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

Budget incentives propels move to consolidate Fontana, Colton, Rialto SWAT teams

The Article below is from the San Bernardino Sun highlighting our regional SWAT team.

It’s a great cost saving feature as well as allowing the team to utilize the resources that the three cities have accumulated.

I personally cant wait to see this team at community events in the city and hear of them helping local gang units hit warrant homes and rid us of idiots that want to baricaide themselves.

Inland Valley SWAT.

It’s the new face for the elite, Special Weapons and Tactics arm of three area police departments: Fontana, Colton and Rialto.

Each department will contribute its SWAT officers to the combined unit, now headed by Fontana police Lt. Obie Rodriguez, although that post will rotate to the other agencies in the future.

Equipment for the combined force of 45 is being stored at a central, undisclosed location.

This was a decision that wasn’t taken lightly and didn’t happen quickly, Rodriguez said.

For more the two years, the departments have been conducing joint training operations.

Cooperative arrangements like the SWAT team merger will be the wave of the future in law enforcement, said Larry K. Gaines, chairman of the Criminal Justice Department at Cal State San Bernardino.

“It’s a way to maintain high level of service and at the same time reduce costs,” he said.

The SWAT merger is not the first combined effort by the three police departments. Earlier this year, Rialto and Colton hooked up with Fontana’s new police helicopter, expanding that city’s sky patrol into their own backyards.

“I’ve often said that crooks don’t know a border,” said Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones.

Fontana’s public safety is interconnected with its neighbors, he said.

“Certainly the economic times are a driving force of this (the cooperative efforts),” said Rialto Police Chief Tony Farrar.

The merger provides the three cities with greater expertise, better equipment at a reduced cost, said Farrar and Jones.

Additionally, there is a greater opportunity for grant funding when there’s a regional effort, Farrar said.

“This (the SWAT merger) was discussed some time ago, but the timing wasn’t right. This is really a longtime overdue,” Farrar said.

For smaller departments, like the three cities have, the SWAT position is collateral – officers assigned to it perform other duties and only take on their SWAT role in emergencies or during training, Rodriguez said.

Under the joint arrangement, each department is reducing its individual SWAT officer force, he said, noting that the three cities benefit from the potential strength of the much larger 45 person team.

In 2000, Murrieta and Hemet joined forces for a new combined SWAT team, said Murrieta police Lt. Tony Conrad.

“Savings are are realized in both training costs and personnel costs. Equipment costs can also be cut as the teams utilize equipment owned and maintained by their partner team,” Conrad said.

“As police departments look at more innovative ways of working, there are some elements which will not work in this kind of cooperative agreement,” said Stephen G. Tibbetts, a criminology professor at Cal State San Bernardino.

SWAT teams work because their training is very standardized, he said. “It doesn’t depend on local knowledge.”

 

We Endorse Shawn O’ Connell For City Council

Please use the links below and learn about Shawn, Conect to his campaign and help get this man to fill one of the 2 vacant City Council Positions. Shawn has oportunities for you to get involved, link up and get involved.

Pick your favorite Social Media platform and get on board with a clean positive campaign in a city looking for a breath of fresh air.

http://www.shawn4rialto.com/home

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shawn4Rialto

http://twitter.com/shawn4rialto

Councils Final Word on Petition Signatures

Hello everyone and good morning.

I am sorry I missed this meeting & that this council refuses to listen to the community. It seems that the only people they listen to are people who live outside of the city of Rialto as they did last night in reference to the Lytle Creek Development Project.

But that isn’t what were speaking on in this post, now its over the signatures collected in protest to the council’s decision to outsource our water to embattled American Water company.

The city attorney Jimmy Gutierrez (Mr I get DUI’s) he didn’t like the way the signatures were gathered and told the city clerk who informed council that they would not be putting the issue on the Ballot in November. It will never go before the people.

(The petitions, gathered by the Utility Workers Union of America, did not include a copy of the concession agreement, Rialto City Attorney Jimmy Gutierrez said in an interview.) From SBSUN.com

This council and Mayor do not care what you think or say unless forced to listen (IE the outsourcing the PD issue).

What is the disconnect with this council and listening to the residents. Ed Scott barks at residents from the dias like a junk yard dog (someone running for Mayor) Ed palmer just ignores you altogether, but at least Councilwoman Robertson will return a call as she did last night when I first got word of this horrible decision with the promise of another meeting in the next 2 weeks lets see if it happens.

Long Story short you have no say in the American Water Deal and we all will suffer for the next 30 Years because this city will never be able to afford to leave this contract ever.

We all must attend, watch council meetings and also call these people and make them finally listen to the people.

—————————————————————————————————-

Advertisement

—————————————————–

City of Rialto approves water rate increases, denies petition

Posted:   06/27/2012 12:07:27 AM PDT

RIALTO – The Rialto City Council on Tuesday voted to end the contentious issue of a whooping rate increase by voting 4-1 for its approval.The issue, and a related agreement to outsource the city’s water and sewer operations to New Jersey-based American Water Works Co. Inc., have been a boiling point for many residents for over a year.

The council’s action will propel water and sewer rates 114.8 percent by 2016.

Because the city of Rialto hasn’t increased rates for years, many residents recognize that rates need to go up, but think the increase should be spread out over more years.

Only Councilman Joe Baca Jr. opposed the rate increase.

As part of the meeting, the council decided not to schedule a referendum during the Nov. 6 general election on that outsourcing agreement – even though the city was presented with more than enough valid signatures to make that happen.

The petitions, gathered by the Utility Workers Union of America, did not include a copy of the concession agreement, Rialto City Attorney Jimmy Gutierrez said in an interview.

Under a provision of the election code, which Gutierrez said was written to encompass city ordinances, a copy of the ordinance must accompany the petitions “so that people know what they are signing.”

In those situations where there are other documents, courts have ruled that they too must be included, he said.

“You got to give all the information to the public,” Gutierrez said.

With the petitions circulated by the union, a copy of the city council resolution on the concession agreement was the only document included, he said. “How’s the public going to know what it’s signing without a copy of the concession agreement,” he said.

When asked how a document spanning hundreds and hundreds of pages, as is the case of the concession agreement, could be part of a petition being passed from one person to the next, Gutierrez said, “yeah, but that’s what the law says.”

Later he said that at least a summary of the agreement should have been included along with the petitions.

Contacted late Tuesday night, Utility Workers spokesman Mark Brooks said that the union’s legal team would need to evaluate the city’s position.

The union submitted 6,379 signatures and of those, 1,545 were declared invalid during a certification process conducted by the county Elections Bureau. That left 4,834 valid signatures – well above the amount needed to put the issue before voters.

During the council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott said that work is underway with city staff to modify the concession agreement in a way that will be “to everybody’s liking.”

He provided no details.

After the vote, resident Frank Gonzalez said, “I don’t agree with the results (of the Proposition 218 vote) but the citizens had a chance…I would like to work with you, even though I don’t agree with you.”

City Council’s vote on the rate increase was delayed to await the results of a Proposition 218 protest vote where a majority of the ratepayers – plus one – must file a written objection to the action.

The final tally for the water rate increase protest vote was 4,345, where 5,701 were required to block it. The sewer rate increases were opposed by 6,883, where 10,387 were needed to block it, Gutierrez said.

Councilman Ed Palmer accused the union’s Prop 218 campaign of producing many invalid and fraudulent votes.

“Thank goodness the vote wasn’t close, because the union would have forced us to physically account for very vote, a process that would have cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said.

Palmer noted that his own signature was forged and sent into the city clerk’s office as a protest vote.

The Utility Workers union has several contract issues with American Water across the country and has opposed the company’s business expansion into Rialto.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20947976/city-rialto-approves-water-rate-increases-denies-petition#ixzz1z0aeFlVg

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries