Fullerton City Council Archives - Page 64 of 77 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 2, 2010Fullerton City Council

Let Me Put This In Recognizable Terms

John Lewis told me to move — You're right Julie, these people are suckers

I first became dimly aware of Fullerton politics back in 1993 when I saw a performance of then councilwoman Julie Sa. Sa was incapable of communicating in English, understood nothing, and was completely at the mercy of the City Manager, Jim Armstrong. The worst part of her reign of error was the evident truth that she was just using the office to promote herself.

In 2000 she was busted for not living in Fullerton and she gave up on running for third time. Fullerton had set the bar so low that any idiot with money could get over it. But at least Sa was gone.

So why am I bringing up Sa now? Because those folks who remember Sa have a useful frame of reference to assess the potential of one Harry Sidhu, who wants to be our Supervisor.

Like Sa, Sidhu doesn’t live in the jurisdiction he wants to represent. Sidhu cannot communicate his thoughts to his would-be constituents in English. Although I presume he can read English better than he can speak it, his grasp of simple grammar doesn’t portend a great understanding of the language. His well-documented manglings of simple statements has been nothing less than embarrassing – not for him, he doesn’t seem to possess the faculty of shame – but for those of us who have been subjected to it. His public admission that he didn’t know the impact of defined benefits was pitiful; his statement that he wasn’t taking union money was the closest thing to a million dollar lie that you will ever witness.

Sidhu’s self-interested supporters just love to accuse his critics of racism; nuh uh. Like Sa, Sidhu is an immigrant who made some money in the fast food business – more power to ’em (although Sa went bankrupt). But this economic success in no way qualifies Sidhu to run for elective office, and it certainly doesn’t make him immune from honest assessment of his abilities – or lack of same.

In 1992 the unknown Julie Sa ran for Fullerton council by sending out a bunch of slick, well designed mailings that masked the fact that she was utterly unqualified for any public office; and her subsequent performance proved this assessment true. In 2010 Harry Sidhu is running a vicious and hollow campaign lubricated with a million dollars of union money to in an office that he is patently unfit to hold.

Let’s not make that mistake again.

June 1, 2010Fullerton City Council

On The Agenda – June 1st, 2010

by Christian7 Comments

There are three (3) items on tonight’s City Council agenda. They are: 1) the minutes from May 11 & 18 meetings; 2) November 2 call for municipal elections; and 3) the FY2010-2011 budget.

At first, I was relieved and thought I might be able to escape an exhaustive post. However, upon closer inspection I concluded that we must examine items 2 and 3 a bit closer.

Calling all candidates! Item 2, municipal election, includes language that supports putting term limits on the ballot for Fullerton voters to decide in November. The proposed text reads: “Shall an ordinance be adopted to enact term limits upon members of the Fullerton City Council, preventing any person who serves three (3) successive terms from serving again until an intervening period of four (4) years has elapsed?” Do we need term limits?

The rest of item 2 appears to be standard municipal election language. So who is running? We’ll have to wait and see. The normal deadline for candidates to file is August 6th and will cost you $1,267.00 if you want to have a candidate statement placed on the ballot. That fee alone squashes the hopes and dreams of many would-be candidates.

Moving forward to the expensive part of the agenda, item 3, we are presented with the proposed budget for fiscal year 2010-2011. I think a CPA or someone who likes playing with numbers will like details in the budget. There is some immaterial misinformation in the report signed by Julia James, but in James’ words the gist is this:

“The proposed revised budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year totals $184.4 million for the City and $54.1 million for the Redevelopment Agency, for a total proposed revised appropriations for all funds of $238.5 million. This total includes $58.5 million in capital projects in progress to be carried over. The General Operating Funds budget is not balanced, with a deficit of $3.2 million.”

So what will council cut to balance the budget? My guess is that Ol’ Doc Hee Haw and Bunkhead will vote to raise fees. Keller, not looking for re-election will go ahead with it. Quirk-Silva and Nelson will vote not to raise fees. Based on another post on FFFF, perhaps the city should stop subsidizing and start charging the Muckenthaler Cultural Center Foundation for their exclusive use of the property for weddings and private events.

Friends, there is so much right with Fullerton that these issues sometimes don’t get the attention they deserve. We are all able to live in our pleasant north OC bubble without regard for our civic duty. Unfortunately, if we keep letting the same few who got us into our current mess continue digging their bottomless money pits, things will never improve. And if you think things are going good now, imagine how good they could be if we each do our part to hold our elected official accountable. You can start doing your part June 8 at the polls and again November 2.

May 31, 2010May 31, 2010Arts & Architecture

Should We Subsidize the Muck?

by admin7 Comments

We received this letter from a “Mr. Ed” on the subject of the the Muckenthaler Cultural Center:

The Fullerton City Council will hold their final meetings on the fiscal year 2011 budget on June 1 & 2. I am aware of one contentious item on the agenda: elimination of the $80,000 annual cash grant to the Muckenthaler Center Cultural Foundation (MCCF). It should be noted the $80,000 cash grant is part of the City’s support which totals about $200,000 a year.

At the first budget meeting in March the Parks & Recreation Department proposed cuts to all groups under its jurisdiction, i.e., youth sports programs (Little League, Pop Warner, Rangers Soccer, etc.), Senior Citizens Center, Fullerton Museum Center, and MCCF, to name a few. The MCCF was the only group that objected, claiming they were being unfairly singled out. All other groups realized the magnitude of the situation the City was facing and accepted what was being proposed.

At the March meetings councilwomen Quirk and Keller were supportive of the cut for the MCCF: Quirk for the full $80,000 being proposed by Parks & Recreation and Keller for a $40,000 reduction. Councilmen Bankhead and Jones were against any cuts but seemed to indicate they could go along with a $20,000 reduction. Councilman Nelson suggested exploring some alternatives for privatizing the Senior Center and the City’s cultural programs.

Privatization is not the answer. The MCCF was privatized 16 years ago. In 1994 Fullerton ceded control of the facility to the MCCF. The City retained ownership and maintenance responsibility of the grounds and building. At that time the MCCF stated they could run the facility more cheaply and efficiently if the City was not involved. All they needed was three years of financial support from the City and after that they would be on their own.

Sixteen years later the MCCF is still on the dole to the extent of about $200,000 per year. The city has spent over $3,000,000 in support over the past 16 years with no discernible benefit to the taxpaying citizens of Fullerton.

Councilmen Bankhead and Jones felt the MCCF was not on firm financial footing and needed continued assistance from the City. The director of the MCCF was and is pleading for the public to “Save the Muck”.

The Muckenthaler does not need saving!

The last published financial statement shows the MCCF has cash and investments of $590,000 and total revenues of about $650,000. It also shows the MCCF realized a surplus of $99,000 for the fiscal year ending June 2009. Of the $650,000 in total revenues approximately $250,000 is attributable to wedding receptions Colette’s Catering, a private company, holds on the grounds of this publicly owned facility.

The current arrangement has the taxpayers subsidizing two private entities: the MCCF and Colette’s Catering. We can no longer allow this waste of taxpayers’ money to continue.

Rather than continuing the current arrangement with the MCCF a powerful case can be made that the facility should be placed back under the city’s management. This option would allow the citizens of Fullerton to benefit from the facility rental income. Another option would be for the MCCF to reimburse the City annually for the $200,000 that Fullerton spends to maintain the building and grounds. Both cases would be a net saving to the city of about $200,000 per year. This would go a long way in helping alleviate the budgetary problems we are facing.

May 28, 2010May 28, 2010Arts & Architecture

One Big Happy $23 Million Community Center

by The Fullerton Savage8 Comments

Last week, before all of the excitement about Coyote Hills and the one term history of Pam Keller, the Fullerton City Council approved the conceptual plan for a new community center. This eighth wonder of the world is to be built right across the street from city hall and the main library. The existing Boys and Girls Club and the Senior Center will be demolished to make room for it.

This $23 million mostly redevelopment funded project is supposed to be necessary because half of the city’s Parks and Rec programs are farmed out to other cities, and it would be so much nicer to have them under one new roof right downtown, near the new lingerie shop. The fifty plus year old B & G Club is considered to be beyond repair and the senior center, which isn’t really that old in the grand scheme of things is somehow inadequate. OK, so neither is an architectural masterpiece, but is it really necessary to tear them both down for this new combined community center?

The idea seems to have been to somehow “activate” the corner of Commonwealth and Highland, making it more a part of the library/city hall/police station/baseball field district. To that end, the architect has included one of those pretty, and pretty useless medians down the center of Commonwealth, and a little welcoming plaza on the north side. Placing the huge double gymnasium right up against Commonwealth doesn’t do much to activate the corner, however.

The kids, seniors and everyone in between can all interact as part of one big happy community, except that they still have their own buildings, just closer together than the current ones are, for more togetherness, I guess. There is a third building they do get to share, just to teach them all a lesson. You see, it’s a “multigenerational facility”, except that not everyone wants to be so together.

Several seniors have expressed concerns about having to be so close to boisterous young people while they are busy trying to relax with people of their own age group. As far as I know, no youngsters have yet complained about having to be close to old people, but who knows if anyone asked them during the long, long planning process.

Kids enter from the Commonwealth entrance while seniors use an entrance from the larger, southern parking lot adjacent to the senior center. This arrangement makes sense if no old people have to ride the bus to get there. You see, the bus stop is way out on Commonwealth, so seniors would have to walk through crowds of kids all the way down the central axis of the project, to get to the safety of the senior center, which is closest to the railroad tracks.

A seventy-five year old man at the hearing asked why the noisy gym and swimming pool weren’t placed nearest the railroad tracks instead of a facility used by the aged. The ever helpful and certainly senior Dr. Dick Jones suggested that seniors were hard of hearing anyway before voting to approve the plan. Not to be outdone, even more senior Don Bankhead addressed a concern about the new Commonwealth median restricting bicycle traffic by asserting that it is perfectly legal to ride on the sidewalk in Fullerton —presumably right through seniors exiting a bus.

May 25, 2010Coyote Hills

Will the West Coyote Hills Saga End Tonight?

by Travis1 Comment

After 30 years of debate, the city council is expected to vote tonight on the fate of West Coyote Hills. The “Save Coyote Hills” crowd will surely turn out in force, but can they stop the development completely? Unlikely, although council may have enough concerns to cause further delay.

And even if council passes the proposed re-zoning and plan revisions, it’s unlikely that the battle will end here. One commenter has asserted that court action to further delay the project is guaranteed.

Rather than re-hash the multitude of arguments around Coyote Hills, I direct you to Cindy Cotter’s West Coyote Hills blog where she has a decent summary of the most recent council discussions on the subject.

May 23, 2010May 23, 2010Dick Jones

A Promise Was Made. Will It Be Kept?

by Joe Sipowicz7 Comments

POST UPDATE: WHY AREN’T TERM LIMITS ON THE JUNE BALLOT?

More than a year (and a half) ago a majority of the Fullerton City Council agreed to put the idea of a three term limit to a plebiscite. Councilmembers Sharon Quirk, Pam Keller and Shawn Nelson were for it; Dick Jones and Don Bankhead were against it.

brontosaurus2-380x249 — Dick and I aren't going anywhere...

At the time we ran this post, which we updated in last October. Well, Friends, with the impending June primary election the time has come to remind Quirk, Keller, and Nelson of their promise. It’s not that we don’t trust them, but folks just get so gosh darn busy and their calendars fill up.

But seriously: now that a year has passed and the cold reality of actually having to do something approaches, will there be political remorse?

We’ll soon find out.

May 22, 2010May 22, 2010Fullerton City Council

The 10 Million Dollar Library Expansion

by Travis9 Comments

On Tuesday Fullerton held a groundbreaking ceremony on the $10 million Main Library Expansion and approved the first round of construction contracts.

Fullerton resident Helen Logan sent us her thoughts on the expansion. They are printed below.

Before the library drains more precious tax dollars into its “Meet the Jetsons” architecture, Fullerton’s city council should be made aware of other futuristic stuff like the Kindle, the iPad and the Nook that can download hundreds of books right into our hands. With the advent of internet technology, libraries and their staff are nothing more than appendages to our society.

Our tax dollars would best be spent helping Fullerton’s residents afford the future by defraying the costs of laptops, internet services, and other digital reading devices.

The city of Fullerton should partner with local businesses to reduce the cost of internet technology to its residents. This move would directly benefit our residents and stimulate Fullerton’s business sector.

Fullerton’s city council members’ approval of this library expansion exposes their ignorance that books and knowledge may only be found in an actual building. Expansion of the Fullerton library is a growing monument to the dinosaurs who rule our city from their seats on our town’s city council.

May 18, 2010May 18, 2010Fullerton City Council

On The Agenda – May 18, 2010

by Christian6 Comments

I went to look at the agenda for the May 18^th meeting and had trouble with the City’s website. I was able to download the agenda but none of the supporting documents. So I will attempt to give you a brief and general idea of what is going on. This time I really could use your input in completing the picture. Here is the agenda.

Let’s start with the closed session where we find two major events to look at. First, it looks like maybe the firefighters have come to some agreement with the City regarding cuts to their salaries. We’ll have to see what happens. Also, there are a number of properties that Land Czar Rob Zur Schmiede would love to get his hands on. No doubt he looks to displace dozens of low-income families and replace them with low to moderate income families. Then he and his agency will skim a little off the top of the newly assessed property tax value. As a side note, Assemblyman Chris Norby issued his 6^th Norby Notes email wherein he gives a very good overview of redevelopment agencies and their numerous significant failures.

The properties listed on the agenda include:

324, 401, 419, 425, 449, 455, 475 W. Valencia Drive, 512 S. Ford and 147 W. Santa Fe Avenues in Fullerton.

At this rate, the Land Czar will control all of Fullerton by 2020! No one’s property is safe, not even your kids’ tree house!

Friends For Fullerton’s Future come in on the closed session at #4! If you haven’t heard, FFFF, et al are suing the City of Fullerton. Perhaps admin can give us some idea of what might be happening. Perhaps an easy way for this suit to go away might be to elect some new council members who will put the reigns on the Land Czar and get the Redevelopment Agency under control.

Coming in at #5 is Chris Meyer. The agenda just lists this as a personnel matter. Is he taking a pay cut or what?? Maybe he has decided to retire and join that $100K pension club. If he does, maybe we can talk him into taking a council member or two with him.

Next we move into the open session. We have a couple of proclamations, one service award, and one presentation by the American Veterans Memorial Association.

After the fluff, you have an opportunity to address the council and tell them what you think. It’s a good way to get your voice heard. Don’t mind the members with their fingers in their ears whistling Dixie out their backsides; that’s normal.

This meeting’s consent calendar is pretty big with 11 items. We have the obligatory minutes, end of period financial statement (March 31), capitol expenditure report (also as of March 31), and then a slue of construction projects.

Among them is the library remodel project with $4,142,377.25 this month and a total “Guaranteed Maximum Price” of $9,391,000.00. We’ll see… There are 6 other construction jobs worth nearly $2,000,000.

Last on the consent calendar is approval of Final Map for Tract No. 17315. The subdivision is in the Ford/West/Richman Avenues area. Since the City’s website isn’t allowing us to look up the backup documents, I have nothing further to report on this. My guess is this is one of the Land Czar’s projects.

Item 12 takes us out of the consent calendar and into a public hearing over Underground Utilities District No. 15. Part of this is supposed to bury overhead lines on State College Boulevard from Kimberly Avenue to Santa Fe Avenue.

The only “regular business” is item 13, Fullerton Community Center Project review. The agenda says this:

The Fullerton Community Center Project is one of two major projects currently being undertaken as part of the civic center area improvements. These projects include significant renovations and additions to the Fullerton Public Library and the construction of a multi-purpose Fullerton Community Center; parking and circulation improvements, and limited street improvements to Commonwealth Avenue.

Recommendation by the Parks and Recreation and Redevelopment and Economic Development Departments:

Approve the Community Center concept plan, and authorize staff and the Project Manager at Risk (PMAR) to proceed with design development and preparation of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) based on the conceptual design.

Coming up on May 25 we have the public hearing on Coyote Hills. Expect another crazy night heated opinions. Outside City Hall I heard one man mutter “Why won’t they listen to us? Why do they insist on doing this?” I assumed he was talking about the Coyote Hills development and how the City Council isn’t simply stopping this in its tracks. Who knows, maybe on the 25^th they will. Remember, we have two seats up for re-election and possibly even a third seat if Nelson sweeps the June 8^th Primary.

Also coming up on June 1st, you can expect to find these topics on the agenda.

• Public Hearing – Adopt Budget
• Call Election/Consolidate/Candidate Statements
• April Financials
• Presentation – SCE – State of the Utility
• Proclamation – Marlis Katherine Christianson Wigestrand
• Public Hearing – Towing Ordinance
• Insurance Program Report and Recommendations
• Closed Session – Existing Litigation – Lopez
• Public Hearing – Amend Title 15 – Personal Service Facility/Tattoo Parlors
• St. College Grade Separation Change Order
• Personnel Management Changes
• Draft Request for Interest for Downtown Core & Corridors Specific Plan

As always, please let me know if I missed something that you think is important, especially since I could not access the backup documents for the agenda items.

May 11, 2010Arts & Architecture

Coyote Hills Brouhaha; Tonight at 5:00

by Christian19 Comments

Tonight we have the first of a two-meeting public hearing at City Hall to discuss West Coyote Hills. Actually, after reading tonight’s agenda, it looks like council just might clear the way for the bulldozers. If you have something to say to the council members, tonight’s your chance, just show up early.

If Councilman Shawn Nelson wins the 4th Supervisorial District race, we will have three council seats to fill in November. Tonight’s meeting could be the nail in the political coffin for some of council members no matter how they vote. West Coyote Hills isn’t new to City Hall and it has been a hot-button issue for environmentalists and residents in La Habra and Fullerton for decades. There are those who see an opportunity to generate desperately needed tax revenue while others see their open spaces shrinking and pollution growing. Whichever side of the fence you are on, I think we can all agree that this has been one political football that has been fumbled for far too long. There are pros and cons to this development just like any other.

The meeting is scheduled for 5PM in the council chambers (303 W. Commonwealth Ave.). As I mentioned, it will be a full house, standing room only, so show up early to get your chance to either support or oppose the development.

May 3, 2010May 3, 2010Fullerton City Council

On The Agenda – May 4th, 2010

by Christian5 Comments

Here we are in May and our spend-happy council is at it again. The closed session has council discussing a law suit with their legal counsel over a law suit by Michael MacDonald. They will also be talking about labor negotiations and who can negotiate what.

We start off the open session with a feel-good presentation by the Fullerton Sister City Association.

Moving onto the consent calendar we find a $750,000 repaving project of Brookhurst from Orangethorpe to the 91 FWY as item #2. The bid came in from RJ Noble at $558,534.50 which leaves $191,465.50 left to cover city overhead and oversight. That works out to be 25% of the total cost of the project to cover the city’s internal overhead.

Item #3 grabbed my attention with a few key buzz words. The agenda has it as “RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLANNING GRANT AND INCENTIVES PROGRAM”. Actually, the whole title is chockfull of buzzwords designed to elicit emotional responses. Buzz words aside, Proposition 84 spells out the purpose of the grant and I cannot understand how it pertains to the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan. The California State Parks Department manages the program and describes Prop 84 as this: “On November 7, 2006, voters passed Proposition 84 by 53.9 percent. The 5.4 billion dollar “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006” (Safe Drinking Water Bond) is detailed in Sections 75001 through 75090 of the Public Resources Code.” The amount of the grant request is $1,000,000 but could range from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Do you really think California voters planned on using these funds for Downtown Fullerton planning? The text for Prop 84 can be found at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/prop_84_text.pdf

Item #4 addresses City Pointe, across Chapman Ave. from the Fox Block McDonald’s money pit, which would like to change their development agreement because one of the partners is selling out. A brief inspection of the staff report only revealed that our Land Czar, Rob Zur Schmiede, is involved. The report and supporting documentation looks more like a Wall Street advertisement. Considering the lengths at which our Land Czar is selling this transfer in ownership, responsibility, and liability, I am concerned that there may be more than meets the eye.

The Parks and Recreation is bringing a policy change to council. Item #5 the amendment of the memorial tree and bench policy. The new policy will specifically help address requests from the family and friends of James Wernke and future memorial requests. This should have been addressed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at the November 17, 2008 meeting. Anyway, I look forward to seeing the Wernke memorial soon!

Next we jump into a public hearing before the council. Item #6 is the 2010 five-year consolidated plan and 2010 one-year action plan. We wouldn’t need to have this hearing but Ol’ Doc Hee Haw keeps grabbing at that Federal HUD money which has this string attached. It’s not a bad idea to have a plan before you act but it seems Ol’ Doc (literally) and others (figuratively) are asleep at the meetings. There are over 200 supporting pages to this single item. How many council members will actually read all of them? Maybe someone should ask them since it is a public hearing! There is a lot of money being considered and loans that need to be repaid. (See page 4 of the 221-page document) Some of the money will to service providers of important services to the community (like Meals On Wheels) but shouldn’t the service providers be going after these grants without involving the City?

Item #7 is the first item of regular business. This is the proposed revised budget for FY2010-2011. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the proposed revised budget says it all: “The General Operating Funds budget is not balanced.”

There is also a lengthy PR/defense piece on tax increments and the Redevelopment Agency. The statement also makes some broad assumptions about the financial lifecycles that occur in redevelopment districts. City staffers imply that the Redevelopment Agency knows best how to generate tax revenue. The staff report closes with the following: “In 2006, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency merged its four project areas. More recently, the Agency amended the Merged Fullerton Project Area to add 1,165acres. The amendment is currently in litigation.”

The City will still need to cut $3,260,000 from the $184,000,000 budget, if you believe everything you read. Keep your eyes open for the June 1, 2010 meeting and public hearing.

Item #8 is the Memorandum of Agreement with the Fullerton Municipal Employees Federation. Employees will take a 5% cut in pay. Thanks! I didn’t see a pension spike but I also didn’t read all 74 pages of the memo.

Item #9 is more of the same but addresses police and safety. They are also taking a 5% cut in pay to which I say thanks! The memo is 103 pages and I wasn’t able to get every page digested. Please let us know if you find anything in it that we should be aware of.

Item #10 is the fire fighter’s bargaining memo. Unfortunately, the firefighters didn’t want to take a cut in pay like the rest of the world so the fire chief concocted some way to cut shifts that would work out to about a 5% reduction. The City said no thanks. Due to the impasse between the City and the FFA, they will be using mediation as the dispute resolution procedure. I say thanks to the chief for trying and a big NO THANKS to the Fullerton Firefighter’s Association!

Look out for these exciting opportunities to see your tax dollars in action:

MAY 11, 2010 – Adjourned Regular Meeting – 5 pm

Public Hearing – Coyote Hills

MAY 18, 2010 (partial list)

Purchase of Used Fire Truck
Closed Session – Property Negotiations – Fox Block
Fox Block Extension of ENA
St. College Grade Separation Change Order
Public Hearing – State College Underground Utility District
Bid Award Commonwealth Avenue Storm Drain
Bid Award Water Main Sys. Replacement/Sewer & St. Improv. 2009-10
Bid Award Water Main Sys. Replacement 2009-10 (Lemon St.)
Bid Award Refurbishment of Police Department Elevators