First Council Meeting Since the October Election Blackout

Seems like we should have had those meetings in October after all.

Because no City Council Meetings were held in October due to the Election we had a stacked calendar tonight.

They had the Utility Users Tax on the end of the agenda and choose to address that TAB item first. What that TAB item was for was city staff laying out the ground work for the workshop that will be held November 20th. What seemed the hardest was getting the council on board to attend the workshop, the biggest problem maker was Joe Baca Jr. I’m not sure if he was still licking his wounds from November 6th or if he really only cares about parks and that’s it but he had a scheduling conflict with that day and refused to adjust his schedule.

What the UUT (Utility Users Tax) is the 8% tax on all the utilities you use in the city of Rialto and amounts to a little more than 11 million dollars for the general fund. The way it was sold 5 years ago was a tax to help pay for Police and Fire operations looking back it was probably sold the same way Measure “V” was if you don’t vote for this the police and fire will suffer. I was young and not living in the city back then so I was listening to what my parents, in laws & friends were telling me about the UUT.

What’s scary now is they began floating the idea of raising the percentage to as high as 12% as a way to punish voters for not falling for their lies with Measure “V”. I don’t like this tax but if they are straight with the community and don’t raise the percentage because it means such a big piece of the general fund.

What also was annoying was the fact that things are changing with the sale of Rialto’s water and waste water systems to Viola and West Valley Water. The deal was for 30 million dollars, tonight it was brought up that there is an additional 5 Million the city can borrow, that we have to pay back. There was talk of your 100 percent increase in rates over 4 years would be more if they borrowed that money.

City Staff brought up bringing back the Per’s Tax. I’m not familiar with this tax but Council was scared to death of another lawsuit from our friends the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Apparently Howard Jarvis stopped Rialto from doing this long ago. If they bring it back and Jon Coupal wants to sue on a residents behalf I will be first in line.

Everyone kept saying we don’t want to raise taxes then talked about a new way to tax the community. Also Transparency is the buzz word right now all of the Council People want to provide it even though they have been hiding things from us for years. Even June Hayes RUA Committee member was blown away by the new talk of 5 million in available borrowed money.

Ed Scott tried to equate the 5 million to a homeowner who buys a house then finds out they qualify for more money and takes it. A homeowner can only take more money if the value of the house meets the desired loan amount. Also its not free money it does raise the interest and principle monthly payment.

So 5 million is what percent of 130 million its 3.84 percent almost a filth of the entire loan and when your talking millions that’s not chump change.

So lets re-cap:

*Water and Waste Water rates will go up for the next four years.

*Rialto wants you to possibly pay 12% on your UUT (up from 8%).

*Rialto pays 8-10 cents more per gallon than cities like San Bernardino that have higher sales tax than Rialto.

*Late fees were increased largely in part to Mr. Everyone Else Is Doing It Why Not Us.

So what should we do?

First off plan on being at the UUT Workshop on 11-20-12 at 6pm.

Second call, email and ask him in person if given the opportunity. Him I mean Joe Baca Jr. who for some reason refuses to attend the UUT workshop on 11-20-12 he claims to have plans. So do I Mr. Baca my parents will be in that week from out of state yet I will be there and I am not a paid member of the city of Rialto just a concerned resident.

Joe Baca Jr.

Email: Bacaj@rialtoca.gov

Phone: 909-820-2525

Second attend the Council Meeting on 11-27-12 because there they will make the final vote to officially sell off the water and waste water, vote on whether to put the UUT on the ballot in March and at what percent and its the last day for Ed Scott, Mayor Grace Vargas and Deborah Robertson’s last day as a council member so there may be some interesting exchanges at this meeting.

Tomarrow I will Re-cap the rest of what I stayed for.

 

Election Propectives Rialto City Council

Ok so we know everyone has been waiting with baited breath for our voters’ guide.

Most voter guides begin with the BIG TIME regional elections then work down to the local stuff, if you haven’t noticed were a little different.

Also be advised “NONE OF THESE ENDORSEMENTS HAVE COME AT ANY FINACIAL GAIN TO THIS BLOG OR ANYONE DIRECTLY CONECTED TO THIS BLOG”

We put out feelers to people running in local elections to obtain the information they feel you should know about them but we have nothing more to gain that passing along our advice and opinion to people on this monster election. We get our reward from having knowledgeable readers that are energized and ready to cast their ballots.

We will post a different candidate race, Proposition Selection and City and County measures each day until the November 6th Election.

City of Rialto

Council – Two seats open you get to vote for 2 candidates

We are supporting:

Shawn O’Connell

&

Joe Britt

What is in our council currently? Career Politian’s.

Shawn O’Connell will bring honesty and openness to our city council you may not always agree with him but you will know where he stands and know he is listening to you. Shawn cares so much about what you think he has his home number on his business card.

Joe Britt is the right person to keep the people left in council accountable. Joe has been fighting back against their failed policies and wasteful spending. Joe knows a lot about Rialto’s history he was key to helping us get enough signatures to put the American Water issue on the ballot. You won’t find the water issue there because the current brood took some bad advice from our City Attorney and choose not to honor the signatures. We now know the true heart of our city government when it comes to the poor and struggling middle class because of Joe Britt’s hard work to help push the signatures forward. He will help balance some of the crazy spending that has preceded this last year and Joe WILL TALK TO YOU………… This is very important in our eyes.

Tomarrow is City of Rialto’s Mayor race…………

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

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:

  1. Anything about the bulk of land sales going to the San Bernardino Airport for relocation costs.
  2. 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:

  1. 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).
  2. $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?
  3. Why wont the city tell us all the people connected to the city who will make millions at Rialto Rate Payers Expense.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?

“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

Ed Scott

scotte@rialtoca.gov

Joe Baca Jr

bacaj@rialtoca.gov

Ed Palmer

palmere@rialtoca.gov

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

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.

 

What do you want Rialto’s Political landscape to look like

Are you going to fall for the same old tricks, only to find our city and your wallet in the frying pan?

I want everyone to pay close attention to cities like San Bernardino, Colton and Fullerton.

Let me preface this post by making something’s clear:

  1. We have a wonderful police and fire department. From everything I’m hearing both sides are doing their best to come to the table and negotiate to not only help the council and staff balance their budget but also still provide the community with the service we need.
  2. We have a police chief that takes the time to listen to the community and a command staff out their doing their best to put the community’s concerns as a top priority.
  3. Our chief of police is an out of the box thinker. By using grant writing abilities and technology we have the ability to see long term crime prevention. They do everything you can ask of an agency that plays by rules the criminals are not bound to.
  4. I have found that when left alone and allowed to talk to the community our staff is open and honest, but once our council members find out their talking to you the communication shuts down. There is no reason we shouldn’t be able to ask questions of staff, staff is well aware of what confidential council just loves their CLOAK OF SECRACY.

Voting for an incumbent for council is not going to work this go around, they only started acting like the councilmember’s we need over the last month because of November 4th the election. There are 3 people being supported by our fire and police agencies only one deserves your vote. City Councilman Ed Palmer is up for re-election and Ed Scott is running for Mayor neither deserve a vote “IN MY OPINION”. Shawn O’Connell has a strong desire to see more openness in city government. One shouldn’t to use the threat of a freedom of information act request to get information from the city or strong arm the city government by going around and over their heads to get information that should be available to everyone.

When it comes to mayor I am making the best choice available this time and hoping a better candidate comes along in four years just in case Deborah Robertson fails me. I am backing Mrs. Robertson because when I pressed her and questioned her intentions on issues over the years she didn’t:

  • Call the police on me and make up lies about crimes I didn’t commit.
  • Call me into meetings and ambush me with other council members and the Captain of the Police Department.
  • Try and create a feeling of distrust amongst people I know and deal with.
  • Accuse me of being a liar stating I never spoke to people I directly quote.

What did Deborah Robertson DO:

  • When I have issues with graffiti she steps up and begins to contact the people that handle the specific area in question.
  • For Example – When GPC and the city were arguing over who was responsible to clean graffiti on the freeway construction staging area on the corner of Ayala and the 210 freeway. I called on her to use her to use her relationship with Caltrans to move them into cleaning up and vacating the lot. It took work but now there is nothing to tag on that corner because it’s gone.
  • She continued that progress by letting Caltrans know that graffiti on our freeway sound walls needs to be removed quickly. No other city sees this quick response in our area except for Rancho Cucamonga that’s because their council cares about their cities impression from the main vein of commerce on their north end.
  • My conversations with Mrs. Robertson are not hostile in nature and if I am the one upset she gives me the feeling she is there to find a solution to the issue not push my buttons.

People will tell you she isn’t good because of the whole outsourcing our police issue back in the 90’s. News flash no one is letting that happen & talk to any of the council member there now and tell me you don’t hear that issue is in the back of their minds? Even the councilman running against her ALWAYS reminds me how much of our budget the Police and Fire consume each year. It’s not what you say it’s how you say it that speaks to the true meaning.

Now to the three cities I first referred to.

Why these three cities you ask? Because they all have some big problems facing their cities and they are making horrible decisions on how to respond to issues plaguing their communities. Let’s break them down one by one and ill explain:

Colton a small city with big city problems. Their budget ran out of control so bad they began to gut their city workers starting with cutting their police force by a third!!!! Colton in my estimation & by the looks of their stats on www.crimemapping.com is rife with crime and no real way to combat it. With no more RDA like other cities how will they continue to attract businesses to their city to support a strong tax base. To top it all off their chief of police retired and their mayor passed away, the city hired a new chief and replaced their mayor with his widow which was a choice that was without controversy.

San Bernardino, where do I start????? Bankruptcy, Childish City Government, Poor Spending Practices or Crime and murders and homicides soaring through the roof, paying millions of dollars to attract business in a city that isn’t safe, a era of public safety that provides poor, poor service yet gets upset when the community. (A) Questions them and (B) asks them to help with their pensions so that the city can climb out of a hole. A hole created by runaway mayor and council by negotiating for an endorsement in the next campaign instead of doing a good job for the community. The article below is from the SB Sun Newspaper and shows one of these big babies in council asking the corrupt city attorney to investigate a citizen for telling him that if he voted to not allow the city to vote on San Bernardino Being a Charter City, he would begin a recall campaign against him???????? Well if this is the case call the police lock me up and throw away the key. I have been ridding Rialto’s Council and Mayor for months over their decision to outsource our water operations and create a bad financial deal. I told them you vote for this deal at your own political fate. I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

Attorney says he threatened councilman with recall; DA investigating

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writersbsun.com

Posted: 08/07/2012 09:49:14 PM PDT

Special Section: San Bernardino

SAN BERNARDINO – Attorney Tim Prince told Councilman Chas Kelley he would pursue a recall if and only if Kelley voted against putting charter repeal on November’s ballot, Prince said Tuesday.

“I expressly told him, I don’t expect you to personally support repeal of the charter. What I do expect and demand of you is that you give the people the right to vote,” Prince said. “Despite all the errors he’s made, despite driving us into bankruptcy, he could have just let the people have their say.”

The District Attorney’s Office received a complaint Tuesday and is investigating, said spokesman Chris Lee.

Kelley said he considered the threat to be an attempted bribe.

“Someone was trying to coerce my vote, and that’s inappropriate, unacceptable, and I made that quite clear yesterday,” he said on Tuesday.

California penal code defines a bribe as “anything of value or advantage” given or promised with a “corrupt intent to influence.”

That probably wouldn’t apply to a threat to do something that is legal, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

“It’s certainly a threat, but is it chargeable? I’m not sure,” she said. “It’s along the lines of, ‘I’m not going to vote for Jerry Brown unless he pursues pension reform.”‘

Prince gave Kelley a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition just before discussion began on whether to add a ballot measure to repeal the city’s charter.

Kelley, whom Prince said was a swing vote, joined a 4-3 decision not to put charter repeal on the ballot.

The notice says Kelley deserves to be recalled for three reasons: an investigation into Verdemont Community Center, which Kelley “spearheaded and supervised”; advocating higher pay and other benefits for union members – who contributed heavily to his campaigns – despite warnings that the city was headed toward bankruptcy; and “dismissing his constituents by denying us the right to vote on repealing the city charter.”

The Grand Jury’s 2011-12 report criticized the construction of the Verdemont center for not having a certificate of occupancy, initial building permits or proper inspections and for construction that didn’t meet required standards.

The report also found city staff “had a general lack of understanding of the building requirements,” but doesn’t mention Kelley or other elected officials.

Kelley said he agreed with the Grand Jury’s recommendations, but the errors were made by city staff whom he said hadn’t built a community center since the 1980 s.

“I don’t micromanage or make the day-to-day decisions,” he said. “Every step of the way on this project was approved by the mayor and council.”

Prince said he had no regrets and was moving forward with petitions to remove Kelley from office and put charter repeal on a later ballot.

Several council members, including those who said charter repeal should be on the ballot, said Prince’s actions were unacceptable.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_21259787/attorney-says-he-threatened-councilman-recall-da-investigating#ixzz22yZgyYvv

FULLERTON was most recently in the national spotlight over the Thomas Kelly case where a man died because after his encounter with some of their officers. Fullerton had a massive recall election, removed bad officers and the Chief of police. They made big changes to their use of force policy and used a PR campaign to show the community they were serious about changing the publics face of their department. So now the city council has asked the Orange County Sherriff to put together a total cost estimate to take over police services. Even though they split the vote to stall this venture this is one of those issues once the cat is out of the bag there is no going back, and this is an issue that is full of contriversary.

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

Advertisment

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

FULLERTON, Calif. (KABC) — The Fullerton City Council was expected vote Tuesday on whether to begin a process that would eliminate the city’s police department and have the Orange County Sheriff’s Department take over.

The city council, which recently welcomed three new members after a recall, says the issue is one of money. Two council members said operating the police department costs tens of millions of dollars, so allowing the county sheriff to take over would save the city a lot of money, especially in management expenses. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department already provides services to other cities in north Orange County, the most recent of which is Yorba Linda.

However, there is speculation that the move is in response to the death of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill homeless man who died after a violent confrontation with police last July. Many of the council members who support dismantling the police force have been sharp critics of the department.

Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Whitaker maintains cost is the true concern.

“Had the Kelly Thomas incident not occurred, I believe it would still be our responsibility to be looking at these costs,” he said.

With the city’s expenditures increasing by 9 percent and revenue only increasing by 1 to 2 percent over the coming years, it makes financial sense to cut the department. Should the police department be cut, about 95 percent of Fullerton’s cops would still be able to serve the public as sheriff’s deputies.

Whitaker says now that three former council members have been recalled, it will be a lot easier for the city to look at the budget more objectively.

“The city is shouldering many lawsuits at the moment, including that one from [father of Kelly Thomas] Ron Thomas. And there was an earlier settlement of $1 million to Kelly’s birth mom,” said Whitaker.

Fullerton police officials say they will abide by whatever the city council decides, but they also say public safety is more than just about dollars and cents.

Some Fullerton residents like Scott Darrah are for the idea of allowing the sheriff’s department to take over.

“As long as they get the corrupt people out and get the right people in and do the right job, that’s really all that matters, as long as we feel safe,” he said.

Others are not so keen on the idea.

“They’re doing a pretty good job, I mean they realized they did a mistake and they got rid of the people, so I think we need to keep the police, I mean it’d be ridiculous,” said Susan Montoya.

The president of the Fullerton Police Officers’ Association said he thinks the move is purely motivated by politics. He also said the entire department took a pay cut last year, and he hopes the city will honor a contract it has with the department that lasts through 2015.

Fullerton’s police department, which is about 100 years old and is one of the oldest in the nation, has undergone major changes in the past year. The police chief retired, three officers quit and two officers have been charged in Thomas’ death.

A cost analysis of the department’s dismantling would take about four months

.

The Cloak of Secrecy – Rialto’s Water Deal

I have sat down with both Ed Scott and Deborah Robertson.

One thing that is the same with both candidates running for mayor of Rialto is both are scrambling to try and show you they are pealing the back the cloak slowly.

Ed Scott wants you to come sit down with him and listen to his side of the story and take it as gospel. He doesn’t like it when you try and fact check his statements and hear about it from the horses mouth. Let me prove this point so that Ed doesn’t threaten to sue me again.

When he was discussing my conversation with Butch Ariza the GM of West Valley Water District. Ed Scott eluded to the fact that Mr. Ariza didn’t have direct answers on some topics not because he had yet to come across that issue but because he didn’t know me and was holding information back.

What I find funny is my father-in-law and Mr. Ariza both are members of the local HOG (Harley Owners Group), My Neighborhood Watch Group butts up to West Valleys back yard and I have worked with his staff on eliminating graffiti in the wash area along Cactus Ave.

I have found West Valley Water to be easy to deal with and I was wondering why they were overlooked in the first place as the person to run our water system since they already work in Rialto. From what I heard they wanted nothing to do with what amounts to a 30 million dollar payoff to the city council.

Ed Scott also doesn’t like my questions for Table Rock the company brokering the deal and handling the negotiations. He said “Do you know how hard it is to be in the middle of negotiations and have some random person calling asking questions that’s not even connected to the deal”. I’m sorry I thought as a rate payer I had the right to know what was going on with this deal?

Question: Do you think you should know more about this deal?

On thing that bothers me and no one can give me an answer is why if American Water really is out of the deal and Table Rock now has control or Rialto Water Services why doesn’t the SEC the Federal Securities Exchange Commission only has American Water listed as a subsidiary of Rialto Water Services:

Rialto Water Services, Inc.   Corporation   Delaware   100% held through American Water (USA)   General partner of Rialto Water Services, L.P. Percentage will fall below 50% if transaction completed as a concession. 
Rialto Water Services, L.P.   Limited Partnership   Delaware   100% held through American Water (USA) and Rialto Water Services, Inc.   Rialto concession bid. Percentage will fall below 50% if transaction completed as a concession.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410636/000119312511047938/dex211.htm

All of my meetings were not a total loss; I have been told I can have a copy of the entire water concession agreement. My hope is that I can download it to a zip drive and save myself the hassle and cost of printing.

So here we are again more questions than answers. Let’s keep telling those council members that they must show us their cards and involve the public.

City Council Has Some Explaining to do Over the Water Deal

I want to begin this post by telling you that people in council think you’re in love with the water deal since they moved from American Water to more local control. They claim that I am the only one upset and asking questions on all the money changing hands and the great secrecy that has gone into drafting this deal. I would invite everyone to email and call their council and Mayor and tell them good or bad what you think of this deal and whether you believe there needs to be more transparency. I will include the contact info for everyone in city government so that you may more easily reach them.
I was contacted a couple of weeks by someone telling me that American Water is still in the deal with the city of Rialto. This person thought it might be something worth looking into, so I did. What I found wasn’t where my caller expected me to end up but I find it all the more interesting.
It appears that Rialto Water Services (RWS) and American Water are in the same region and RWS was formed about the time American Water began its move on the city’s water system. Although from all my research and digging, so far it looks like American Water is out of the deal, but what I did find stinks from where I sit.
I called American Water and spoke to Maureen Duffy Vice President, Corporate Communications and External Affairs she said that American Water had been removed and she couldn’t speak to any ensuing penalties from this action. Which is funny because we heard there were penalties even if the community voted against the rate increases with prop 218 vote.
Officials from West Valley Water District (WVWD) are not jumping at the chance to take the contract because of all the financial implications that reside there. No one wants to take on this deal that is full of bad looks and dirty dealings. After some digging we find why WVWD is leery.
I placed a call to West Valley Water District and spoke to Mr. Ariza their General Manager:
West Valley Water District is looking to operate the city’s water department. The person controlling the financial side of the deal is Table Rock Financial based out of San Francisco. The total deal is now a 170 million dollar loan, up from 130 million dollars. Who has heard what the 30 million dollars is purposed for? According to Mr. Ariza the 30 million dollars is needed to service the debt on the 170 million dollar loan the city is taking out with Goldman Sachs. So instead of it being a way to replace the loss of our RDA and attract new business to Rialto, here is what it is going for:
  1. Service the Debt on 170 Million Dollar loan.
  2. Give the city a way to have money on deck in a capital     improvement fund so they can further pay for development costs that should     be the responsibility of the developer.
  3. Ed Scott made a point to ask     staff if the Lytle Creek Development was in any way involved in the     necessity of the water deal, staff said NO. So explain who is going to pay     the 5 million dollars in needed improvements to existing county properties     within the city when we have no more money to give? Maybe the 30 million     payoff in the water deal? Ron Pharrise and the city both have a strong     vested interest in this deal happening because the county won’t allow     Rialto to annex the county parts of Lytle Creek to the city without taking     over the rest of the County areas in the city. City staff estimated that     this would cost in the realm of 5 million.
  4. Rialto paid 40-50 million     fighting the perchlorate cloud contaminate in our water. No more talks     have happened on where the settlement is or who is going to get it.
Also the way Mr. Ariza said it breaks down is:
  1. 40 million for the     infrastructure upgrades to water and waste water.
  2. 30 million for RDA funds/capital improvement funds.
That leaves 100 million dollars left over where is that going? There is a company called Table Rock financial that is BROKERING the deal, their company web site is super basic, they operate out of San Francisco and no one answers their phones and there is no voice mail. I was able to get someone on city staff to give me the lead negotiators cell phone number Lynn Smull. Mr. Smull took one call that lasted less than a minute. He told me to text him my info and he would reach me the following day, when he didn’t call I texted again. He said he was busy in negotiations and his staff would call me. I have yet to receive a call.
Mr. Ariza has concerns on how the city council has operated through the entire process. He and his board are taking such a long time to even give the city the thumbs up on the deal because they are combing over the 161 page concession agreement. Mr. Ariza said he is doing his due diligence to protect existing WVWD customers and rate payers and to make sure this agreement won’t force them to raise existing rates. Mr. Ariza said he would be treating the water deal with Rialto as a sub-section of WVWD because they will only be operating the system not have overall control. Normally one would be happy about this except the people who waited this long to get things in order are the same ones with the control.
I always liked the idea of WVWD running the water here, heck the first time I had to pay my bill in person I went there to find out that a city of our size is so split. After talking with Mr. Ariza I was more at ease with the idea of working with him and his people on our utility. He was very personable and hid nothing. He offered to sit down with me and take my calls anytime. He even alluded to the fact that if we did things right in reference to the upgrades the fourth year of 25% rate increase may be much lower. I called both GM’s of EVWD & WVWD both were very nice and told me everything they knew and if they didn’t have direct knowledge they pointed me in the right direction.
I met with Councilman Ed Scott & Ed Palmer today and in reference to the water deal they said:
They told me some things I will believe until I get my own copy of the water deal. They said the 30 million will go into a capital improvement fund not the general fund. They disputed that the 30 million was going to be used to service the loan debt. I don’t believe this one because at this point we will be in deficit spending next year. The way it was explained by them and verified by someone I trust is you must have half your total budget in reserves so if we spend 10 million annually we must have 5 million in reserves. Rialto will be in what’s referred to as deficit spending by 5 million which means our reserves will go 5 million dollars below half the cities operating budget. How can we afford to service a new debt if we can’t pay our bills as they stand today?
I have yet to get in contact with Table Rock, Deborah Robertson or  George Harris. Updates will be comming.

*************** Sources of Reference*********************************

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

Grace Vargas
vargasg@rialtoca.gov

Ed Scott

scotte@rialtoca.gov

Joe Baca Jr

bacaj@rialtoca.gov

Ed Palmer

palmere@rialtoca.gov

Deborah Robertson

robertsond@rialtoca.gov

Contact Anthony W. Araiza General Manager

administration@wvwd.org
Table Rock Finacial:
Megan – 415-497-2320
Lynn Smull – 510-326-3209

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

http://www.rialtowaterfacts.com/Websites/rialtowaterfacts/files/Content/1964907/WaterAndWastewater_FAQs.pdf

American Water Corporate Offices 1025 Laurel Oak Road Voorhees, NJ 08043 856.346.8200

Or is it:

Rialto Water Services L P (856) 359-0965 Mt Laurel, NJ

Business Information:

Street Address: 330 Fellowship Road

City: Mt Laurel
State: NJ
Zip Code: 08054
License Number: 948662
License Held: General Engineering Contractor
License Status: Active As Of 1/20/2010 Update
Date License Issued: June 12th, 2010
Years in business: 2
Bond Company: Travelers Casualty And Surety Company Of America
Bond Number: 105448107
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties B.C.T.C
William Perez, Executive Secretary, EW
1074 East La Cadena Drive, Suite 15
Riverside, CA 92507
Office: (951) 684-1040
Fax: (951) 684-6410
Email: btcbill@sbcglobal.net

Would you like to live across from this house.

Rialto should be a level playing field where no person no matter their standing or position should be above the laws, rules or ordnances.

Yet time and time again People like Ed Scott, Ed Palmer and Jimmy Gutierrez break laws, rules and ordinances and either escape any penalty or skate by with a slap on the wrist.

Ed Scott – Barks at city staff and residents, appears to break city ordinances 18.72.010, 9.26.030. Updated picture of this residence and violations coming tomorrow night 7-18-12.

Ed Palmer – Apparently Mr. Palmer doesnt even live in the CITY OF RIALTO he lives in the county area as accused by the main opposer of the Lytle Creek Development. It looked true as Ed Palmer excused himself during the argument over whether the project should even happen.

Jimmy Gutierrez – Has been arrested for drunk driving and allowed to plead NO CONTEST and still remain the City Attorney for both Rialto and Chino. Reports are coming in that Mr Gutierrez makes $50,000 a month from the city of Rialto alone, and that he still charges for a slew of other things he does as our attorney. I wonder how much he charged the city to tell council to not allow the residents to vote on the water issue.

Volunteer Thompson with Rialto PD has taught over and over again about the broken window issue, meaning if your home looks horrible and un kept the rest of the neighborhood will follow suit. As well as attract crime and unpleasant people I know from resent experience if you’re looking to buy a home you will avoid the areas at look like no one cares.

This is clearly a violation, it’s just like Ed Palmer living in the county area and not in the CITY LIMITS yet he still is on city council. Ed Palmer, Ed Scott both must excuse themselves every time an issue comes up in downtown cause they own half of it. Both need to be ousted.

Water Debate Update

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.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries