Watch Your Wallet – Page 3 – Friends For Fullerton's Future

April 28, 2026May 4, 2026Ahmad Zahra

Derek Smith and the Budget Sustainability Committee

Reading all that Das Kapital stuff will give a young lad a headache…

The Fullerton Boohoo claque has made a big deal about how Tony Bushala is unfit to be on the ad hoc Budget Sustainability Committee. His disqualification? He is involved in politics. He is a “rent seeker” in the words of Tender Young Elijah Manisserro, who remarkably is not ashamed at being a dedicated Marxist in the 21st Century. Bushala has a conflict of interest, these people keep bleating.

Tony’s real offense is that he has money and is willing to spend it to keep aggressive imbeciles like Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo from getting into office; and for that he has gained the animus of the Damascus Dodger, Ahmad Zahra and his small collection of sycophants.

But Mr. Bushala is not the point of this post. Rather it is another member of the Committee, one Derek Smith.

Mr. Smith is Ahmad Zahra’s personal appointee to the group, and has a lot of interest in Fullerton’s budget. Why? Because he is the political lobbyist for the local union that represents marijuana dispensary employees. He is part of a coalition that has been trying to get these places legalized in Fullerton for years. Their point man is Ahmad Zahra who doesn’t seem to see a contradiction between dope use and his alleged Muslim convictions.

In the the 2024 District 4 election Smith’s union funded a political action committee dedicated to electing Cannabis Kitty. He funded it to the tune of $60,000 which included a $4,000 payment to Andre Charles, husband of councilmember Shana Charles. How come? To elect the pro-cannabis candidate who would re-instate the old dope law repealed in 2021.

That’s a lot of political activity, activity that has received zero scrutiny by the Fullerton Observer Sisters, Sharon and Sickia. Come to think of it, the delicate rose petal Elijah Manissero has never mentioned it either. How’s that for hypocritical “transparency?”

Moreover, Brother Smith is not an accountant, or a business owner, or a entrepreneur. Instead, he is a dedicated union functionary, virtually the last person I would want on a municipal budget sustainability committee. The apex of Smith’s business experience has been blowing through $60,000 of his members’ dues on Jaramillo. Did he know about the fraudulent Scott Markowitz campaign? I wonder.

Applying the rhetoric and logic of Fullerton’s boohoos would immediately disqualify Derek Smith from the Budget Sustainability Committee. Will anybody apply it? I wonder.

In the meantime Ahmad Zahra the eager messiah of marijuana in Fullerton has once again raised the topic. The issue isn’t dead as far as the dope lobby is concerned.

April 25, 2026April 26, 2026Ahmad Zahra

The Pickleball Diplomat

by Grover Cleveland20 Comments

Maldo poses in front of the empty “community garden.”

A couple months ago FFFF revealed the District 5 candidacy of one Jozef Maldonado. I didn’t know anything about the guy except that he had stood up at a council meeting to attack Mayor Fred Jung. That was telling and now the evidence is in.

Maldonado has a campaign website wherein he touts his vast, two-year experience on the Parks commission and shares how he championed the Trail to Nowhere and the useless UP Park projects – an aggregate waste of three million dollars of public money. He includes this unintentionally hilarious brag about his alleged contribution to the UP Park:

“And when conflict arose over a proposed pickleball court conversion, he brought both sides to the table and turned tension into trust.”

Wow! What an accomplishment. Tension to trust. Well, the pickleball courts are there so somebody lost.

Anyway, what’s really revealing is Jozef’s slate of endorsers, a veritable Who’s Who of Fullerton Boohoo and Fullerton Angry.

Ahmad Zahra (unemployed immigrant fraud)

Shana Charles (and her unemployed husband, Andre)

Ruthi Handcheck

Aaruni Thakur (friend of Scott Andre Charles and Scott Markowitz, some say)

Angry Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo

Angry Eye Doctor Anjali Tapadila

Steven Sherry (who starts every sentence with “Member of the Transportation Commission.”)

Soon we will probably see Jan Flory, Karen Lloreda and Diane Vena added to the list and hosannas from the Kennedy Sisters and the Fullerton Observer endorsement committee.

I once speculated that this guy could be another Democrat Party plant – like Tony Castro meant to drain votes from Oscar Valadez; and Scott Markowitz, there to take gringo votes from Linda Whitaker; in both cases to benefit the favored Dem Central candidate. This is obviously not the case. But Maldonado’s position in the community seems very thin; and Valadez has both a long-time business and a family with deep roots in D5.

We do learn that Jozef will be marrying his fiancé Ryan at the Hunt Library in November, after the rigors of the campaign, I guess. The point of sharing that information escapes me, other than to reveal he is gay without branding himself by it, like his endorser Ahmad Zahra.

April 22, 2026April 26, 2026A Manfro All Seasons

When is An Audit Not An Audit?

by The Fullerton Harpoon24 Comments

Well, there she goes. Don’t worry. There’s more where that came from…

When a misleading City of Fullerton agenda proclaims: “Introduction of Special Fiscal Audit – Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services.”

I assumed, wrongly, that somebody had already been hired to look into the misdirection of funds into the General Fund Reserves that should have gone some place else, a fact that has caused considerable embarrassment to our severely and habitually underinformed City Council. I also figured this firm was going to talk about what they found.

But no.

In fact, the firm of Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services were brought before the council by the City Manager, Eddie Manfro, simply to make a sales pitch for their services. And what services.

Step one is to be some sort of forensic accounting exercise, a fishing expedition to explore the world of Fullerton’s accounting regime to see what, if anything, is amiss. Nobody said anything, but there must have surely been some internal squirming when the company rep kept using the word “fraud.” And that included our Finance Director and recently anointed City Treasure, Steven Avalos who was sitting in the pit.

The second phase of GTRAS’s endeavor was to explore how the City might improve efficiencies, save money, and help address Fullerton’s grim fiscal situation. Why this all-purpose company was suggested for this task seems odd, the two tasks having nothing to do with one another.

I’ll address the first project first. Why is it necessary at all to delve into Fullerton’s accounting with an audit? We have been told that there were seemingly honest bookkeeping errors – embarrassing, sure and it did alter the already dire projection of General Fund reserve draw downs, but fear not, all was well. The councilmembers kept talking about transparency and public trust, but what does that really mean? Is this serious or just a political pantomime?

Consider the following facts. GTRAS was picked by the City Manager under his own authority and just brought to the council to give them a chance to ratify the decision. That’s a sole source contract, and the public has no idea how much they will be paid, and won’t without a PRA request. Will added scope to the $100,000 contract be reviewed by anybody except the City Manager and Steven Avalos? If some sort malfeasance were actually discovered – purely by accident, of course – would offender(s) names be published? Is any of this going to discussed in Closed Session because it touches on employee issues? Who knows? The Council approved the deal, without knowing whatever it is or might be.

As for the second part of GTRAS offer, the City Manager announced that would be returned to the Council for approval of a $130,000 deal. At least someone might get the chance to ask some pertinent questions, such as why is this “economic development” effort needed, given that Fullerton has highly paid staff who enjoy employment as economic developers. What have these people been doing and why do they need outside help. These people have been on the payroll for years. What have they accomplished?

Sunaya Thomas, in charge of economic development, was in attendance. Her presence at the meeting was an almost begging of the question about her own success in this endeavor, the effort of bureaucrats that never even pays for itself.

I wonder if GTRAS will actually suggest something that might help, outside of taxes. Personally, I doubt if their suggestions would even pay for their own service. That we will probably never know because no one will talk about it. This will be an agreement with no metrics for success or failure, just more electronic billboards and hotel occupancy taxes. Staff reductions? Getting rid of all our brand new “firefighters” and ambulance drivers? Don’t be ridiculous.

Anyhow our brave Council voted unanimously to proceed down this dark corridor, protesting their sincere desire to pursue those most elusive prey: transparency and public trust. No one said much about accountability. They never do.

April 20, 2026April 20, 2026Ahmad Zahra

An Audit Report

by The Fullerton Harpoon16 Comments

At tomorrow’s Fullerton City Council meeting, agenda item #1 features a report by the firm of Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services. They will present what the City is calling a “special fiscal audit.”

What does that mean, and what are the results? Unknown because there is no staff report – not even a little introductory prose. This is in keeping with former City communications regarding the recently revealed erroneous assignments of millions into General Fund reserves – money that was supposed to go elsewhere. The last post FFFF did on this subject in March pointed out the condescending gobbledygook press release that emanated from City Hall. I believe this “audit” was commissioned to address the big errors and allay fears that some sort of malfeasance took place.

I hope that Messrs. Shawn Stewart and Charles Mayes (CPA) of Grant Thornton will present something real simple. Like maybe a diagram, or a flow chart to explain how these bogus transactions took place. Where did the money come from, where did it go, and when was it fixed? One hopes there will be no verbal or logical gymnastics to dodge assignment of responsibility. Does one hope in vain? And of course please let us know:

What are the true balances in General Fund and Capital Improvement Reserves.

Item #12 on the agenda is a report on staff vacancies and retention recruitment efforts required, as usual, by a nosey and intrusive State legislature. I’m not sure what the purpose of the law is, but the information contained in the report is worth considering. According to staff there are currently 65 vacancies, two thirds of which are non sworn, general public employees. 65 vacancies is about 10% of the total labor force.

In past years the vacancy rate has done as high as 25% in Fiscal Year 21/22.

Here’s the issue. How many of these vacant positions are included in the current 25/26 budget deliberations? All of them? Some cities use a “vacancy factor” in their budgeting – an estimate of how many vacancies will be unfilled in the fiscal year. Does Fullerton do this? They should if they don’t.

I also note that the labor force in Fullerton is up 7% since 22/23 even as dire predictions of the structural deficit were publicized. Why did this happen? The architect of past city budgets, City Manager Eric Levitt quit and took a higher paying job in San Bernardino last year so no answer will be forthcoming from him.

As an example of a recruitment the staff report includes this graphic from last fall:

An Associate Planner goes for $84K to $108K per annum – not counting benefits and pension costs, of course. If those are generally calculated at a modest 25% we can assume this Associate Planner will cost the taxpayers around $120,000 a year, which I think is fairly reasonable.

If we assume the average total cost of those 65 vacant positions is, say, a conservative $100,000, then we are looking at an annual cost of $6,500,000. That closes a lot of budget deficit, right there.

Pro sales tax advocates will claim there is a vital quality-of-life issue at stake, as if the number of public employees in City Halls guarantees such a concept; these vacant jobs are key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in Fullerton. The same alliance of cops, “firefighters” and local City Hall camp followers who pushed Measure S in 2020 will claim it to be so. These are the same folks who get guaranteed defined benefit pensions, step pay increases, etc. They make no sacrifices and are rarely asked to do so. That task falls upon the citizenry.

April 16, 2026April 16, 2026About Us

Taking Out The Trash Thursday

by The Fullerton Harpoon23 Comments

On Tuesday the Fullerton City Council voted 3-2 to expand the finalists for the trash hauling contract from three to six. Staff had recommended solely negotiating with EDCO of Signal Hill and points south, even though the difference in scoring between the top three was de minimis, as they say. As a back-up recommendation staff requested the City work with the top three as finalists.

Councilmembers Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap voted to include three more for continued negotiations, including Valley Vista, and our current hauler, the giant Republic Services. For Mayor Jung the critical qualification was cost. Naturally, the obstructionists “Dr.” Zahra and the absent Shana Charles voted no.

Included in the “supplemental agenda” materials were an email to the Council and a written statement from Mr. Jeffrey Otter, Treasurer for the Craig Park East Homeowners Association, and a professional engineer, to boot. Mr. Otter gives his take that the process pursued by the City has inherent risk, legally, cost-wise, and in terms of negotiating weakness.

Otter goes into more detail in a written statement presented to the Council wherein he repeats his email conclusions and requests an independent “Cost of Service Analysis” to identify rate correction factors across various types of properties; in other words comparing oranges and oranges. His own analysis identifies the most overall cost-effective firms: Valley Vista, NASA and EDCO. He thoughtfully provides his own backup materials and data. Of course his diligent efforts will get him nowhere.

Otter also identifies an interesting fact. EDCO’s Marketing Director is a person named Duron. Apparently Fullerton’s Solid Waste and Recycling Specialist is a woman named Michelle Anna Duron. Is this just a curious coincidence or a possible familial conflict of interest? When asked who was on the evaluation committee the Stephen Bise, the City Engineer identified himself, Richard Armendariz, Assistant Director of Public Works Maintenance; Jerome Joaquin, Public Works Administrative Manager; Olivia Martinez, Environmental Services Coordinator; and Kim Chaudry, Senior Management Analyst. No Duron, although Michelle Anne Duron’s contribution to the overall process no doubt have provided influence.

I can’t find a Duron on ECDO’s dismal website, but Octavio Duran is identified in the EDCO proposal thus: Mr. Octavio Duran, Director of Market Development, has 15 years of EDCO industry experience and will oversee direct engagement with the City of Fullerton. His primary office is in Signal Hill. Mr. Duran will spend approximately 30% of his time on the transition and 25% on an ongoing basis.

So go figure.

Anyhow the dance is far from over. Valley View has incurred the wrath of Fullerton Boohoo because they contributed to the Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform PAC who torpedoed the odious Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo in the 2024 election, an act that should bestow honor rather than opprobrium.

Marvelously, Zahra and Charles seem to think that Valley Vista’s political involvement should disqualify Jamie Valencia from participating in the process because the PAC caused her election, even though they didn’t give Valencia a nickel – a species of childing logic not worthy of an adult. I note in passing that Charles got $4000 from the cannabis workers union PAC in 2024 and wonder if that disqualifies her to vote on pot issues.

April 14, 2026May 4, 2026Ahmad Zahra

The Doctor is In

by Mr. Peabody23 Comments

Some skeptical folks in Fullerton have long wondered aloud if 5th District Councilman Ahmad Zahra is really a doctor. His acolytes and camp followers in the Fullerton Observer call him “doctor” and he doesn’t correct them. Still there’s no evidence that he ever practiced medicine, so the skeptics had some reason to wonder, given Zahra’s ever shifting “origin narrative” and omission of salient features of his past – like the gay man’s stop over in Little Rock, Arkansas to marry…a woman.

But now the truth will out. The FFFF Research Department has done a deep dive into photographic evidence and discovered unequivocal proof of Zahra’s doctorhood.

Unless it was Halloween.

April 13, 2026April 16, 2026Ahmad Zahra

Take Out The Trash Tuesday

by The Fullerton Harpoon12 Comments

Tomorrow evening a special session of the Fullerton City Council will review responses to a Request for Proposals for a new trash hauling contract.

It seems sort of mundane, but the issue is big. Really big. The amounts of money at stake are enormous and the contracts typically run for years and years – as we have seen with our current provider Republic Services.

Won’t look you in the eye while you’re trashing him…

An ad hoc committee of Fred Jung and Jamie Valencia were involved in reviewing this process although their contributions aren’t really known. We do do now that the evaluation of the responses and subsequent interviews resulted in these rankings.

15 scoring categories, somewhat weighted to proposed rates, were the basis of the evaluation.

The winning score was earned by EDCO, based in Lemon Grove, down in San Diego County with an office in Signal Hill. CC&R, based in nearby Stanton placed a close second. Universal Waste, based in Santa Fe Springs was a close third. The lowest score was given to trash giant Republic, with whom the City has been having issues for years both in labor impacts and environmental compliance under SB1383 (organic waste recovery).

I have no idea how much lobbying of councilmembers has been going on, but I assume it’s been significant.

Tomorrow night we should have an interesting show since Fullerton Boohoo is mad at Valley Vista Services for contributing to the PAC that torpedoed the candidacy of Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo. Ahmad Zahra’s followers and the Kennedy Sisters are sure to bring this up.

March 21, 2026March 21, 2026Behind Closed Doors

Don’t Worry, Be Happy!

by The Fullerton Harpoon15 Comments

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.

March 20, 2026March 20, 2026A Manfro All Seasons

$10,000,000 Misdirected; Budget Crisis Suddenly Gets Worse

by The Fullerton Harpoon26 Comments

At Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council meeting our honorable elected representatives found out that our fiscal reserve funds were overpopulated with bucks that belonged someplace else. I haven’t been able to view the video – the City Clerk’s link doesn’t work – so I’m relying on a Voice of OC article.

It seems monies that should have gone to Fullerton’s Redevelopment Successor Agency and other sequestered funds were being counted in the general fund reserve pool – $10,000,000 worth. How and why this occurred wasn’t spelled out in the article except as some sort of accounting error:

“These funds remain part of the city’s overall fund balance, but are now set aside in a way that better reflects their intended purpose,” said Steven Avalos, the city’s finance director, at Tuesday night’s meeting.

Mr. Steven Avalos, Fullerton’s New City Treasurer

Wow, that’s an application of bureaucratic soft soap, massaging what amounts to an egregious accounting error, or worse.

What it means is that all previous budget discussions led by Mr. Avalos and his predecessor have been nonsense for the past 5 years. And decisions in just the past year obliviously come into sharper focus for their foolishness – like going in-house with ambulance drivers and hiring a bunch of new, permanent “firefighters” based on a one-time FEMA grant. Parenthetically, I note that Mr. Avalos was appointed City Treasurer earlier in the Tuesday meeting. That’s a bit funny, really.

The Voice reports heated and loud interlocutions between Ahmad Zahra, the perpetual grandstander, liar, and victim, in exchanges with Mayor Fred Jung and Nick Dunlap. The exchanges as reported generated a lot more heat than light, but so it is when Zahra begins his sanctimonious routine. Ironically Zahra says a new sales tax increase won’t help.

We are informed by the article that City Manager Eddie Manfro is going to meet with the ad hoc Budget Sustainability Committee on March 30th which seems like just a stall of 12 days.

One interesting statement was uttered by Jung in a Voice interview:

“I think we were set up to fail.”

We don’t know what this means because apparently the reporter didn’t follow up. Does the Mayor believe this misallocation of funds was deliberate to create a budget crisis at some point? Who knows?

Things are grim in City Hall, and a cactus garden in front isn’t going to cheer anybody up.

March 16, 2026March 16, 2026Behind Closed Doors

Small Stuff Adds Up

by Fullerton Engineer24 Comments

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?