Council Meeting Re-cap Part 2

Last night we covered the massive tax grab that is before Rialto voters this next year (2013).

Well let’s ease your fears not everything I saw last night before leaving at 8pm was bad. They are moving along with some great projects that will bring commerce to the city of Rialto.

We saw the intern class of 2012 and it looked like a good group of educated young men and women looking to make their mark on city government. The program’s goal is to increase young people desire to enter working for a city.

City Staff Introduced the Intern Class of 2012

First off they are helping Target move forward smoothly on the construction of its massive cold storage facility they are building on Alder and Easton up by the 210 freeway. This cold storage facility will handle all distribution of all cold storage items for the entire west coast. Target has a great grocery program and great deals and this facility will be busy and create tons of new jobs in the Rialto area.

Second is the best news of all In & Out project is underway.

It seems the city finally understands that we want this fast food restaurant like YESTERDAY. The cities contractors are working on providing the In & Out Contractors a working useable pad. This means that the parking and egress will be complete then In & Out says it can complete the building in 180 days (150 days of construction 30 day grace period). Below is a picture of the stats provided by Robb Steel.

Picture shows money and time frames

Finally the moratorium on Cash For Gold businesses was extended for a year to allow city staff and police personnel develop working guide lines for these types of businesses. At the last coffee with the chief we were informed by Chief Farrar that an investigation was done and found that the existing Cash For Gold businesses were buying Gold that was stolen and not asking for ID then just sending it off to be melted and sold. For this reason the Moratorium was originally put in place to keep thefts from rising even higher and more of these places pop up. Let me begin by saying our Chief of police and his officers don’t just accuse you of doing something they get proof and then catch you doing the crime or wrongful act. So while this TAB item was being discussed Ed Palmer and Ed Scott said they visited 2 of these businesses and saw them doing everything right and wanted to make sure they were brought in on the formulation of the new guide lines so to be given a fair shot at complying with these new rules. These two almost went as far to say that this seemed like a witch hunt on reputable businesses that have done nothing wrong. That’s funny Chief Farrar pointed out all three as the ones buying stolen gold without taking the proper ID techniques.

Then the most irritating portion of the two hours I saw (besides the massive tax grab) was when someone asked if these new rules would apply to door to door Gold Buyers? Then Mayor Vargas said yes I had someone come to my door and ask if I had gold I wanted to sell, after those two homes on my street were broken into. She wasn’t sure if the two incidents were connected but had concerns. Then one of the council members said oh Grace is referring to people passing out flyers for Gold buying businesses and that people didn’t buy gold as an independent buy without a shop. It showed the ignorance of the people leading our city. As a security guard for a shopping mall we were kicking independent gold buyers out of the mall all the time. They would both hover around the Cash for gold stores and kiosks and tell people that the price they were being offered was to low and try and steal the sale, or hit up people eating in the food court. People like these do exist; they are aggressive and can be very underhanded. They carry a small jeweler’s magnifying glass and sometimes a small chemical test kit. If someone like this approaches your home inform the police and then send them down to council chambers to educate the city council and staff.

Election Protective’s Prop’s 30 & 38

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.

Prop 30 – We vote NO

Prop 30 is sold as a tax on the wealthy to help pay for schools. The governor and teachers have a hypothetical gun to our children’s heads because they are threatening the worst cuts and extra shortened school years. What is prop 30? Another way for Sacramento and the CTA to reach into our pockets because they over spent in good years and offered extremely lucrative pensions (except for ROP teachers). Prop 30 is a way for Jerry Brown and the CTA to back fill teachers pension fund while raising our SALES TAX & the tax on the wealthy. Show the CTA and Jerry Brown what happens when they hold our children hostage and take them down by voting NO.

Proposition 38: VOTE NO

Increases personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from 0.4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.It’s the other individual tax grab, the one by Molly Monger. The money might actually go to the schools, but everyone will see their income tax bills go up.

To those of you looking to help our schools or think its ok for the “rich” people to pay more let’s look at some of the latest money wasting factors:

  1. David Goldstien      from CBS 2 news uncovered the latest government misuse of State Tax      Dollars. Jerry Brown has said the state has made massive reductions his      biggest reduction he touted was the end to the Government Fleet. He told      us he had state employees stop using vehicles that were merely used to      transport to and from home and to different places within the state that      were part of state business. Then CBS uncovers the misuse of rented trucks      by Caltrans officials. Read more about this at http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/10/25/cbs2-investigates-caltrans-employees-who-use-taxpayer-funded-cars-for-personal-use/
  2. At least two      agencies have been investigating Caltrans’ Foundation Testing Branch – whose      technician, Duane Wiles, falsified bridge tests – for financial fraud. In      a recent interview, Robert Pieplow, Caltrans chief engineer, acknowledged      his agency’s ongoing probe concerning possible theft of state property and      improper overtime claims. “We take matters of fraud, abuse, misuse of      state resources, and misuse of federal resources very seriously,”      Pieplow said. He would not provide details. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/12/4050191/probes-zero-in-on-caltrans-test.html#storylink=cpy
  3. The accounting      scandal that forced the ouster of the California state parks director and      her chief deputy has highlighted a long-standing rift over off-roading on      public land. The culture clash has pitted conservationists against drivers      of dirt bikes and dune buggies, who have tangled over how to spend more      than $100 million set aside to buy and manage land for off-road vehicles.      That fund is where state accountants found more than half of a $54-million      hidden surplus, the revelation that sparked the ongoing scandal.
  4. State costs of      about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95      billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about      $647 million per year.      This is the high speed rail system that Jerry Brown and state democrats      want to build here in California. The highlighted portion of this bullet      point is important. Where are they going to find an extra $647 Million per      year? How about weigh station fees that trucks pay as they traverse around      our state. So you ask what is that money supposed to go for? Its ear      marked for road repair caused by heavy trucks and the damage they cause,      so looks like the roads that never get repaired still wont get repaired.      Lets not stop there guess how much money was taken from the Cal State      college system $647 Million. So that means we think a failed High Speed      Rail System is more important than keeping college rates low for      struggling students.
  5. JOHN CHIANG STATE      CONTROLLER wants you to believe that he can and will watch the money for      you the emphasis on accountability as seen here http://youtu.be/Y6Du0-rtzeA      . But lets not forget what Mr. Chiang said when millions of dollars were      being found in hidden accounts with the parks and rec department. He      stated that it was impossible for him or his office to accurately account      for all tax money. Watch this ad explaining that the money isn’t earmarked      for schools and can be used elsewhere.
  6. Finally Jerry brown      has told Cal State Students that if prop 30 passes each student will get a      $250 check, if it fails their tuition will increase by the same amount. He      has threatened schools will close early and he will take a massive knife      to education. Aren’t we tired of this hostage situation the state takes      with our kids!!!!! How much longer will California put up with massive      spending and then digging deeper into our pockets?

Tomorrow we will address Prop 32

 

 

Election Perspectives Measures “Q” & “R”

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.

Measure “Q” & “R”: NO ON “Q” – YES ON “R”

Measure “Q” is the board of supervisors attempt to forego massive cuts to their pay and spending. What bothers me most is that our Board of Supervisors didn’t have to go out and get your signatures to place their competing measure on the  ballot they just drafted it with your tax dollars then added it to the November Ballot. This County Board of supervisors is overpaid and waste millions of dollars at the expense of the County. The Board of Supervisors wants you to believe that this measure will more closely align their salaries with other similar counties. This measure is a way for the political waters to be cloudy and confuse the voters. They also want you to believe that the sole reason for the competing measure is a blackmail attack on their failed efforts to bring this county true and real pension reform.

Measure “R”is a ballot measure to make our board of supervisors a part-time position. This would cut board members’ salary and benefit packages from a high of more than $308,000 to $60,000 annually. It would also reduce allocations for political staff (salaries, mostly) to $300,000 per district. Right now, the supervisors collectively spend $6 million on their staffs (or an average of $1.2 million per supervisor), and one staffer is being paid more than $225,000 a year. So while you work hard at your job(s) making barley enough to scrape by these County Board members want to continue to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

One of the board members Josie Gonzalez threatened to quit if measure “R” passes because it would not allow her to live at the level she is currently comfortable at now. So sorry but you shouldn’t make so much money while the rest of the county is hurting, and we don’t need any more career elected official’s.

 

 

Other Notable Tid Bits: Pulled from http://reformsbcounty.com/

YOU elected one of the five members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to represent you in your district and help you navigate through the red tape appointed bureaucrats create in county government with onerous regulations and frivolous rules.  Unfortunately, the current members of the board have decided they do NOT want to work for YOU.  That’s right!!
Instead of working for you, the members of the board voted to hire a “Chief Executive Officer” for $300,000+ a year to make the decisions they are required to make – a bureaucrat that does not answer to you. And, they did this without YOUR consent or vote.
YOU no longer have a member of the board of supervisors who can assist you with county department employees who unfairly target you or create red tape to keep you from doing business in this county and squash potential new jobs so badly needed in our county.  YOUR board member voted to give away that authority to an unelected bureaucrat IN VIOLATION OF THE COUNTY’S CHARTER, which specifically says the chairman of the board is the “executive agent” for the county.  Don’t let politicians get away with this.

Vote NO on Q!  Vote YES on R!

The members of the Board of Supervisors are really upset about Measure R.  Like they did in 2006 when the five board members voted to place a measure on the ballot to give themselves a $50,000-a-year pay raise, they are trying to confuse voters with a new initiative – Measure Q – which will allow them to keep their high salaries.  It was the current members of the Board of Supervisors who decided they only needed to meet part time.  Do they deserve full-time pay, including the extra $50,000-a-year pay raise, if they only meet part time?

Measure Q was conjured up by the five members of the board to defeat Measure R – a measure placed on the ballot by almost 74,000 citizens of San Bernardino County.  Measure R will pay them $60,000 a year for part-time work.  That is more than the average family in San Bernardino County earns working full time.  Do not be fooled by their deceptive initiative.  Vote NO on Measure Q.

Vote NO on Q!  Vote YES on R!

Those who helped us collect signatures and/or are endorsing Measure R include Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party members, grassroots candidates for office, community activists, animal welfare workers, members of employee organizations and constituents who are simply fed up with elected leaders who don’t earn their keep.

★★★★★
Kieran “Red” Brennan Former Grand Jury Member WWII Submarine Veteran Initiative Proponent (Original)
★★★★★
Safety Employees Benefit Association (Sheriff’s Deputies, DA Investigators & Probation Officers)
★★★★★
Robert Lovingood Candidate for First District
★★★★★
James Ramos Candidate for Third District
★★★★★
Rick Roelle Candidate for First District
★★★★★
Paul Schrader Candidate for Sheriff
★★★★★
Clint Air Founder of Americans for America Tea Party Chapter
★★★★★
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
★★★★★

 

Vote NO on Q!  Vote YES on R!

Tomarrow we take on Jerry Brown & Molly Munger with Props 30 & 38

Election Propectives Measure “V”

Measure “V” – Vote NO

Measure “V” is a new business tax on those businesses that transport, manufacture or store and type of fuel product. The city wants you to believe that this wont effect gas prices because its not being applied to Service Stations. When has anything ever happened to fuel companies where we didn’t feel it at the pump? As of 7:41 on 10/25/12 the cheapest gas in Rialto is 3.99 a gallon according to gasbuddy.com go to Fontana and the price drops 10 cents a gallon, go to San Bernardino and the price drops 18 cents a gallon (keep in mind San Bernardino has a higher sales tax than Rialto and the price is that much cheaper) and in Colton the prices are 5 cents lower than Rialto. Can we afford to pay more money to fuel up in our own city? Why are we the closest to the gas tank farms and we pay the most?

The San Bernardino Sun did a peice on this measure and I found some intresting parts to their story:

Anti-tax groups say the measure, like similar tax votes on ballots throughout the state, is nothing more than elected leaders putting the burden of past bad policy-making on taxpayers today. Kris Vosberg and the Howard Jarvis taxpayers association say, ” What we are seeing throughout the state is cities are nickle and diming the taxpayers to death because they’re finding in the down economy they cant afford the commitments they’ve made to the goverment employees” Vosberg said.

Major oil companies like Chevron & Arco BP operate at the Fuel Tank Farm and Kinder Morgan owns majority control over tank farms property.

If Measure “V” passes companies that manufacture, store and distribute petroleum products will pay 1,500 for each 250,000 increment in gross receipts.

Vosberg said that taxes like measure “V” can have a dampening effect on the targeted industry. This means that these companies can slow their use of our tank farms or even abandon them altogether. With gas prices already at all time highs how can we even think of raising our rates, to assume that these companies will forgo passing the tax along to consumers all over the Inland Empire is a blind way of thinking.

Even a spokesman for the Sacramento based Western Based Petroleum Association Tupper Hull. He said its a hard sell on passing taxes in reference to fuel since we have experienced constant interruptions and market fluctuations that have caused prices to skyrocket.

In California 87 cents of your gas price is taxes. This doesn’t include any county or city taxes these are just the federal and state taxes. This is the main reason we say vote “NO” also we don’t like the impression that the city is sending that if you don’t vote yes our fire and police services won’t be safe.

Sorry just like we told Jerry Brown you can’t hold our children, public safety or roads hostage anymore.

Proceeds from water agreement going to San Bernardino International Airport

First of all we loved the shout out ED SCOTT gave us from the Dias and validated our reporting on this issue of the money from the water deal.

We commented on a Press Enterprise Story where they reported a portion of the money from the water deal would go to SBIA (San Bernardino International Airport). We were never outright told that this money was going to another city government that has horrid money management, especially to the tune of $12.3 million.

Mr. Ed Scott since you read or someone reads the blog to you please explain to us how the development monies from the sale and rape or Utility Rate Payers in the City is going to go for any other project in the city besides the “Target” project. We ask you to clarify this because:

  • After Robb Steels presentation we have spent the entire $30 Million on this one project.
  • There is still so much profit sharing that after its all said and done were still in the hole $4 Million.
  • The Airport project is expected to take 11-15 years.
  • We have capital improvements for YOUR Super Wal-Mart project.

Since our current council cannot bring real infrastructure to the city with massive amounts of money is this it?

Mr. Scott you want to be our mayor so if you please send us a email or comment on this post we promise to post all material you return on this issue without edit.

Below is pictures we took of the slides presented by Mr. Steel.

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

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

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.

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

.

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

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries