Lytle Creek Development. So once they have wasted the 30 Million dollars then what? Our CURRENT city government is so horrible at attracting real development that the community actually wants.

For example I have heard numerous council members say in reference to In & Out “we need more than another fast food place” or “we have enough burger joints”. We have too many crappy stupid chain fast food burger joints that hire the worst employees, pay the lowest wages and offer horrible customer service. On top of all that they offer a un healthy over processed food option.

In & Out is the best burger option in the State. They offer fresh quality food at a reasonable price. They also are and employer that looks for the best expects the best and pays a very fair wage. They are always clean, polite and productive. The next best option is Bakers but for some reason they are always right smack in the middle of the worst part of the city.

People in Rialto do you want to see this deal drag this city into ruin? How much more money do you want to give these defunct local legislators? Stop the back room deals and call them on this failed deal, also let’s vote for major change in November.

Below is a list of people tied to or working on this Water Deal call and email them and let them know what you think of their deal even if you already called or emailed do it again they have yet to get the message:

All Council Members can be reached at 909-820-2525 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 909-820-2525 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Grace Vargas vargasg@rialtoca.gov

Joe Baca Jr

Ed Palmer

Deborah Robertson

robertsond@rialtoca.gov

Contact Anthony W. Araiza General Manager

administration@wvwd.org

Table Rock Finacial:

Megan – 415-497-2320 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 415-497-2320 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Lynn Smull – 510-326-3209 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 510-326-3209 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

855 W. Base Line Road P.O. Box 920 Rialto, CA 92377 Ph: (909) 875-1804 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (909) 875-1804 end_of_the_skype_highlighting ext. 703 Fx: (909) 875-7284

Were not the only ones smelling coruption

22 Aug 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Water, Budget, Ca, Cancer, City of Rialto, Crime, Currupt, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Flores Park, Grace Vargas, In & Out, Inland Empire, Joe Baca Jr, Josie Gonzales, Layoffs, Lazy, Lewis Properties, Nieghborhood Watch, Protest, Public Safety, Rialto Fire, Rialto Police Department, Street Crime Attack Team, SWAT, Terra Vista Shopping Center, Uncategorized, Water, youth

Let’s start with some awesome news we have the attention of more than just or city council we have senators and senators of the future, financial advisors and Dr. Imran Farooq.

Mr. Farooq is a partner at:

The Omnius Group – The Omnius Group specializes in comprehensive economic development to dynamically integrate public and private sectors. Our experience includes real estate development, commercial finance, green technologies, workforce development and extensive relationships across local, state and federal agencies. Our objective is to pursue projects that incorporate economic, social and environmental value in the local communities.

http://www.facebook.com/DrIFarooq

His preliminary advice is to look at:

Is it possible to propose exemptions to rate increases depending on household incomes? This might be a way to protect the most vulnerable in the community but still facilitate the deemed ‘necessary’ upgrades.

Now we were sent an interesting piece of news. The article below is about the failure of American Water to secure the contract with the City of Rialto. I find it interesting that in the press release they (RWS) claim they decided to sever ties with American Water, but here it looks like American Water was the one cutting the ties. Insiders have told me that the cities decision to ignore the residents desire to put the outsourcing issue to a vote in November gave American Water an uneasy feeling about moving forward. The city attorney’s bad advice to the council now looks like a failed political move.

You see they didn’t put the issue on the ballot for a ton of reasons:

They don’t want to know what you think, at least the Eds and the city attorney. Call them sometime and try asking questions they will try everything in their power to shove you off they just want to make their money.
They know it’s an election year with a presidential election which means more people at the polls.
Putting the issue on the ballot would remove their ability to say that most of the people want this deal.
The city wants to have a stock pile of money to dip into to bring us “Development”. What happens once the $30 Million is gone and spent? How then will you bring us the economic development we desire?
The city tried to hide from their bad decision by saying it was a union issue not a community issue, let alone I saw hundreds of residents getting petitions signed the union got what they wanted and left, the residents are still here and a few of us refuse to stop fighting.
Lastly, from the looks of the words of American Water’s CEO American Water walked away. So the city took what they thought would remain secret and tell us we (Council) have decided to remove American Water from the deal and not change the deal just the players right before an election. They didn’t hear us if they did they would have started from the ground up and better involve the community and find ways to protect residents that are elderly, poor and struggling.

Also if this deal is to bring Development to our city can someone explain the consequences of their miss-direction and lies as seen at the bottom of this article from the Public Works Newsletter:

The deal called for American Water to be paid $26.5 million a year to run the system and cover certain maintenance expenses – but not counting the automatic price escalator each year. Multiply that out 30 years – and that’s just for the O&M, which of course must be covered by sufficient revenues from the ratepayers, on top of covering the financing for the improvements, the $30 million “catch up lease payment” to the City, refinancing existing RUA debt (at much higher interest rates), etc.

When I asked Megan Madsen from Table Rock Financial about the built in profit guarantee that was there for American Water she said she had no idea what I was talking about. So when information I stumbled across leads one to believe there is more than they are telling us. Does anyone know that 27.4 million is going toward refinancing existing debt?

No one will tell us the rates they are financing at or why it nessicary to add such a massive amount of debt to something that’s tied to our WATER & WASTE WATER systems. On financial person told me that depending on how the loan is structured it may very well hurt more than help if the city ever found its self in the same situation as our neighbor San Bernardino. I have been told we will be in deficit spending this next fiscal year in the realm of $5 million dollars.

We need to be wiser to WHO is sitting on certain sub communities when it comes to dealings with contracting out services.

Pay Part-Time County Supervisors, Real Part-Time Wages

20 Aug 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, Bad Commerce, Brad Mitfelt, Budget, Ca, Currupt, James Ramos, Janice Rutherford, Josie Gonzales, Neil Derry, Public Safety, Uncategorized

What we have here are two sides at odds. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on one side and the employee unions on the other. The board began talking about pension reform and the unions took that as a threat, so they used a massive petition drive to lower the Supervisors Salaries to $60 Thousand from $120 Thousand and office budgets to $1.5 Million from $3 Million.

Mr. Neil Derry and Janice Rutherford actually think you’re going to buy the line that they are trying to give you more control over their salaries. Everyone from Public Safety, Teachers, Construction to Office workers public and private have been making concessions and or losing their jobs.

Lets use my family for example:

I lost my job as a irrigation specialist with central school district in Rancho Cucamonga, I was laid off to save money from budget cuts. 4 months later my job was given to the husband of the lead secretary in HR at District office. I was working and building the pre-school program at Calvary Chapel Rialto and had been told I was going to be the director I spent over a year going to Community Care Licensing meetings filling paperwork and putting together a program from the ground up. I had a active waiting list of 60+ parents waiting to enroll their students, I even used my own resources to have one of the top Special Education Experts with high qualifications in Early Child Development do obersavtions of multiple Special Ed students who’s parents wanted to move their children from the County Pre-School Program and into a private setting. I had the license and clearance to open the center one week prior to my layoff date. What happened the pastor gave the position to another person with fewer qualifications. So I ended up on unemployment and found a job in Security making much, much less than I did before. We had to use my wife’s medical which was more expensive and she got furloughs and Medical Benefits’ increases thrown at her every year. We make less combined than one of these supervisors will make if the unions petition passes.

Just recently news of hidden money and bloated staff salaries has hit the news. Along with state polotitions staffers getting raises, Local Legislators tried to make it easier for us to swallow by saying these people work hard and haven’t received a raise in years. So what who cares, who has received a raise since 2008? Time and time again people are lucky to keep their jobs let alone get a raise.

Our elected officials have become way to comfortable with being politions. If the founding fathers could only see them now.

Janice Futherford claims that the supervisor’s competing ballot measure will cap supervisors total compensation at what Riverside County Supervisors make. Who knows what their total yearly compensation is? Here it is from Janice Rutherford herself:

“According to a survey the County conducted in 2011, Riverside County Supervisors receive about $225,191 a year in salary and benefits. However, I need to note that the survey is based on some estimates and may not include every benefit the Supervisors receive. If voters approve the proposed ballot measure, the County will be required to conduct a full and complete survey of salary and benefits paid to Supervisors in the comparable counties.”

I like the unions ballot measure better. I think the supervisor’s time should be focused on balancing the county’s budget, REAL PENSION REFORM and finding ways to attract new types of revenue to bolster our lack luster financial system.

Plus why should a polotition make more than a Teacher who not only needs at least a four year degree but has to take 2 state tests to get a credential to look for a job then another 2 years to clear that credential with more college classes and seminars.

Our local, county & state officials sit on commissions and boards. No education needed and they rely on staff to instruct them on how to vote.

Below is the actual ordinance that the county created to keep their jobs as a full time over priced body.

CONTINUED FROM TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012, ITEM #72 – Adopt ordinance relating to County Charter Amendment Forty to enact a permanent cap on compensation and mandatory transparency for members of the County Board of Supervisors, calling an election thereon, consolidating said election with the General Election, and giving notice of final dates for submission of arguments. (Affected Districts: All) (Presenter: Gregory C. Devereaux, Chief Executive Officer, 387-5418)

Below are various comments from supervisors that responded to our questions in writing:

Supervisor Neil wrote: “The vote was unanimous. The other measure was written by Bill Postmus, and then the unions, who don’t want pension reform, paid for the signatures. The board approved item lowers our pay to what Riverside County provides.”

Janice wrote: “We unanimously placed a measure on the ballot to: 1) give voters control over our entire compensation (not just salary as current law & the union measure do, but benefits, too), 2) brings our compensation in line with similar counties (unlike current law that spikes pay by including L.A.) and would result in reduction of our current pay, 3) maintains voter say on the pay if the other county elected officials (which the union measure eliminates). ”

Supervisor Josie Gonzalez

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your questions. In response to your concern, at the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Meeting on July 24, the County Administrative Office presented an ordinance that would amend the County Charter (Item 72 on the BOS Agenda) to place a cap on the salaries of Board Members. It was continued to the August 7th BOS Meeting- Item 60 on the Agenda. All 5 Board Members approved the ordinance and it will be placed on the General Election ballot in November. For your convenience I have attached the link for the Clerk of the Board website where you can review the minutes and agenda for these meetings ( http://www.facebook.com/l/FAQELpV36AQH88s4g4Maha32j6cYEGZjCKB-IEaScjowYmg/cob-sire.sbcounty.gov/sirepub/). If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office and my staff can assist you.

I am glad I could assist you. I am not sure about the salaries of the Supervisors in Riverside County. As I do not want to mistake you, I have attached the link to their Board website.

http://www.countyofriverside.us/government/boardofsupervisors.html

Thank you.

Its not personal its business and we need to start being more responsible when it comes to our local politics. Our cities, County & State have been left in the dark for far too long. In Supervisor Derry’s district you have James Ramos running for the board seat.

Why would a multimillion dollar Native American want to get into our local politics? In Supervisor Josie Gonzales District we never have a formidable opposition candidate because the area has mentally checked out when it comes to voting. The number of registered voters that actually vote isn’t very big, the numbers of people who vote with an informed mind seems even smaller.

We need to send a message to our elected officials that were done with high taxes, massive deficits, out of control budgets, lack of responsible pension reform and out of control government salaries.

Please feel free to comment here and tell us what you think about this move.

Water Debate Update

12 Jul 2012 1 Comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Ca, City of Rialto, Currupt, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Flores Park, Grace Vargas, Inland Empire, Joe Baca Jr, Mike Story, Protest, SOSRialtoWater@gmail.com, Uncategorized, Water, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com, youth

Rialto Now readers we have some news on the front lines of our water debate. Yes the city made a horrible decision to not place the American Water sell off on the November Ballot, it seems if these reports are true they are finally listening, but why now? Well Councilman Ed Palmer is running for re-election on a failed platform of being there for the community & calling the city on wasteful spending that lasted a little more than a year and died. Reports are that Councilman Ed Scott isn’t seeking another term as Councilman and is seeking the job of Mayor as current Mayor Vargas is ending her time as mayor. As well as Councilwoman Deborah Robertson is also taking another stab at Mayor but her seat on council isn’t up for grabs this go around.

So with Deborah Robertson was absent and the city decided to change its course on the outsource water agreement and the 2 possibilities are Veolia North American who currently works with our waste water systems and East Valley Water District (EVWD) that currently services the top portion of the city’s water services and has worked on removing perchlorate groundwater plume.

What is important now is to continue the pressure and make sure we know about any concession agreement from here on out, we are allowed to ask questions for clarity and that the City Council stops referring to any balloon payment from any other outside companies as Redevelopment money. I have had personal conversations with people inside the state controllers office that such money may fall into the states preview to take since all RDS’s departments are no to be eliminated. Call it what it is money the RUA has owed the general fund for years………….

Ed Scott said that the thing holding up our In & Out project was the state finishing up with old RDA projects. He later said he didn’t know why things were taking so long and blamed the City Staff for not keeping Council informed of time lines and issues.

Were looking for Honest hard-working people to fill Council seats, if the news is difficult give it to use straight and allow us the community to see where we can help make the hard choices for our community together. Also we need Council Members that let us know we are heard, listen to us and don’t bark at us when you don’t like what we say.

American Water is out as operator for Rialto

Jim Steinberg, Staff Writersbsun.com

Posted: 07/10/2012 10:33:57 PM PDT

The yearlong suspense over whether New Jersey-based American Water Works Co. Inc. will manage Rialto’s water and wastewater system is over – it will not.”My gosh this is wonderful. I hated those people (American Water). I don’t feel comfortable with a company on the Stock Exchange,” said Toni Volinski, a longtime Rialto resident, who has been opposed to the American Water deal from the get-go.

“We wouldn’t have a lot of control – and that frightened me,” she said.

The financial backer of the 30-year concession agreement that made American Water the manager of Rialto’s water and wastewater department has removed American Water as the operator, Peter Luchetti, authorized officer of Rialto Water Services LP, wrote Mike Story, Rialto’s city administrator.

Leading the list of potential replacement operators, Luchetti wrote, is Veolia North American, which has managed Rialto’s wastewater treatment plant for years and nearby West Valley Water District, which has been a long-time partner with Rialto in the cleanup effort for a large perchlorate groundwater plume.

At its June 26 meeting, the council voted 4-1 to approve a rate increase that would propel water and sewer rates 114.8 percent by 2016.

Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott, in an interview Tuesday, said he and councilman Ed Palmer, who led a subcommittee to evaluate water service alternatives for Rialto, had told Rialto Water Services that a substitute for American Water was needed.

Scott said a well-organized resistance to American Water necessitated the action to find another company to manage Rialto’s water operations.

Scott was referring to the campaigns organized by the the Utility Workers Union of America. “Replacement of American Water would be excellent news and a victory for Rialto ratepayers,” Mark Brooks, a union spokesman, said.

The Utility Workers Union has several contract issues with American Water across the country.

This is the Letter From Mark Brooks & Stop Rialto Water Rate Hikes.

Dear Rialto friends and neighbors:

I am writing to let you know about a potential huge victory for ratepayers in Rialto!

Although this may seem like a “good news/bad news” story, in our view Rialto citizens are on the verge of overturning the City Council’s very bad decision to contract out the City’s water system to for-profit American Water Company.

But first the bad news:

Last week four members of the City Council decided not to place our referendum challenging the Concession Agreement for the water and wastewater system on the ballot for a public vote.* A majority of the City Council – everyone EXCEPT Council Member Baca – made this absurd decision, even though the County and the City have both certified the fact that we submitted far more than enough signatures from Rialto voters to place this issue on the ballot.

We believe the City’s excuse for not placing this issue on the ballot – that we supposedly failed to attach the entire 1,600 page Concession Agreement to our voter petitions – is completely bogus. There is nothing in California law that would require us to do this. In addition, even if the City Council thought it had any grounds to refuse to place this issue on the ballot, the City is ignoring the long-standing California procedure that is required to ignore a valid referendum petition submitted by the voters.

We believe the four members of the City Council who made this decision are engaged in a desperate attempt to prevent Rialto voters from passing judgment on the proposed Concession Agreement.

And now for the good news:

We have received reports that the City may replace American Water as the proposed operator for Rialto’s water system under the Concession Agreement!

If the City indeed makes this decision, this will be a huge victory for Rialto ratepayers. The City’s own reports have consistently shown that for-profit American Water’s participation in this deal is one of the important reasons for the proposed water rate hikes.

What’s more, we understand that neighboring West Valley Water District might be a “preferred” replacement to operate the City’s water system.

Although the UWUA has never taken any position on who should operate the City’s water system (other than the City itself), in our view this would be good news for Rialto. West Valley is a neighboring public water system – rather than an out-of-state corporation like American Water – and already provides water services to roughly half the City of Rialto. Moreover, we believe American Water has a demonstrated track record of hostility toward the rights of utility workers.

So what about the referendum petition?

Unfortunately, the City Council’s decision not to place the referendum on the ballot probably means that someone would have to incur considerable legal expenses to sue the City to overturn this misguided decision. The UWUA is not in a position to incur these significant expenses at this time.

Even so, you should know that any Rialto voter who signed the petition against the City Council’s decision may have the right to sue. Obviously this would be a big undertaking. Moreover, we believe any Rialto voter or group interested in pursuing that fight should act immediately! We may be able to refer any Rialto group or voter interested in pursuing this further to appropriate attorneys.

Celebrate the victory!

There can be no doubt that – if indeed he City reverses its decision to contract out Rialto’s water system to American Water – this victory will be a direct result of your many efforts over the past year to oppose the Council’s misguided decisions!

In our view, any decision to replace American Water as the operator of the Rialto water system would be a huge victory – for ratepayers and for workers. As we have said many times before, any deal to contract out the City’s water system to American Water would be a bad deal for Rialto ratepayers.

Thank you for your many efforts in this struggle. We will continue to keep you informed.

Sincerely,

Mark Brooks

Utility Workers Union of America/SOS Rialto Water

* Please note that Council Member Joe Baca, Jr. voted AGAINST the City Council’s decision not to place our referendum on the ballot. To his credit, Council Member Baca has consistently opposed the Rialto Council’s misguided decisions concerning this entire issue. In our view, Council Member Baca has shown real integrity throughout this debate over the future of Rialto’s public water system.

Update and comentary on prop 218 count

18 Jun 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Ca, Cancer, Centurion Security Patrol, City of Rialto, Coffee Nutz, Currupt, davidsMarketing, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Flores Park, Grace Vargas, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davids-Marketing/156816741049580, Joe Baca Jr, June Hayes, Lazy, Lewis Properties, Mike Story, Protest, RDA, Sheet Metal Workers Union, SOSRialtoWater@gmail.com, The Circle Vision Quest, Water, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com

Let me preface this article with a little piece of info. When your asking someone to invest in your company or idea you give a portion or percentage over to them for a certain dollar amount.

City Council and Staff along with the RUA valued the water and waste water at 30 million dollars of which they are cashing out in total. American Water is valuing the water and waste water systems at 130 million dollars, with a 3 million dollar reduction each year we honor the contract. So when the contract is so bad we just can’t stomach their lack of service and customer service people working in call centers in India we have to pay them at their valuation. So a city with no money as it is we will be stuck with this crappy bad deal. The city has already begun to sell your services down the drain. Street sweepers that under sold a contract to get the work to come back later for more money. Graffiti removal services where the owner actually said who cares if the tags stay up another day or two if it saves the city money.

Remove these people this november and send a message that we demand to be heard and represented.

RIALTO – A big question surrounding Rialto’s controversial 30-year contract with American Water Works Co. Inc. will be answered Tuesday.That’s when officials from the City Clerk’s office will count Proposition 218 protest ballots starting at 1 p.m.

Proposition 218 requires cities to have a vote of potentially affected residents when a rate hike is proposed.

In the case of Rialto’s proposed water rate hikes, a large number of ballots came into the city within the last 30 minutes of the deadline on June 12, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott said Friday.

That prompted the City Council to defer a vote on the final procedure to institute a series of rate hikes that would mean a 114.5-percent increase in water and wastewater

A wheel line irrigation system operates in an agriculture area near the offices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Hinkley. (Gabriel Luis Acosta/Staff Photographer)

rates by 2016.

The rate hikes are part of a plan to outsource the management of Rialto’s water and wastewater systems to American Water.

The matter will be taken up again at a City Council meeting on June 26.

While the vote tally could end the deal, that result is unlikely, election observers say, as more than half of the Rialto property owners and renters who are ratepayers – plus one – would have filed a protest.

But there’s another issue looming that could derail the water agreement and rate hikes.

On May 12, members of the Utility Workers of America turned in petitions with more than 6,400 signatures seeking to put the council’s water rate decisions to a vote, which could be held in November or at another time selected by the council.

Only about 3,800 signatures are needed to take the council’s action to voters.

The city hired the county’s elections office to validate the signatures.

Scott said he has not heard the result, but that too would come out on the council meeting of June 26.

Not only do signatures need to be valid, but the process to collect the signatures needs to be valid, Scott said.

Joe Baca Jr., who was the lone dissenter in the rate hike vote, said most Rialto residents understand that rates need to increase to pay for water system upgrades, just not so rapidly.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Social Media Marketing for all your needs. Specializing in Non-Profit, Community Groups and Public Safety Organizations. Visit us at www.davidsinlandempiremarketing.com

Questions and Thank you’s in regards to Water Deal

22 May 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Burglury, Ca, Cancer, Centurion Security Patrol, Crime, Currupt, davidsMarketing, Uncategorized

Thank you to every resident who when given the opportunity to sign these petitions. To those of you who didn’t sign when given the opportunity is it because you agree with a thirty year contract where the company is GAURENTEED 30% a year profit among other things or was it because you don’t agree with the petition process or you don’t like the union backing the petition?

No matter what you think its ok your entitled to your opinion and pay my water bill……… Just kidding but if you like the plan…………… ok, I don’t. If it was because you don’t agree with the petition process I don’t really either but this issue was to big for me to let my issues get in the way of reversing a bad deal. If it’s the issue with the union I too have issues with unions ask anyone that has met me for more than a minute, my layoff in 2010 destroyed me and hurt my family, then to make matters worse they hand off my job to a district favorite 3 months later, again this issue was way to big to let my personal crap get in the way.

The same thing can be said about the prop 218 vote yes the rates need to be increased slowly with the right company and under a contract Rialto can afford to back out of if its turns out horribly wrong. The prop 218 vote is important because we must show the city council and mayor that when they refuse to listen to the residents we do what is necessary to fix their bad decisions. The people must continue to put pressure on our council and absent mayor and remind them who they work for and that ignoring us isnt healthy for political careers.

Below is the article from the San Bernardino County Sun Newspaper on the certification process:

County elections staff verifying signatures on Rialto petition for a vote on water outsourcing decision

Jim Steinberg,Staff Writersbsun.com

Posted: 05/17/2012 04:12:14 PM PDT

RIALTO – The signatures on a petition seeking to bring a resolution to outsource this city’s water department to a vote of the people are being validated by San Bernardino County elections personnel.

The process should be completed in about two weeks, said Michael J. Scarpello, the county’s registrar of voters.

Over the objections of many residents who attended a City Council meeting on March 27, the council voted 4 to 1 to outsource the operations of Rialto’s water and wastewater department to Voorhees, N.J.-based American Water Works Co. Inc. for 30 years.

The council also approved significant hikes in water and wastewater rates – action previous councils have avoided for years.

To meet a deadline, the City Clerk’s Office opened for two hours late Saturday afternoon to accept petitions seeking to let Rialto residents have the final say on that outsourcing decision.

The petition drive was organized by the Utility Workers Union of America, which represents employees who work for American Water.

More than 6,400 signatures were turned in, although only about 3,800 valid signatures were required to place the matter before voters, said Mark Brooks, a union spokesman.

“We are confident we have far more than enough to qualify for the ballot and we look forward to certifying this whole question for the people of Rialto to decide,” Brooks said Thursday.

City Administrator Mike Story said Saturday that the administration would not comment on the petition until the signatures had been validated.

Update on the American Water Petitions and Prop 218 Protest Letters

21 May 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Ca, Cancer, Centurion Security Patrol, City of Rialto, Currupt, davidsMarketing, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Flores Park, Grace Vargas, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davids-Marketing/156816741049580, Inland Empire, Joe Baca Jr, Layoffs, Lazy, Lewis Properties, Mike Story, Nieghborhood Watch, Poor, RDA, Sheet Metal Workers Union, Target, Terra Vista Shopping Center, The Circle Vision Quest, Uncategorized, Water, www.babyelepnatbooks.com, www.careervisionbyjamie.com, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com, youth

Dear friends and neighbors:

As you know, we are fighting the American Water privatization deal in Rialto in two different ways: first, the petition we recently filed to require the City to place the American Water contract up for a vote of the people; and second, the Prop 218 process for Rialto property owners to block the rate hikes the City is trying to impose in order to pay for this misguided scheme.

I am writing to alert you to developments on both fronts.

Concerning the voter petition, the San Bernardino Sun reported today that the City has forwarded our petitions to the County of San Bernardino to certify whether we have submitted enough signatures from registered voters to qualify for the ballot. The County says that process will take about two weeks.

We expect the County to confirm that we have submitted more than enough votes to place this critical decision before the voters of Rialto. You can read the Sun’s article at the following link:

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20648408/county-elections-staff-verifying-signatures-rialto-petition-vote

Concerning the Prop 218 process, we mailed protest cards today to all Rialto property owners. These cards provide property owners with a convenient way to tell the City that the people of Rialto reject these unfair rate hikes. We also included a postage-prepaid envelope to make it easy for impacted property owners to return the protest cards.

Under Proposition 218, if a majority of impacted property owners file protests with the City, the City cannot impose these rate hikes!

If you are property owner in Rialto – or a renter who is responsible for paying the water or sewer bill – we encourage you to return the protest card as soon as you receive it. If you receive a mailing from SOS Rialto Water, please open it immediately; sign the enclosed protest card; and return it to us in the postage-prepaid envelope.

We will deliver every protest card we receive to the City Clerk’s office before the June 12 deadline.

Please remember – Rialto property owners can block these unfair rate hikes, but only if a sufficient number of protests are filed with the City by June 12. Please return your protest card to SOS Rialto Water immediately.

Thank you again for your support in blocking these unfair rate hikes.

Sincerely,

Mark Brooks

SOS Rialto Water and Utility Workers Union of America

Won this (Water) Battle, Yet Still forging on the War Front

15 May 2012 Leave a comment

by rialto-now in AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, American Water, Bad Commerce, Budget, Ca, Cancer, Centurion Security Patrol, City of Rialto, Coffee Nutz, Currupt, davidsMarketing, Deborah Robertson, Ed palmer, Ed Scott, Family, Flores Park, Grace Vargas, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Davids-Marketing/156816741049580, In & Out, Inland Empire, Joe Baca Jr, June Hayes, Layoffs, Lazy, Lewis Properties, Mike Story, Nieghborhood Watch, Poor, Protest, RDA, Ron Pharris, Sheet Metal Workers Union, SOSRialtoWater@gmail.com, Target, Taxes, The Circle Vision Quest, Water, www.babyelepnatbooks.com, www.careervisionbyjamie.com, wwwstoprialtowaterratehikes.com, youth

Below is the form email that went out from SOS Water, the organization that is spearheading the drive to allow City of Rialto Voters to vote on the decision to outsource our water and waste water systems. I hope this push proves a few things to the city council and mayor of Rialto:

Simple transperity isn’t enough when it comes to our water and a 30 year contract – Besides people who either work for the city, sit on a city commission/board or belong to a group or organization that is owned by the city government no one things that the information meetings were informative, they were more confusing. No other proposals were shown, staff presenting the information came off cocky and rude & people were left with more questions than answers.
When the people (Rialto Residents) speak listen – 80+ people signed up to speak on the impending vote on water services & the city council choose to instead listen to Union reps, possible future business owners, labor lobbies & inappropriate city mouth pieces (Ref June Hayes calling one of the speakers a card carving communist). When Rialto business owners and residents filled 4 rooms and spoke their piece and you still chose to ignore it, you work for us remember that.
For years this city government has made a choice to ignore the water system, now when RDA funds are gone we make a made dash for the first person willing to pay us off. How is this fair to the city? Why should the residents pay for your lack of leadership. It was best said today as Governor Brown was making his latest pitch for higher taxes he ask a reporter if she didn’t like his plan what did she think he should do and she said “THATS YOUR JOB”. IF the city water is in such disrepair then let’s get to work fixing it. Start off by using the 30 million dollars the Utility owes you and let’s get to work. Then lets talk about slow graduated increases that will hurt less over time to obtain the remainder of the money and finish the work. By the councils own admission this alone will bring business here that was avoiding us because of our water systems age and disrepair. I don’t agree that is why they are avoiding us but that’s for another post.
SOS is comprised from people out-of-state that have seen American Water at work and know first hand what type of service they provide. This doesnt bother me one bit because without the hard work and passion of the people of Rialto their efforts would have died out eons ago.

Dear friends and neighbors:

On Saturday, May 12, we filed our petition with the City Clerk with substantially more than enough signatures to place the water privatization scheme before the voters of Rialto. Under California law, this means that the City will be required to present this critical issue to a vote of the people.

We needed 10% of the registered voters of Rialto to qualify for the ballot – or just over 3,600 signatures. Instead, we turned in more than 6,400 signatures!

The people of Rialto really came through to let City Council know that the voters of Rialto deserve to have the final say on this misguided 30-year privatization scheme.

The next step is that the City will review our petition to verify that we have submitted a sufficient number of valid signatures. After that, this issue should be presented to a public ballot sometime over the next few months. We will need to re-double our efforts to make certain this water privatization contract is defeated at the ballot box.

In addition, in the next few days we will be sending Prop 218 protest cards to all Rialto property owner who are affected by the huge rate hikes that the City Council is trying to push through to finance this deal. If a majority of property owners protest these rate hikes, then the City cannot impose the rate increases and the entire water privatization scheme fails.

We will keep you posted on both of these efforts as we move forward.

Congratulations again for all of your hard work and for standing up for the future of Rialto.

Mark Brooks

SOS Rialto Water

P.S. I am posting below a link to the news story in the Sunday’s San Bernardino Sun concerning our success in getting the petition filed, and another link to a guest editorial from SOS Rialto Water members that was printed in the Sun on May 9.

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20612243/more-than-6-000-rialto-residents-sign-petition

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_20585383/rialto-voters-deserve-say-american-water-deal