The City of Fullerton bookkeepers have provided us with a summary of the money illegally added to our water bills over the last 15 years, and boy does it add up. You see, 10% has been added on to our water rates, then immediately siphoned off to pay for non-water related expenses.
Where does the money go, you ask? Well, among other things it goes to pay for Pat McKinley’s bloated pension, stays at four-star hotels for Don Bankhead and Dick Jones, etc., etc., etc. Feel violated by the scam? You should.
Here’s the shameful tally. Read. Weep.
| Year | Illegal Franchise Tax |
| 1997 | $704,480.50 |
| 1998 | $1,281,107.00 |
| 1999 | $1,364,716.00 |
| 2000 | $1,456,399.00 |
| 2001 | $1,435,202.00 |
| 2002 | $1,558,578.00 |
| 2003 | $1,576,091.00 |
| 2004 | $1,775,133.00 |
| 2005 | $1,771,294.00 |
| 2006 | $2,065,417.00 |
| 2007 | $2,287,693.00 |
| 2008 | $2,278,041.00 |
| 2009 | $2,388,515.00 |
| 2010 | $2,479,930.00 |
| 2011 | $2,532,595.00 |
| Total | $26,955,191.50 |
#1 by homebaseump on December 22, 2011
Can these funds be returned via a rebate to present water users?
We need to take this to a good class action lawsuit attorney.
This could amount to about $9 million for the attorney fees.
#2 by praying about this too on December 22, 2011
sort of like tithing but not
#3 by Anonymous on December 22, 2011
LOL! Kind of!
Could we possibly see the written request for these dollar amounts?
#4 by Joe Sipowicz on December 23, 2011
Now that’s hilarious. I know stealing is a sin, so I am just going to borrow that.
#5 by The Desert Rat on December 23, 2011
No, no! I’ve got this one covered, Joe!
#6 by Anonymous on December 23, 2011
Not what I meant. I mean could we see the public records request for these figures?
#7 by homebaseump on December 22, 2011
Does the CITY have any kind of independet auditing or review process?
I smell a rat with this proposal to consolidate the water and maintenance departments.
It would be prudent for the City Council to put this consoldation plan on ICE until the water fiasco is settled and competent legal services is retained.
A really good case of obstinate arrogance.
And this is only what you see and thats just the starting point.
#8 by Rain on December 22, 2011
Our new Mayor has the power to set the City Council Agenda, and thus keep this proposed consolidation of the Water and Maintenance Departments OFF of the agenda.
This will be an important matter for her to demonstrate her good judgment.
#9 by Anonymous on December 22, 2011
I’ve heard that Fullerton has had a TON of layoffs this year. In fact, I guess that Fullerton is down to 1 building inspector now instead of the 5 we had before. Could it just be that they’re combining departments to save $?
#10 by Anonymous on December 22, 2011
Speaking of layoff’s I think this poster nailed it.
– A long time resident… on October 4, 2011
I think someone read this at the council meeting a few months ago.
#11 by Wrong Guy on December 23, 2011
This was a spot on post by ‘A Long Time Resident’ which is why I read this at a council meeting in October.
Thanks for reposting Anon.
#12 by One for the books on December 22, 2011
A total sham!!
#13 by Chris Thompson on December 22, 2011
The sham is that they squandered the $26 million on exorbitant salaries and benefits instead of keeping up our water system or reducing our water rates. Clearly they have learned nothing…including Sharon Quirk…voting to dramatically raise Felz salary and lock him into a year contract with a year’s severance clause. As McKinley said, Felz is the Albert Pujols of City Managers. I wonder what the worst guy in the league’s numbers look like?
#14 by Screenwriter on December 23, 2011
“voting to dramatically raise Felz salary and lock him into a year contract with a year’s severance clause.”
Oh no, you dont want outsiders in an evil criminal enteprise.
#15 by JK on December 23, 2011
Chris, the $26M was not squandered (past tense). It was squandered and the anticipated return of future illegal tax revenue was leveraged so it will be squandered over and over forever.
#16 by karma on December 23, 2011
The sham is that the city is CURRENTLY STEALING from every citizen that pays a water bill. I don’t care if they snorted it up their noses, there is nothing they could explain to me to justify stealing money from me.
Silva is a snake in the grass, nuttin new.
#17 by PJ on December 22, 2011
Slightly o/t, I would also like to know where the extra money now being charged on our gas bills to subsidize the gas charges of “poor” people really goes. Is that, and the extra money we pay on phone and electric, also going to pensions and salaries? Or poor people!
I have a guess…
#18 by Screenwriter on December 23, 2011
This is the Crystal Cathedral without the Bibles.
#19 by karma on December 23, 2011
great analogy
#20 by Hee Said Haw on December 23, 2011
Hell-nation, that there’s ever ye-ah since ah bin on tha’ cowncil.
Who-ee, thass alotta boobie jahbs.
Shucks tho,’ t’ain’t that much fo’ the gummint. You’all pissants ain’t a-gittin’ nuthin’ back!
#21 by One for the books on December 23, 2011
The reason they used a water tax is because it is, apparently, the most appropriate way to “siphon” and “drain” the wallets of Fullerton residents!
#22 by One for the books on December 23, 2011
Would like to see an actual accounting of WHERE this tax revenue is going!
#23 by merijoe #1 on December 23, 2011
Its going toward pensions, salaries and for those fat loads donut kitty
#24 by The Desert Rat on December 23, 2011
I’ve said it before: somebody needs to find out if any/all of the alleged personnel overhead is actually being charged as a direct expense to the Water Fund. If this is true then those costs would kick up the water works cost, and the 10% add-on: the double-dip would obviously make the fraud even worse!
#25 by Van get it da artiste on December 23, 2011
we, the good people of Fullerton, have the right to see where this illegal tax was spent, what it was spent on . the city of Fullerton must keep documents showing how it paid for pensions when the general revenue could not afford it
#26 by The Fullerton Harpoon on December 23, 2011
That you will never know. It disappeared down the rabbit hole known as the General Fund.
#27 by The Ghost of Pat McPension on December 23, 2011
If this ain’t enough reason to recall Bankhead and Jones, I don’t know what is!
#28 by truthseeker on December 23, 2011
The $27,000,000 was more than enought to put a reverse osmosis system in every home, apartment and on every drinking fountain in the entire city of Fullerton. How about it gang? Cough it up. Let’s start with the elementary schools in the first phase. Oh wait a minute maybe lead, aresenic, bromine, sodium fluoride, and a myriad of other loving disenfectant chemicals is good for the children. UMMMMMM. The water that comes from Fullertons tap kills fish-dont believe me? Try it-go spend a buck at the pet store and see for yourself. Funny how the price of the water keeps going up and the quality keeps going down even with the record snowpack and our 4000 foot deep aquifer that nobody realizes exists underneath The OC. Sham scam yeah whatever you want to call it.
#29 by nipsey on December 23, 2011
Tap water is always bad for fish.
#30 by truthseeker on December 23, 2011
Anaheim has a massive reverse osmosis system that delivers a top notch product to the tap. As a Fullerton resident I have to buy a system, filters and pay for extra water as well as the extra sewer use fee for the back-flush. The Anaheim system operates on a 1-.25 ratio of waste whereas the typical home system a 1-6 ratio. Once again leaders with no vision leave us poor and costly choices and public health is by no means the benefactor either.
#31 by nipsey on December 23, 2011
That’s great, far better than the Fullerton chumps are doing. And tap water is still bad for fish. Even in Anaheim, if you plonk your fish straight into tap water without getting the chlorine/chloramine out and possibly adjusting the ph, they will die. OK.
#32 by Fulerton Public Servant on December 23, 2011
I was wondering if the city ever responded to the letter sent by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association requesting the cessation of the 10% “fee”……. I believe the group wanted Fullerton to respond by the middle of December or risk possible litigation. Anyone with an update?
#33 by Hee Said Haw on December 23, 2011
Ah dunno whatcha’all be a wantin.’ We’uns is jes’ alookin’ out fer the liddle man cuz, y’all kent figger out compikated things ‘n sechlike.
#34 by One for the books on December 23, 2011
What do you know about reverse osmosis?
#35 by ttuthseeker on December 24, 2011
What i know is that no home should be without a system and they are very inexpensive …$150 at Costco .