Knock yourselves out.
No, it’s not the Fullerton Observer itself, but it is a story related by Stikia Kennedy on that unfortunate publication’s blog. The post seems to have vanished, as is sometimes the case when it suits the publisher/CEO. In this instance it caught the attention of Mr. F.L. Olmstead before it was dispatched; and he sent it to me.
It seems that a local resident named Jensen Hallstrom has been jumping a short wrought iron fence to make homemade repairs to the big slab of redwood dedicated to veterans. It’s in Hillcrest Park not far from the Isaac Walton lodge.
Mr. Hallstrom has been seen at local City Council meetings sharing his personal efforts to repair damaged and missing names. That was was a big mistake, for apparently he has been issued a cease and desist letter from the City, to and from his trespass and his activity.
Ever the intrepid partisan, Shakira Kennedy seizes upon this David and Goliath tale to spin a yarn about it is somehow the result of the ethics of the Council majority, honesty, transparency and yakkity yak yak yak. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Kennedy that Fullerton parks staff just hates it when private citizens do unsupervised stuff in City parks, and no political interference is necessary. That fight’s been going on for 35 years, without a peep by two generations of Observers.
Anyhow, Mr. Hallstrom should also know better. He got into a squabble with the City a few years back over the impromptu and unauthorized “native garden” he planted along the Hiltscher Trail. This latest effort seems to suggest a fundamental immaturity on his part.
Shiitake Kennedy’s older sister Sharon even put in an appearance in the comments to decry the event and wonder aloud if Jones and Mayer didn’t have anything better to do than to get the City involved in more legal activity in which they get to bill more hours.
Now that’s ironic. Did either of the Kennedy’s raise an objection about the legal costs associated with the idiotic lawsuit against this blog that was approved by a liberal Council majority? Did any Observers call out the enormous waste of legal fees involved in the foolish and Air Combat lawsuit caused by an incompetent Airport Director who couldn’t understand his own lease? Of course not.
Accountability doesn’t apply to the left-leaning Democrats favored by the Kennedy Sisters whose gaze becomes myopic when dealing with the likes of Ahmad Zahra, Jan Flory, Jesus Quirk Silva and their ilk.
Why this post was pulled is anybody’s guess. Maybe it will mysteriously pop up in the Register.
The City of Fullerton has issued a press release to address the recent revelation that $10,000,000 was erroneously counted in general reserves when it really belonged in special restricted categories. Peruse this soporific and condescending verbiage and see if you can read a single reference to City employees having made a mistake, honest or otherwise.
Alternatively, take an Ambien and relax. Everything’s gonna be fine.
City of Fullerton Budget Update
At the March 17, 2026, City Council meeting, City staff presented an agenda item titled “Second Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–26 and Mid-Year Budget Adjustments.” The purpose of this item was to provide an overview of the City’s financial position through mid-year FY 2025–26, report on revenues and expenditures from July 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, and present the updated financial position based on the finalized FY 2024–25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Following this presentation, the City would like to provide additional context and clarification to support a clear and shared understanding of the information discussed.
The City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2024–25 budget on June 4, 2024, which included a planned structural deficit of approximately $9.4 million. As part of that budget, it was understood that the City would utilize a portion of its reserves—similar to drawing from savings—to balance the difference between revenues and expenditures. This approach was discussed publicly during the budget adoption process.
Throughout FY 2024–25, the City took steps to manage costs, including holding vacant positions and limiting expenditures where feasible. As a result of these efforts, the City reduced the actual year-end operating deficit to approximately $5.7 million, reflecting ongoing attention to fiscal responsibility.
At the close of Fiscal Year 2024–25, the City’s General Fund—the primary operating fund used to provide essential services such as police, fire, parks, and infrastructure—reported a total fund balance of $30.0 million. A fund balance can be thought of as the City’s overall savings. Of this amount, $19.8 million is held in the City’s contingency reserve, which serves as the City’s emergency fund to maintain services during economic uncertainty or unexpected events.
A portion of the City’s fund balance—approximately $10.2 million—is categorized as restricted, committed, or assigned for specific purposes. During the fiscal year, approximately $2.7 million was more clearly designated within these categories, increasing the allocated portion of the City’s savings from approximately $7.5 million to $10.2 million. These funds support important community priorities such as capital improvements, General Plan updates, Downtown parking, and street and infrastructure improvements, including road repairs. These funds remain part of the City’s overall financial resources but are set aside for their intended purposes.
Additionally, a $2.9 million prior-period adjustment identified through the City’s independent audit was related to the proper classification of assets between the General Fund and the Successor Agency. This adjustment ensures that funds are reflected in the appropriate account in accordance with accounting standards. The funds were not lost or misspent, but rather properly reallocated.
At the end of FY 2024–25, the City’s contingency reserve was approximately 14% of annual General Fund expenditures, which is above the City’s minimum policy requirement of 10%, though below the long-term goal of 17%. Based on current projections, the City is anticipated to end FY 2025–26 with approximately 12% in reserves, which remains within policy guidelines.
There has also been discussion regarding a potential 2% reserve level. It is important to clarify that this figure represents a baseline, starting position in the City’s long-term financial forecast, assuming no changes to current revenues or expenditures. It is neither the City’s current condition nor its expected outcome. As part of the upcoming budget process, the City Manager will present options during public budget study sessions to reduce the funding gap and improve reserve levels over time, ensuring the City remains on a path toward long-term financial stability.
The City’s financial outlook reflects broader trends impacting many communities, including rising costs for labor, materials, and services. At the same time, revenues remain stable, with property tax revenues increasing by 6.23% due to growth in assessed property values.
To help illustrate, the City’s finances can be compared to a household budget. Revenues function like a paycheck, expenses represent the cost of essential services, and the fund balance serves as savings. Over the past year, the City used a portion of its savings to support planned expenditures, while continuing to maintain an emergency reserve. Moving forward, the City is focused on aligning ongoing revenues and expenses to support long-term financial sustainability.
The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) referenced above is the City’s official year-end financial report and is independently audited. In simple terms, it is similar to a household’s year-end financial statement—it shows how much money came in, how much was spent, and how much remains in savings, along with how those funds are designated.
Looking ahead, the City will continue to evaluate cost containment strategies, operational efficiencies, and potential revenue opportunities, which will be discussed during upcoming public budget study sessions along with updates to the City’s multi-year financial forecast.
In summary, the City of Fullerton’s financial position reflects a planned and publicly approved use of savings to address a budget gap, along with standard accounting updates to ensure funds are properly tracked. No money was lost, missing, or improperly spent. Approximately $2.7 million was reclassified to reflect funds set aside for specific purposes—such as road repairs and capital projects—and a $2.9 million adjustment was made to the appropriate account for those funds. The City ended FY 2024–25 with 14% in reserves and is projected to have about 12% this year, both above the City’s minimum requirement. The 2% figure referenced in recent discussions reflects the City’s baseline financial outlook if no changes are made to current spending or revenue levels, underscoring the importance of taking action. The City is actively working to reduce the budget gap and strengthen its financial position moving forward.
The City of Fullerton remains committed to transparency and keeping the community informed. Residents are encouraged to review financial documents available on the City’s website and participate in the budget process.
The Fullerton City Council agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is pretty light. Except for a budget discussion everything is “Consent Calendar.” One of those items caught my attention. Item #10 is an emergency, non-bid request to work on some drainage channel wedged between the Uptown Apartments on Yorba Linda and the 57 CalTRANS right-of-way.
Staff is claiming the project (whose scope isn’t described, other than “a damaged wall”) is necessary due to “recent rain events,” always a useful pretext for doing stuff. The channel isn’t one of those big ones with perpendicular walls, but from a satellite view it looks like a simple concrete “V” ditch that enters and exits a concrete drain structure.
It must look something like this, right? A concrete “V” in cross section with woven wire mesh or thin rebar. Has a part of the been washed out or undermined? Who knows? We just know there’s some sort of damage, and I’d bet the “recent rain events” are an excuse for a long-developing issue.
Here’s a google earth view of a portion of the the existing “V” ditch that is either buried or washed out.
This is the funny part. The City Engineer has estimated a construction cost of $105,000, but with an overhead of almost 20%. That’s ridiculous. At $100 an hour for staff time we’d be looking at 200 manhours, or one person working on nothing else for five weeks. The design is negligible since you can just sketch a plan and pull a cross section and specs out of the Green Book or other standard sources, like I did, above. Administration? Processing? You’ve got to be kidding. And then there’s the amount budgeted for “contingencies.” $75,000, or 75% of the construction amount. So they really don’t know what the scope is and are expecting surprises.
If I were on the City Council I would be asking staff about these figures. They don’t make sense, at least not on the surface. Something is going on.
When the 57 freeway was built this drainage flow was created by a giant berm, but I have to wonder how and why the City created a drainage right-of-way on what appears to be the CalTRANS right-of-way, or on private land since the property looks like a jagged remnant of the State’s freeway land acquisitions.
Someone might also reasonably inquire into how come this thing is an emergency at all. That seems awfully strange. The rainy season is virtually over and the amounts of water collected here seem pretty insignificant.
But back to the finances. The problem with all municipal public works budgets are the amount used to cover staff expenses and overhead, and this, normally around 10% or more, is already padded. If you think about it, money from infrastructure funds are being used and abused to support to bureaucracy instead of pouring concrete.
The amounts in this instance are small, but they are indicative of an ongoing philosophy of abusing Capital Improvement budgets. Some might argue that unused funds will simply be returned to the fund from which they came. Could be. But how would anybody know?
No, of course not. The truth is not in him. If it were he would have explained how he, the first gay Muslim in America married a local woman in Arkansas to jump the Green Card line.
The Damascus Dodger is featured in a three part interview with Stiskia Kennedy in the Fullerton Observer. It’s an opportunity for the Kennedy Sisters to give the scam artist another of their tongue baths and to avoid anything that resembles the truth about Zahra and his career, a career that resembles a jailbreak more than anything else.
“In a recent discussion, I spoke with Fullerton City Council Member Ahmad Zahra about his role and responsibilities. We engaged in a Q&A session that delved into the challenges and rewards of serving the community at the municipal level. “
First Satkia wants to know how to stand up to influential donors. Suddenly Tony Bushala’s unseen presence fills the room. Zahra’s response? He lies of course. Naturally, Zahra is a profile in courage, standing up to the “special interests” over whom he prevailed in his two elections. This demanded his “wisdom and thick skin.” This history is false, of course. Nobody knew who he was in 2018 and he slipped in past a couple others; naturally he ignores the facts of his 2022 run when his victory was not won on any issues, but by spending $120,000. And then there was his recruitment of Tony Castro, the dummy Latino candidate who the OC Dems set up to take votes away from Oscar Valadez. Oops.
Stikia follows up with campaign finance. Zahra complains about political action committees and the poor plight of the “community-focused” candidate (presumably just like him). No questions are asked or answered about Zahra’s big campaign donors, just as the Kennedy Sisters never bothered to ask who gave money to Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo in 2024, and what they hoped to get out of it. The cannabis workers’ PAC gave $60,000 to help Cannabis Kitty, but that’s not the sort of mean, nasty PAC Zahra has in mind.
Zahra says his opponents spent more than he did and he still won in 2022. That’s a lie, too, but he knows the Sisters won’t check him on it. Dredging up another Fullerton Boohoo gripe about Mr. Bushala, Zahra bemoans the fact that donations can be returned so that councilmembers can vote on the donor’s project. This is reference to Councilwoman Jamie Valencia’s return of money to Bushala before the vote on the stupid Walk on Wilshire in which Bushala had no legal interest. That return wasn’t even necessary per state law so why is this a problem?
Staksia’s last question is about ranked choice voting about which her interlocutor knows nothing and doesn’t care. He wants to curb “unethical practices” by PACs, saying nothing about the fraudulent candidates Tony Castro and Scott Markowitz whom his party set up so their pals like Zahra and Jaramillo could get elected in Fullerton. And that betrays Zahra’s true feelings about the community he pretends to love so much.
Fullerton may be on the verge of financial crisis, but let it not be said that creative ways for its employees to stay busy aren’t possible, if you can find “other peoples’ money” to do it. We’ve seen it in spades on the ridiculous Trail to Nowhere, built mostly with money from an unaccountable and irresponsible State agency whose only observable job is to give away money with no answers to questions even checked for truthfulness.
The next silly project in line comes to us courtesy of the State Legislature, again, in the form of AB 1572 that mandates that “non-functional” turf can’t be watered with potable water. Municipalities are first on the hit list, and that includes the formal lawn in front of City Hall. The item is on tomorrows Council meeting agenda.
The City can declare that the City Hall lawn is functional and walk away. Oh, but that won’t do! We have to get rid of the grass and replace it with drought resistant plantings of some sort or other. This strategy scratches the itch of those who feel moral gestures are more important that facts, who love big government mandates, no matter how footling, and those who want city staff to be happy and productive.
The City thoughtfully promulgated a call for ideas from the citizenry in a press release a couple of months ago. Re-imagine the municipal front yard! A blank slate! A blue sky! The world is your oyster! Presumably your idea will save water and respect the ecosystem, etc., etc. Grateful citizens sent in pictures of idyllic succulented and lavendered walkways!
At least one submission had a sense of the ridiculous nature of this nonsense.
A giant Hornet and a giant Titan! Come to think of it, maybe this suggestion was serious, Fullerton being Fullerton.
But there is no money budgeted, alas! What to do? Well a budget transfer from Water Non-Rate Revenue funds can be tapped. I have no idea where this money would even come from, the Water Fund being supplied by rate payers. Another option to pay for the new, giant cactus garden is to apply for, and get, a grant from the Metropolitan Water District, one of those huge, opaque agencies that practically answer to nobody.
I have to wonder what the ultimate savings would be water-wise, and what the existing cost of watering the grass is. The fact that the City uses free water paid for by the rate payers has always been an issue and naturally no facts about the acre foot volume or the cost to the rate payers are included in Tuesday’s staff report. No data will be presented except the results of the survey done to solicit public opinion.
I could make the pitch that the reflecting pool, steps and lawn were part of a neo-formal aesthetic that went along with the 1962 building, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. Somebody has decided that the pool and the grass is offensive to modern sensibility, and provides an opportunity to engage the public in a feel-good Kabuki drama.
At next Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council meeting Eddie Manfo. Acting City Manager will be hired by the City Council to fill the job formally.
He will get $305,000 per year as base pay, plus a cornucopia of benefits that amount to, well, a helluva lot of money. Does he get to keep his current pension?
He’s quasi-at-will until this November, after which he gets nine months’ severance if fired.
Apparently there are at least three votes for Manfro’s appointment, but the sledding will not be without some controversy. Manfor was one of four Fullerton hires post COVID that attracted the negative attention of CalPERS, the State’s public employee retirement system. Once you officially retire there are limits to what you can do for employment inside the system. I don’t know what is required to unretire yourself so maybe Manfro has done that.
However, the CalPERS controversy, such as it is, is bound to arouse the indignation of certain elements in Fullerton Boohoo/Crazy who will use any opportunity, no matter how slim, to impugn the Jung/Dunlap/Valencia troika; the Kennedy Sisters, for instance, continue to bemoan the loss of “excellent” City Manager Ken Domer the incompetent stooge of Jennifer Fitzgerald, and wail about all subsequent replacements.
Friends may remember the name: Sukhee Kang. Sukhee is one of those common cases where political ambition to hold office leaps far ahead of ability or commonsense.
Way back in 2016 Sukhee quit Irvine where he had been a Larry Agran flunky on the city council and bought himself a mini-McMansion on a Fullerton golf course, behind a security gate. Remember? Mr. Kang’s lust for higher office caused him to carpetbag in order to run for the State Senate. I seem to remember one of his lackeys in Irvine defended this foolishness as a sensible “empty nester” move and downsizing on the part of Sukhee and Mrs. Sukhee.
As usual, Sukhee had a phony ballot designation as an educated (he taught some made-up footling class at Chapman) and he was an author, too, producing a self-published biography. Sukhee promoted the fact that he was a veteran, although it turned out it wasn’t of our army.
Sukhee had all the usual endorsements – loads of Dem politicians, the sort of thing we now know is almost worthless. But Kang didn’t reckon with FFFF or Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform. He came in third and it was sayonara, Sukhee.
Anyhow, we learned shortly thereafter that the empty nesters had flown the coop – back to Irvine, demonstrating the bullshit of the rationalization.
Now Kang has kangaroo’d back into politics. He’s running for the Irvine City Council, a sad attempt of a 75 year old man to be relevant. It’s even sadder than an old dude trying to be important. The Irvine Council now has seven seats instead of five, and poor sad sack Sukhee has to run for a paltry district seat now.
Irvine District 1 residents may not even remembers this creep’s ditching Irvine just to run for an available office in a whole other town. Hopefully an opponent will remind them of Sukhee’s stay in Fullerton.
A number of women’s group got together to buy some trees to be planted in the County’s Ralph Clark Regional Park. This effort produced a self-congratulatory press release by the Women’s Club.
Well, so far so good. Except for one thing. Pathetic perpetual candidate for office and admitted petty thief, Paulette Chaffee, has weaseled her way into yet another group photo.
There she is in her pretty pink sweater pretending to use a shovel at the ceremonial ground breaking (for a tree).
But even that’s not the problem, per se. The real issue is identified in the Women’s Club press release text, wherein we read:
Representatives from several of the participating groups attended the ceremonial groundbreaking, along with Mike Wilson, Deputy Director of OC Parks, and Paulette Chaffee, Fourth District Ambassador.
Wilson emphasized the importance of community partnerships in maintaining healthy public spaces. “Our parks thrive when community members take an active role in caring for them,” he said. “These new trees will benefit visitors for generations to come.”
Chaffee echoed that sentiment. “It is wonderful when community groups come together to purchase replacement trees and help out in this way,” she said. “Everyone loves OC Parks and we can all appreciate the beauty of the trees.”
Now we discover that Mrs. Chaffee’s presence, whatever her clubby associations may be, is in attendance in her role of “4th District Ambassador” a completely fake job created by her husband, the odious rodent Doug, who happens to be our 4th District County Supervisor. She got herself a mention and even one of those fatuous quotations that are only believed to be genuine expressions by imbeciles.
Pilferin’ Paulette has been photo bombing official photo ops courtesy of Doug for the better part of ten years in order to help her visibility in her various runs for office. So far the strategy doesn’t seem to have helped much, but it sure hasn’t been for lack of trying. This year her electoral attempt is for the North Orange County Community College Board of Trustees, so we can expect to stumble over a lot of images of the 4th District Ambassadress in the coming months.
My personal opinion is that the less people see of Mrs. Chaffee, the better she is likely to to at the polls.
Item 1 on the Closed Session agenda looks a lot like this:
Since right now we have an “Acting” City Manager, Eddie Manfro, I think we can surmise that this is either an item to select a replacement or to appoint a permanent City Manager, who might be Manfro himself.
Manfro has held a bunch of jobs in Fullerton since his retirement as City Manager in Westminster, a situation that has caused a complaint from CalPERS, the State public employees retirement system, that is currently the subject of possible litigation.
Since I am not privy to the closed door doings of the City Council, it is possible that interviews with other candidates have taken place since the last City Manager, Eric Levitt ditched Fullerton for San Bernardino last summer. If the CM job was posted, it isn’t anymore.
On the face of it, the Fullerton City Manager job can’t be an enviable one what with the looming financial crisis and the roads being the worst in Orange County. Still, the job remuneration will be exceedingly high, and the accountability, as we have seen over the past four City Managers, exceedingly low.
If a decision is made next Tuesday we will be informed at the start of the public meeting.