In Brief 5-30-2006
Staff Reports
San Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE
City manager gets a raise
The City Council has amended City Manager Tom Schwab's contract.
Schwab, who became city manager in 1986, will receive a 20 percent salary increase from $125,000 to $150,000 a year.
He also will get annual cost-of-living increases based on changes in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Despite the raise, Schwab said his salary remains lower than many surrounding cities. A survey of 13 cities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties shows the average city manager earns about $180,000 a year, Schwab said.
The council approved the contract amendment at its meeting last week.
He was the negotiator for the Dodson property. Mrs Dodson is his sister-in-law and Carlstrom has a relative of his living in the house now, a city owned property, (I wonder who pays for the upkeep of the property and what the rent is) he is also Maryetta Ferre CAMPAIGN manager past and present. SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN IN THE ROOM DURNING THE DEAL.
Are you starting to catch on here John Q Public.Mrs. Ferre is not above using taxpayers dollars to benefit her friends and a lot of them. No wonder she violated the Brown Act as Councilman Hilkey stated at a Council meeting that the Dodson deal was done in ten minutes and Mayor Ferre lied when they came out of closed session and said there was no reportable action taken. Mr. Hilkey was angry and stated the City paid too much for the property and the City did not need the Dodson property. It was a favor to Carlstrom.
The City paid $540,000 more than what the property was listed, for that favor to Carlstrom. The property was listed for $750,000 and Mayor Ferre settled on $1,290,000 as what appears to be a political payoff to Carlstrom. Tom Schwab was the negotiator for the City with the Council. Mr. Hilkey voted against it and informed the community about it. Something Mrs. Ferre thinks is none of the voters business. Any guess as to what Carlstrom's commission was. What percentage do real estate agents make now.
I would guess he was paid more than what one of his employees would get.
In the budget minutes Councilman Hilkey expressed concern that Schwab is spending the 20% set aside for low income housing. What is he it spending it on? It's not supposed to be spent on anything but low income housing. The City is not to use RDA money for the operation of the City. It's illegal. I'm sure the Mayor will get right on this as soon as someone explains it to her. Here's a money saving idea. Find a different negotiator for the City. One that has the taxpayerÂ’s best interest at heart. Not the "good ol boys" and developers first, citizens last type.
I read Ferre's outburst in both papers on the long over due recalls. It is the same thing she said when she was against the voters choosing a Mayor with Measure E. Measure E passed overwhelmingly. Mrs. Ferre thinks the citizens or other council members have no business or right asking questions about what she does as Mayor.
This in effect was brought out at the last Council meeting by Miller and Hilkey when again they explained she just can't make up laws that don't' exist to stifle the council or the citizens. Mr. Miller read her the law and she appeared disinterested. This is what she has done trying to govern and stop free speech. The Citzens should be outraged. The Bill of Rights assures us the right to address our government. Mrs. Ferre takes that right from every American at every meeting.
In the last election the vote spread between Mrs. Ferre and the person that came in fourth, was less than three hundred votes. Mrs. Ferre and Garcia were not elected by an overwhelming margin. They were less than three hundred and less than two hundred respectively.
Supporters of recall:
So we have a recall petition. If this makes the ballot, and If these two individuals are recalled, I'll have to accept this as the will and voice of the people of Grand Terrace. And I will.
Here's the million dollar question!
*
I look forward to reading your statements, as mentioned above, because I predict that this recall never sees a voting box.
*
You in Gramps, ready to put the cards on the table? If the people choose to retain our two council members, will you respect that decision? No excuses.
*
Have a great weekend,
*Brian
Brian, here is Granpa's Answer:
In this country even the "PEOPLE" can be wrong... I can hold my opinion, and practice my civil rights and be just as wrong as the "PEOPLE" I do not have to submit and give up. History is littered with examples of when the minority view ended up being right, and the Majority was Wrong. So no I make no such agreement. The document to recall only needed 10 signatures, there were 20. More were wanting to sigh, and will.
Don't blame the folks who have filed the suit. They are trying to get the Governing Individuals and City Management to follow the law and the city rules that have been established for ALL not just a select few to follow or to disregard at the whim of the City Manager,,, or Staff Recommendation. (Yes, we know who Staff is.)
Sure some of the city council may whine that a few people are picking on them... or the city, but these issues are in fact central to your individual rights as property owners, and citizens. When the City chooses to put a zone or plan overlay on your property it limits your full enjoyment or discretion to fully enjoy the right to property ownership and the pursuit of happiness, in addition limits or could limit the value of your property by artificially limiting the number of prospective buyers and future uses.
BUT, IF a Friend of the city comes up with a plan, restrictions and process are out the window. This is not how our government is supposed to work. The folks who have filed suit have done so to protect you from the oppression and ill deeds of this City Management and Council Members who permit the actions to go unchecked.
I have the document available in MS-Image File if you can read that type of file, I am still converting it to a TIF File... So if you want the entire thing please let me know...
The issues are the same as what were brought to the attention to the City Council prior to their voting to let the Essco Building go forward.
Recall in works
Grand Terrace council members told of effort
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE - A group of residents dissatisfied with the city's direction have launched an effort to remove two council members from office.
Bill Hays, a frequent council critic, handed notices of intent to recall petitions to Mayor Maryetta Ferre and Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia at Thursday night's meeting.
Ferre's and Garcia's terms are due to expire in November 2008.
Hays, 59, said he was asked by a substantial number of residents to present the recall notices.
"Some on the council have forgotten we have a representative form of government," Hays told the council. "You were elected to represent us, the taxpayers and voters of Grand Terrace. Sadly, the only people some of you have chosen to represent are the developers."
The petitions turned in by Hays each contained 20 signatures of Grand Terrace residents.
City Clerk Brenda Mesa has until June 8 to respond to the notices and ensure that other requirements are met, City Manager Tom Schwab said Friday.
If the notices are sufficient, the recall proponents will have 90 days to collect about 1,500 signatures, which equates to 25 percent of the city's roughly 6,000 registered voters, Schwab said.
The goal for the recall election is November, Hays said.
Hays said the recall campaign would have included Councilwoman Bea Cortes, but she is up for re-election in November and is likely to face opposition from other candidates.
Councilman Herman Hilkey, who is also running for re-election in November, and Councilman Jim Miller, whose term expires in 2008, are not targeted in the recall effort.
"Mr. Miller and Mr. Hilkey will listen to the citizens," Hays said Friday. "They are more willing than the others to work with the citizens and not treat them as the unwashed, huddled masses."
Hays said he was representing other residents who are afraid to speak out because they fear retaliation by the city.
Ferre said the recall effort is the product of a small group of people who don't represent the views of most residents.
"I think the people I know in Grand Terrace will look at this petition and say this is a distraction and is simply outrageous," Ferre said Friday. "The people who signed the petition are the same people who attack every project that's up for consideration. They attack the city staff, they make false accusations and they attack the council."
Recall proponents criticize Ferre and Garcia for supporting projects that negatively affect residents, including a proposed shopping center on Barton Road, an outdoor-themed retail center, a senior-housing complex and other developments.
They also accuse the council members of making inappropriate land deals behind closed doors and considering the use of eminent domain to build the shopping center.
"It's just been an accumulation of ignoring the wishes of the citizens," Hays said.
Garcia did not return calls seeking comment.
Ferre said she would address each of the complaints if the recall makes it on the ballot.
"Rest assured, I'll have no part of allowing a small group of people to make all the decisions for the 12,000 people who live here," Ferre said.
Recall intent given to mayor
GRAND TERRACE: A councilwoman is also named in the petitions, delivered Thursday.
10:00 PM PDT on Friday, May 26, 2006
By JULIE FARRENThe Press-Enterprise
GRAND TERRACE - The mayor and a council member were handed petitions Thursday notifying them that some citizens are working to oust them in what could be the city's first recall election.
Mayor Maryetta Ferre and Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia, who are up for re-election in November, are being singled out for reasons the petitions say include holding secret meetings and exposing the city to litigation through unnecessary developments. The petitions were delivered by city resident Bill Hays.
"Every allegation in this petition is false," Ferre said.
Hays would not identify the groups behind the recall effort. The notice-of-intent petitions were in city offices Friday, which were closed for the Memorial Day weekend.
However, Ferre said during Thursday's council meeting that the effort was organized by the same citizens who regularly attend council meetings to verbally attack city staff and projects the city is considering.
Garcia did not return several phone calls seeking comment Friday.
The recall also was spurred by residents' concerns that Ferre and Garcia do not adequately research topics before speaking at meetings.
"They do not read anything," Hays said. "They just take the city manager's recommendations and go with that."
City attorney John Harper said those behind the recall acted legally by serving the notices with the required number of signatures, a minimum of 10. They gathered 20.
The signatures must now be verified by City Clerk Brenda Mesa.
If the petition were declared valid, Ferre and Garcia would have 30 days to respond. The citizens could then prepare another petition that would include the responses and require 1,500 signatures to move forward, Hays and Cynthia Bidney, of Grand Terrace, said.
Once that is complete, the signatures would be checked. If valid, a recall election could be held, Harper, the city lawyer, said.
Grand Terrace has never had a recall, City Manager Tom Schwab said.
Approval of Form by Elections official Proponents must file two blank copies of the proposed petition with the appropriate elections official within ten days after filing of the answer to the Notice of Intention, or, if no answer is filed, within ten days after the expiration of the seven-day period for filing the answer.
discrepancies, the petition may be rejected.
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNCIL MEETING, in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MAY 25, 2006, GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER at 22795 Barton Road of the same city;
Citizen Bill Hays made the following statement and presentations:
Some on the Council have forgotten we have a representative form of government. You were elected to represent us. The taxpayers and voters of Grand Terrace, Sadly, it turns out, the only people some of you have chosen to represent are the developers.
From the on set of the OAC to Essco, at the last Council meeting, you have ignored hundreds of petition signatures and scores of citizens that have come into this podium seeking redress from their government.
At the last council meeting, as I mentioned, you ignored the law as it was explained to you by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Harper and allowed Councilwoman Cortes to force a vote that without a doubt will bring again another lawsuit onto the voters of Grand Terrace.
We feel that personal relationships between Council Members and City Management have clouded the judgment of some of you to the detriment of the citizens.
It therefore has become necessary, as is the right of the voters, to seek the removal from office of Mayor Maryette Ferre and Councilwoman Garcia.
Councilwoman Cortes would also have been included except election law would not allow it because she is up for re-election, should she decide to run. I will add that there are candidates we feel will defeat her in November and we will support them.
It is unfortunate that I stand here alone in place of many that fear retaliation by you and the City. I suspect I will no longer be welcomed on the traffic ad-hock Committee or will never see my curbs redlined. A small price to bring the voice of the citizen back to Grand Terrace. At this time with your permission, Mrs. Ferre I would like to approach the dais and serve you and Councilwoman Garcia with the signed Notice of Intent Petitions to Recall you both in November 2006."
From the Email InBox: .....
*******
CALL FOR HELP WITH THE RECALL... AND RELATED EFFORTS.......
The Next Step is to gather enough signatures to have the Recall put on the Ballot. That will be done at various public places, and events. If you have a desire to allow the issue to be put to the People Please Sign the Petition and Let the Public Vote.
More signatures will be needed, and your help in collecting signatures is also needed. Please contact yourlegacy2@yahoo.com by email with your contact information and events will be organized to collect signatures.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Important Conflict of Issues
ESSCO v Specific PlanAttorney, Raymond Johnson, who spoke at the City Council Meeting on May 11, 2006, stated that he had a fax confirmation stating that we did. He stated that one of the issues with the City is that sometimes the City Council will do one thing in public and then do something else when they think no one is looking. He feels that this project is a prime example.
The project that is proposed is not consistent with the specific plan or the requirements of the EIR that was done for the OAC. He stated that the General Plan is inconsistent internally and that it is impossible to be consistent with it. With regards to the issue of noise, the EIR stated that the construction noise would extend over 1,000 feet from the edges of the property and feels that it will be higher than acceptable standards.
The requirements in the General Plan EIR was that all projects in the portion of the specific plan must conduct an acoustical. It was also required to do a traffic study. When the EIR was done for the OAC Specific Plan it noted that in order to achieve acceptable levels of service on the area streets there were $170 million dollars of traffic improvements that needed to be made in order to accomplish mitigation to the acceptable levels.The OAC's portion of those traffic expenditures was established at $10.2 million dollars. That is a lot of money for the OAC. This project represents approximately 3% of the OAC project and its relative fair share of that portion would be $330,000.00 to mitigate traffic impacts based upon the EIR that was done for the OAC plus the $24,000.00 that has to go to the County. There is approximately $350,000.00 worth of traffic mitigation that is required by the OAC EIR that is not being required of this project. If this project doesn't provide their fair share and subsequent portions the developers of the OAC or the City is going to have pick-up those costs. If Council is concerned about the traffic they can't afford to throw away $330,000.00 worth of mitigation.
With regard to the street, he was incorrect. According to the Specific Plan, the minimum acceptable right-of-way according to the specific plan for that street is 122 feet which does not meet the minimum required right-of-way. He questioned if this is the type of use that they want to have at the entrance/gateway to the OAC. The OAC requires a very specific design on the walls and that is not what is being proposed. He feels that they have not complied with the design requirements.He feels that there is a likelihood that there may be burrowing owls on the site. The EIR mitigation measure specifically required that protocol burrowing owl surveys be done prior to any project being approved. There are simply too many mitigation measures that are required that the City is ignoring. He stated that the project is not consistent with the specific plan and it is not consistent with the mitigation measures required in the OAC's Specific Plan or EIR.
They have not done the necessary studies and therefore is not consistent with the requirements.Mayor Ferré returned discussion to Council.City Attorney Harper, stated that the issues that were brought up by Mr. Johnson can be addressed by staff.Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if this piece of property is part of the OAC.Mr. Johnson, responded in the affirmative.Community & Economic Development Director Koontz, also responded in the affirmative.Community & Economic Development Director Koontz, gave a background of the hearings that were held on the specific plan and the uses. He addressed the noise issues and feels that it has been mitigated to an acceptable level.Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he feels that the OAC was a dead issue after hearing that the freeway access won't be done until Phase III of Measure I.
City Attorney Harper, stated that the existing zoning of the property is OAC regardless of what might happen in the future. Any project that is considered today is bound by the existing OAC zoning.Community & EconomicDevelopment Director Koontz, stated that the OAC project is not dead until the freeway is widened it is on hold until they figure out what to do with the bridge. Staff is working on interim solutions to address the traffic issues. The freeway itself doesn=t have anything to do with project being delayed.Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if we take the existing properties out of the OAC then there will no longer be an issue.Community & Economic Development Director Koontz, stated that the reason this area is included in the OAC is so that they can look at the landscaping and architecture so that it is consistent. Staff feels that they did a pretty good job.From the Email Box: Hey Paw,From the minutes:
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if there is an entry in the budget that show utilities paid for by the library.
City Manager Schwab, responded that is not shown in the budget but staff could provide a spreadsheet how much is incurred in expenses and how much money is distributed back to the City.Shouldn't we all be able to know the answer?
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if there was a way to shape the Law Enforcement Service package to suit the needs now versus the needs of 20 years ago. He stated that he spoke to City Manager Schwab earlier about cycling the traffic officers. He is getting the feeling that we don't have the faith in the Department like we use to.
City Manager Schwab, stated that his suggestion would be to set up a workshop to show the Council what the deployment looks like today and what the theory is for coverage. He stated that he was planning on adding a Deputy next year, however, if the Council would like to add a 40 hr car this year it is an option that can be added to the budget.Where would the money come from?
Councilmember Garcia, stated that at the Council Priority Session they discussed performance and criteria. She stated that she doesn't know if the Department would be open to it but if there was a performance criteria established where they would make a commitment that with this amount of dollars this is what you get and if you don=t perform there is a decrease in the amount that they get paid. She will be looking closely at the Sheriff's Service Specialist position.
She stated that there is a new Fire Chief in the County of San Bernardino and suggested that we do the same with the Fire Department. She stated that the Library is a strong priority for the City. She stated that she wants to fight for a library in the Towne Center Project. She stated that she feels that there should be some money in the budget for a library.We have measured her performance and she should be fired!
There have been no complaints on the Fire Department response time. Just like asking the City Attorney to get involved in the Stater Brothers Shopping Center dispute, this statement is inept.
City Manager Schwab, stated that in any circumstance in order to fund a library there is going to have to be money. Staff was depending on the income from the center to help pay for debt service or rent depending on what is worked out. This was predicated on having a large enough revenue cash flow off of the project to pay either the rent or the debt service. Without that the money is not immediately there to do that.
If the Council says this is what our priority is and they want to spend enough money to build a brand new building somewhere in the community they could do that, however, he feels that we have to balance the desires for a new library against the desires that he just heard for more police.Councilmember Garcia, she stated that she would like another budget workshop if the decision would be between a new library and law enforcement. She stated that she would be willing to trim the budget to fund a library. She questioned when the Council can discuss the priority of a new library.Council Minutes
posted by GrandPaTerrace at Thursday, May 25, 2006
The City even carried the paper on the house for several months before Schwab got his own financing. Now the City makes the Payments on the House as he is paid to live in the city. Michelle Boustede has an RDA house. She is a City employee. She received a silent second deed of trust that requires no interest or principle payments until the house is sold. These silent seconds are to be no more than 10% of the purchase price of the home. Hers was for $44,000 another violation of State RDA law. The City Manager will not release the salary of Mrs. Bousted, a violation of the open records act (Prop..59). On closing day Mrs. Boustede had quick claim deeds from her husband making the property her sole possession as a married woman. RDA law states a single person cannot make more that $39,000 a year to qualify for RDA. Schwab makes over $110,000, and was given a raise last Council meeting that will be divulged at the next meeting. A City contract does not trump State law. Councilman Hilkey at a Community Awareness meeting stated that he told the City it was illegal for the City to sell Schwab an RDA house.
The General Fund and the RDA monies are combined so no citizen can tell what is what on the monthly vouchers. Mr. Rollins is called a volunteer which he is not. He's paid from $1200 to 1400 a month and given a birthday bonus. There is no problem with the City paying him, it is the lie.
Councilwoman Garcia accepted campaign contributions from Mr. Jacobsen and his wife and refuses to recluse herself from votes concerning projects he has promoted in town.
Hundreds of thousands of RDA funds went into the OAC before the citizens were made aware of it after two years of keeping it a secret. There were over four hundred signatures turned in to the City asking for a different type development and ignored. The City plowed ahead anyway and not until last year when a different developer, The Grand Terrace Partners, came in and did a feasibility and market study, and found the project to be neither, would the Council listen. Mr.Megna has not been seen since.
All City real estate is given to Terra Loma Real Estate to sell. Gene Carlstrom a former Mayor, is the owner. Bob Bidney and Bea Cortes are employees. Bobby Forbes, president of the Chamber of Commerce, also works for him. A few weeks ago after a citizen asked about Cortes going into closed session on the Arliss street house, an RDA house, and being sold by Terra Loma did the City attorney tell her she could not be in the closed session and would have to excuse herself.
Why not list City property with all real estate agencies.
The Dodson property is another example. Mrs.Dodson is the sister-in-law of Gene Carlstrom. The Dodson property was listed at $750,000. They could not sell because of the OAC and most of the property is consider marsh land. Mrs. Ferre and Schwab decided as a favor to Carlstrom to buy the property with City funds. The Council went into closed session, and is the custom with Mrs. Ferre and in violation of the Brown Act, when they came out of closed session she claimed there was "No reportable action taken taken".
The next Council meeting a very angry Councilman Hilkey advised the community that Mrs. Ferre had not been honest. That within ten minutes of going into closed session with Carlstrom the City made a deal for $1.29 million. $540,000 more than what they asked. Mr. Hilkey told everyone that it is a property the City did not need and paid too much for. He voted against it.
You are now informed that people have documented for years the illegal actives of the City.
Mrs. Robles stated at the joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission that the City takes in over $5 million a year in property taxes and a little more than 1/10 of that goes to the City. The rest all goes to the RDA to pay debt. These are taxes that should go for streets, schools, law enforcement and services the City is required to provide.
The RDA has not produced one penny of sustained revenue for the City. It is the only government agency that can issue tax allocation bonds without voter approval and has done so repeatedly. Councilman Miller wants to know why Mr. Schwab won't take bids on any project, but hand picks the developers.
The Senior Housing, again a good example. The Corp. for Better Housing calls themselves a non-profit, but are listed with the Attorney General as a charity, except their 990's show no donations to charity. It does show hundreds of thousand of commissions and fees to themselves.
Another no bid contract that $9 million of RDA funds went into. Ms. Silverstein stated the would make adjustments for the people on Brentwood and that the apartments would be for low to moderate incomes. After Schwab issued the check to them they left the plans the way they were and told us the apartments would be for low to low low incomes.
That would stop most of our seniors from being eligible for them Mr. Schwab lied to two citizens last year trying to conceal that he had placed the taxpayers of Grand Terrace $13,000,000 further in debt with an issuance of more RDA tax allocation bonds. The citizens asked at many Council meeting where our money was because it could not be traced through City records.
Brian, years of research and have been done had to get this much out of the City to get the truth you should listen to those that have learned much as to the corruption fact that guides the most of this council and management.
Mr. Koontz works two days a week for the City and three days a week for Nolte Engineering. Go check and see how many City checks over the last several years have been issued to Nolte Eng. I hope this enlightens you some what. The section on the agenda that Mrs. Ferre reads every Council meeting before the public speaking is a what she and Tom Schwab made up. There is no Ca. law that states a council member cannot answer a question from a citizen. The Brown Act states that the council just can't make a decision. Mr. Hilkey and others have brought this to the public's attention over and over and she refuses to remove it from the agendas. Take note Mrs. Ferre will never answer a question placed before her at Council. She always defers to Schwab. The limit on her speaking to the public issues raised is not due to law. There must be a different reason which she refuses to disclose.
Law Suits Pending as a result of Council Member's Actions:
Case SCVSS119897 - CITIZENS-V-CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ET AL
(Area known as Outdoor Adventure Center)
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
06/22/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: WRIT/CEQA.
Case SCVSS131530 - CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE -V- CITY OF GRAND T
(Blue Mt. Senior Villa’s)
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
05/31/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE(CEQA).
Case SCVSS130982 - FRANK H GUZMAN VS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
(City Planning and Engineering Problem)
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
06/28/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S9 OSC RE: DISMISSAL
05/30/2006 9:30 AM DEPT. S7 MOTION RE: SET ASIDE RNTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST CITY OF GRAND T FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
05/17/2006 CASE TRACKED TO LR7 Not Applicable
05/03/2006 MOTION RE: SET ASIDE RNTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST CITY OF GRAND T FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. Not Applicable
05/03/2006 POINTS & AUTHORITIES FILED BY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. Not Applicable
05/03/2006 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FILED BY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Not Applicable
For More History go to the San Bernardino County Court Web Page.
Essco's Building and the methods used at the past Council Meeting just opens the city to yet another law suit.
The other justifications for recall can be searched out by putting in Tom Schwab House. Land Deals, and other key words in the above search this blog option at the top of the page. For those who want to know why a Recall.
Oh there is an issue with the continued employment of a known teller of false hoods as the City Manager. His continued employment is a Council Action, or lack of action as they can terminate him with cause or with out cause, and they have not done so. The Council choice to keep a known lier employed as the City Manager is an indication of their incompetence.
