Chronic Failure Archives - Page 33 of 68 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

December 17, 2017December 18, 2017Chronic Failure

City of Fullerton, OC Animal Care preparing to Euthanize Your Wallet

Still have any money left over after the state gas tax increases (thanks, Josh Newman), the likely loss of SALT deductions in Congress (thanks, Ed Royce), plus all the state, local and national income, property and sales taxes, licenses, and fees we already pay? Well, too bad, because OC Animal Care and the City of Fullerton are cooking up a new scheme to take even more of your money. And it all comes down to the first law of holes, government style: when you find yourself in a hole, keep digging and hope nobody notices.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017, the City Council will again be voting on substantial fee increases, this time for the services provided by OC Animal Care. If passed, the licensing cost for a neutered dog will be $51 per year, and the per day impound fee for any lost dog or cat will be increased to $136, plus an initial $205 impound fee on top of the daily fee, and so on; the full list is available here.

According to OC Animal Care, the fee increases are necessary because their current operating budget is only enough to pay for half of the services they provide (with the other half coming out of the participating cities’ general fund).

This shortfall is blamed on the recent decisions in Garden Grove, Stanton, Laguna Hills and Rancho Santa Margarita to contract with alternate animal care facilities. However, the problem is not that these cities left OC Animal Care, but that OC Animal Care’s services are already so expensive that it was in their financial best interest to leave the program in the first place. For example, the City of Garden Grove contracted with Orange County Humane Society in Huntington Beach after their annual payments to OC Animal Care increased from $729,000 to $1.3 million in just four years, and the City believes they will save over $8 million over the next ten years thanks to the switch.

So why hasn’t Fullerton joined these other cities? An opportunity did exist to opt out back in May 17, 2016, when OC Animal Care needed its members to commit to participate in the construction of a new shelter on the Tustin Air Base property.

However, the City Council squandered the opportunity in a 4-1 vote, placing the city on the hook for its share of the construction costs for the new facility without even placing an RFP out to private animal care providers. Even if we were to back out now, we might be on the hook for the cost of construction of this shelter. Oh, and Fullerton currently has an evergreen contract with OC Animal Care because, of course we do, so any effort to extricate ourselves from this failed government program will be complicated to say the least.

Keep the Evergreen Contract or the dog gets it!

But enough is enough. It is time to stop excusing poorly run government programs and to start demanding that we get our money’s worth.

November 30, 2017November 30, 2017Chronic Failure

Another bad sign

by David Curlee20 Comments

A few months ago, I pointed out bogus signs at the train station which cited non-existent instances of the Fullerton Municipal Code. Those signs were removed a short time later.

Here we have a similar sign posted at the Wilshire Avenue parking structure.

Fullerton does not have a “No Loitering” ordinance that could be used here.

The second part, warning about confiscation of property, only comes up in Title 9, which covers parks — not parking structures, nor anywhere else in the City.

9.12.530 Enforcement — Seizure of property.

The Director, park attendants, parking control officers and police officers are authorized to seize, confiscate and hold for the City any property, thing or device in the park used in violation of this chapter.

(Ord. 1900 (part), 1973: prior 4320.9(3) — Ord. 999 § 1, 1959).

Nowhere in 9.12.530 does it address “unattended or unsecured” items. Even if the City wanted to play word games, and say the parking structure is part of the park and museum immediately adjacent to it, the sign doesn’t even agree with the code. Perhaps that is why the sign makes no mention of the Fullerton Municipal Code — there’s nothing to cite because somebody made it up.

So the next time City Hall tells you such and such is the “law” you should probably take that assurance with a grain of salt.

November 27, 2017November 27, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Airport Saga Continues. Does “Hangar 21” Conform To Zoning Law?

by Mr. Peabody37 Comments

In my previous post regarding recent doings at the Fullerton Airport I described a big lawsuit by a disgruntled former tenant, Air CombatUSA, and also remarked upon the propriety of the use of airport property as a party venue called “Hangar 21.” The implication was there might be some sort of Federal Aviation Administration issue. One Friend, “Order 5190.6B, Chapter 9” provided the name and place where such issues as equality access to aviation facilities are spelled out by the FAA.

But then another of our Friends, “Little City Planner School Graduate” questioned whether such use was even legal per the Fullerton Municipal Code. I didn’t have a clue. So I looked it up.

Per Fullerton’s Zoning Map, the airport is designated “P-L,” i.e., public land. Municipal Code Section 15.25 describes permitted and CUP uses for the P-L designation. Here they are:

15.25.020. Permitted uses.

The following uses are permitted in a Public Land (P-L) zone, subject to the provisions of this chapter:

A. Flood control reservoir areas.

B. Public parks and open space areas.

C. Public educational facilities.

D. Public buildings including administrative buildings, libraries, fire stations, reservoirs, and maintenance facilities.

E. Public parking facilities.

F. Public transportation facilities.

G. Public golf courses.

H. Other similar public facilities when in conformance with the purpose of this zone when recommended by the Director of Development Services, and approved by the City Council.

(Ord. 2982, 2001)

15.25.025. Conditionally permitted uses.

A. The following non-public uses or activities are permitted in a Public Land (P-L) zone when approved by and subject to conditions of the City Council:

1. Commercial stables, subject to the development requirements, provisions and conditions of Subsection 15.55.030.C of this title.

2. Open-air marketing activities including, but not limited to such activities as a cooperatively sponsored farmers market or swap meet.

3. Commercial agricultural production and non-retail plant nursery operations excluding cannabis cultivation as defined in Chapter 15.04.

B. A special event may be permitted on a property with a Public Land (P-L) zone pursuant to Chapter 8.71 or Chapter 9.12 of the Fullerton Municipal Code.

(Ord. 3227 § 3, 2016; Ord. 2982, 2001)

You will notice that there is no provision for a private party venue, no matter how tenuously tied to a legitimate “public transportation” use such as helicopter rides.

So what gives? Hangar 21 as a party spot seems to be in violation of the Code since it is not consistent with the uses described above, and since the City Council has never even tried to legitimize it via 15.025.020(H).

November 26, 2017November 26, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Trouble at the Airport?

by Mr. Peabody86 Comments

Perhaps. Big trouble. The City is being sued by a former tenant – Air Combat USA – whose owner is claiming the Airport Director conspired to keep him from renewing his lease option for another thirty years, and thus depriving him of the revenue and profit therefrom.

Here’s the complaint:

Air Combat USA vs City of Fullerton Complaint

$50,000,000 is a lot of dough, so we’ll have to watch this one. Is there any validity to the complaint? I don’t know. A lot of facts are asserted that may be very hard for the plaintiff to prove even if they are true. Some of the allegations have the ring of truth.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Fullerton city employees have a pretty poor track record when it come to mismanaging facilities and interfering with people they don’t care for via restraint of trade practices. And just because Redevelopment is sort of gone doesn’t mean the bureaucratic lust to play Monopoly is gone with it.

Meantime, other airport lessees have been heard complaining about a tenant called Hangar 21 that is operating a big party space out of a hangar – a non-aviation use that may not be kosher for a general aviation airport, and that might therefore have Federal funding implications for the City.

November 9, 2017November 9, 2017Chronic Failure

Happy Felziversary

by Joshua122 Comments

One year ago today I wrote my first piece for this site, Friends for Fullerton’s Future. It was on the tail end of my lackluster city council bid when I was approached to join the site. I was asked to keep up the writing that I was doing during my campaign but here instead of my own site to which I was agreeable. No timelines had been discussed or content hashed out but the premise was we would revive FFFF because nobody else was effectively putting a spotlight on Fullerton’s abysmal government.

Then Joe Felz killed Sappy McTree after drinking his way through every election party in downtown.

One year ago this morning Joe Felz “took a wide turn” and ran down a tree only for Fullerton’s Finest to be called to the scene of the crime and offer cookies and a glass of milk to our beleaguered city manager instead of the breathalyzer and night in the drunk tank any regular Joe would have received. (more…)

November 2, 2017November 3, 2017Chronic Failure

Need a pen?

by David Curlee20 Comments

Need a pen or pencil? How about a coloring book, a fire badge sticker, or a hat to keep your head dry from the rain this weekend?

I guess it’s a good thing Fullerton is swimming in surplus cash. Oh, wait…

Nearly $1,700 for this stuff despite it being known all year long that we’re in a budget crisis. The entire amount was charged to General Fund accounts.

October 31, 2017Boohooism

Who Is Paulette Marshall?

by Mr. Peabody81 Comments

Good question. She is the spouse of Fullerton Councilman Doug “Bud” Chaffee, and has often been considered the brains of the operation.

She is also rumored to be a future council candidate from the 2nd District once that district comes up for election – now slated for 2020. Here is Ms. Marshall attending an underpass opening ceremony. She’s the one over on the left wearing the purple jacket.

Here’s a close up.

But wait. Why is she even there? She doesn’t hold any official position in the city. And even more importantly, why is she wearing a City of Fullerton badge bearing the official city seal? How did she get that badge and why is she wearing it?

A cynical person might suspect that Ms. Marshall is posing in a photo op like this for future campaign material, projecting the subliminal message of “incumbent.” But that would be extremely unethical and really hard to credit.

October 30, 2017October 30, 2017Bad Cops

Where’s Dino?

by Joe Sipowicz13 Comments

Three long months ago FFFF updated the story of FJCs rogue “Campus Safety Officer”, Dino Skokos. You remember Dino, right? He’s the former LA Deputy Sheriff, who, while enjoying a $48K annual disability pension courtesy of LA County taxpayers, and while costing us $75,000 per year us as a guard at FJC, was caught on video assaulting some skinny kid for refusing to identify himself. Be sure to watch the video if you need to remind yourself.

That was over a year ago. Yes, the Earth has made an entire revolution of the Sun, and then some.

Skokos was placed on administrative leave way back on October 14, 2016. And what has been going on in the twelve month interim?

FFFF has serially reported that the North Orange County Community College District orchestrated some sort of “investigation,” conducted by their own special government defense lawyer. But FJC President, Greg Schulz ain’t saying anything after all this time except for spouting some embarrassingly contradictory double talk.

So what’s the status of Dino Skokos? And has there been any legal action by the kid who he choke slammed up against a wall and then threw to the ground? Who knows? Not the public, that’s for sure.

Remember when Schulz promised the college’s full dedication in reaching a conclusion regarding the incident? I guess that never included letting the public know what was going on.

October 18, 2017Chronic Failure

Lemmon Head

by David Curlee35 Comments

Wouldn’t it be nice if every City employee consistently set the bar for professionalism?

Michael Lemmon, of the Fullerton Fire Department, thought it was perfectly okay to purchase these inappropriate mugs using taxpayer money on his City-issued VISA card.

A couple months later, Michael Lemmon decided the Fire Department needed more coffee mugs, so he purchased these — again on the taxpayer’s dime:

(more…)

October 17, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Pay The Lady: Nepotism At Its Worst

by David Curlee27 Comments

Today’s ethical lapse comes to us courtesy of the Fullerton Fire Department. See those shirts pictured above? Fire Captain Brian Seymour ordered nine of them for some kind of “Peer Support”.

Once the use tax is factored in, we paid about $40 per shirt.

Check out the reconciliation report. One can clearly see the purchaser was Brian Seymour.

Below, we see the invoice from the vendor, Linksoul, where the salesperson was Mary Seymour. Wait a minute, that must be a coincidence. No City employee would be foolish enough to use taxpayer money to purchase unnecessary clothing from a relative’s clothing business, right?

Mary Seymour is the Fire Captain’s wife. Linksoul is a clothing company started by her brother. A couple minutes with Google was enough to locate this article from Carlsbad Magazine with a quote about nepotism that couldn’t be more ironic under the circumstances.

Hinman, W. (2014, March & April). The Man Makes The Clothes. Carlsbad Magazine, 38-43.

So while the City of Fullerton prepares to be crushed under the weight of CalPERS pension obligations, we have people like Brian Seymour not just wasting our money — he’s sending cash to his wife’s family business.

Brian Seymour made $294,761 last year in pay and benefits. Why didn’t he pay for these shirts with his own money?

Did anyone make him reimburse the City? Whose idea were these shirts, anyway? Perhaps most important is why didn’t it occur to Brian Seymour that sending money to the family business was improper, and likely a violation of City policy and/or State Law?

Thanks to a certain FFD employee for bringing this to our attention. You know who you are.