IF City Manager was doing his job he would have reported that he could cut his pay in half and cover about half of the budget shortfall for the up comming year. He could also suggest to the City Council to stop all trips, and travel expences they make to learn how to use Eminent Domain. The City could end it's support for the California "Welcome Center". Just for starters long before they suggest cut back in law enforcement.
The City could Sell the City Owned and Insured Car the City Manager Drives.
Just a FEW SUGGESTED CUTS the city could make.
Those "Reserves" are funded by DEBT and are not just sitting there without an obligation to Repay the Debt the RDA has the City as the Co-signer. Dipping INTO these funds to fund the DIPS is not a wise answer to a budget short fall.
Below is how it is represented in the Local Press...
Grand Terrace to avoid layoffs, major program cuts despite expected budget shortfall
10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, May 14, 2008
By JULIE FARREN
The Press-Enterprise
Grand Terrace won't have to lay off any employees or make major program cuts next year despite expectations for a $194,000 deficit in its 2008-09 budget.
City Manager Tom Schwab and Finance Director Larry Ronnow presented details of the coming fiscal year to the City Council during a budget workshop Tuesday.
The city's general fund is estimated at $5.5 million, with revenues at $5.3 million. The city will transfer funds out of its undesignated reserves to make up for the $194,693 deficit, said Schwab.
Saving money each year over the last two decades has put the city in good financial shape for balancing the budget, he said.
Ronnow, who is retiring in September after seven years as finance director, said varying estimates for property tax and sales tax income made this year's task challenging. "This has probably been the most difficult budget," said Ronnow.
There has been very little increase in sales tax and a 2 percent to 3 percent increase in property tax. Schwab said Grand Terrace is not heavily dependent on sales tax.
Ronnow said the city is being conservative by not overestimating the amount of taxes to be collected this coming year.
Most of the general fund revenue, 47 percent, will come from property and sales tax; fees and charges accounted for 24 percent, followed by licenses and permits at 14 percent.
The city's largest expenditure is for law enforcement, at $1.7 million. Administrative costs are $1.2 million.
Councilman Dan Buchanan teased Ronnow about the final budget he prepared for the city.
"I hate to end on a sour note, Larry, but this is a really boring budget -- nothing sexy, nothing sneaky," Buchanan said.
But he did have a serious question for Ronnow and Schwab about cutting costs if the city wanted to save the $194,000 taken from the undesignated reserve fund.
Schwab said the quickest cut would be the sheriff's deputy funded through a $100,000 cops grant. Other capital items such as a new generator could be eliminated, he said.
Councilman Jim Miller said that he doesn't foresee an increase in sales tax revenue for Grand Terrace, so the city can't count on that money.
He said he also is concerned about the property tax estimates from the county assessor's office and the final state budget.
Miller said he believes that the reserve fund should be used for special projects and not to cover deficits. "That worries me," he said. He advised that staff look into new sources of income to offset the deficit and asked if the council could receive mid-year forecasts rather than wait a year for the report.
Reach Julie Farren at 909-806-3066 or jfarren@PE.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
Review of Meeting and Prediction of Legal Action
Pawww...
Went to Wed. meeting which related to older A.O.C. site (not the Stater Bros. site as previously mentioned elsewhere).
My estimate is that was a 80 percent to 20 percent crowd NOT in favor of the project. Which is generally a hard sell.
Overall project was "Picture-wise" most vague.
Although stated initially that it was a cooperative project between new developer and city based Redevelopment, during the public discussion period Gary Koontz stepped in to contradict what ever had been stated. That ratio noted above could have easily gotten more balanced had he not stepped in so often. My feeling is that those in attendance have a natural mis-trust of whatever Gary now says. He is tainted meat.
Was a significant amount of overlapping going on. "We are planning on doing this here" and illustrative maps showed otherwise. One big boner was in that the maps overlapped the O.E.C. site and then a quick mention towards the end of the event that the maps were all drawn wrong.
Other points were in that the project was stated to be fully cooperative with new adjoining High School, when the illustration did not show plans covering the northern boundary of that site which many residents received via mail months ago.
Although a lot of time and money must have been spent on this project already, this basic mistake of not using curent and easily avaiable materials turned the crowd against the project.
The leader went on to mention that no more public meetings would be held, they were going ahead with a planned E.I.R. and site plan now. Then on to Planning Commisssion and City Council.
I smell lawsuit once again.
Went to Wed. meeting which related to older A.O.C. site (not the Stater Bros. site as previously mentioned elsewhere).
My estimate is that was a 80 percent to 20 percent crowd NOT in favor of the project. Which is generally a hard sell.
Overall project was "Picture-wise" most vague.
Although stated initially that it was a cooperative project between new developer and city based Redevelopment, during the public discussion period Gary Koontz stepped in to contradict what ever had been stated. That ratio noted above could have easily gotten more balanced had he not stepped in so often. My feeling is that those in attendance have a natural mis-trust of whatever Gary now says. He is tainted meat.
Was a significant amount of overlapping going on. "We are planning on doing this here" and illustrative maps showed otherwise. One big boner was in that the maps overlapped the O.E.C. site and then a quick mention towards the end of the event that the maps were all drawn wrong.
Other points were in that the project was stated to be fully cooperative with new adjoining High School, when the illustration did not show plans covering the northern boundary of that site which many residents received via mail months ago.
Although a lot of time and money must have been spent on this project already, this basic mistake of not using curent and easily avaiable materials turned the crowd against the project.
The leader went on to mention that no more public meetings would be held, they were going ahead with a planned E.I.R. and site plan now. Then on to Planning Commisssion and City Council.
I smell lawsuit once again.
Meetings Conflict:
Notice of Meeting
On May 29th, a meeting will be held at Colton High School hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at about 6:30 PM. Part of discussion is regarding information and the implications of the findings regarding Riverside Cement Co. and California (Colton) Cement properties.
You may want to ask a few questions regarding recent projects within City of Grand Terrace related to the topic. Including the AES Power Plant ? Mayor Feree High School ? and the EIRS approved by the City Planning Department such as, the Manhole Cover Plant, and the location of a High School next to some future designed Development and a Rail Road Track.
This date also conflicts with a proposed reading of new City ordinace regarding H.A.M. radio tower placements.
On May 29th, a meeting will be held at Colton High School hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at about 6:30 PM. Part of discussion is regarding information and the implications of the findings regarding Riverside Cement Co. and California (Colton) Cement properties.
You may want to ask a few questions regarding recent projects within City of Grand Terrace related to the topic. Including the AES Power Plant ? Mayor Feree High School ? and the EIRS approved by the City Planning Department such as, the Manhole Cover Plant, and the location of a High School next to some future designed Development and a Rail Road Track.
This date also conflicts with a proposed reading of new City ordinace regarding H.A.M. radio tower placements.
SUPPORT Prop 98 / NO on Prop 99
Thu, 15 May 2008 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Props. 98 and 99
(NOTE THERE IS NO RENT CONTROL IN GRAND TERRACE)
Below is an article from the Orange Co. Register regarding Props 98 and99. When you get around to discussing these propositions I ask that you consider the backer of 99. The main backer is the League of Ca. Cities. This is a private organization that cities join for a fee. Their"Gold" and "Platinum" sponsors are Utilities, Labor Unions and Developers.
The League of Ca. Cities hold seminars for cities on how to use and takeprivate property by using Eminent Domain. The later is the largest lobbying group in Sacramento.
If "Arnie" wants to save money for the State he should eliminate State and local Redevelopment Agencies. They cost taxpayers over a billion a year and is nothing more than free money for developers. Our property taxes go to pay off redevelopment agencies debt instead of going for what it is intended like schools, police and fire protection and infrastructure.
Both this propositions are being advertised on KFI at present. Please read this article below and help inform the voters as to how the developers and the League of Ca. Cities are trying to scam the voters once again. They were successful in our last election. Please don't let these crooks do it
ArticleMay 12, 2008
Difference between Props. 98, 99
Orange County Register
By GARY M. GALLES
The June ballot is bringing the issue of rent control back into the political spotlight in California.
Proposition 98 would protect all Californians from abuses of eminent domain, government's power to take private property, and phase outrent control.
Prop. 99 is a decoy measure that would override Prop.98 if it attracts more votes, was written by beneficiaries of eminent-domain abuse, and that the state's Legislative Analyst's Office concluded involved so little reform that it "is not likely to significantly alter current land-acquisition practices.
"Prop. 99 offers precious little protection. It wouldn't protect farmland, churches, businesses or rental properties from eminent-domain abuse. It wouldn't restrict the almost unlimited purposes for which governments can take private property, provided they provide some compensation. It leaves a gaping loophole for "blight," which includes anything government decides it doesn't like. It does notcompensate owners for fighting abuses.
So, Prop. 99's backers are trying to reframe the real reforms of Prop. 98 as an attack on renters. Renters and renters' advocates offer horror-story scenarios if rent controls were ended.
However, they omit the fact that Prop. 98 would only end rent controls after current residents leave a rental property. It also ignores the fact that rent control is simply a majority of voters (current renters) in a jurisdiction taking the property of a minority (landlords), which is why Prop. 98 includes it with other forms of government theft. Rent control is theft because it removes landlords' rights to accept better rental offers and takes away a large portion of their property's value (as shown in plummeting market values wherever controls are enacted) and gives the "savings" to current tenants (which why those tenants almost never leave).
However, tenants voting themselves $500 monthly rent reductions is no different than each of them robbing their landlords of $500 a month. But while robbery is a felony, the beneficiaries call rent control "democracyin action," as though a majority vote legitimizes theft. This can be seen by analogy to the labor market, where renters are sellers rather than buyers. Since a rent cap limits what landlordscan earn as well as what tenants must pay, the labor-marketequivalent would be a law prohibiting employers from paying workers more than, say, $10 an hour.
Renters would recognize a maximum-wagelaw as theft, even though it does the same thing rent control does to their landlords. The arguments made against ending rent control also demonstrate that it is theft.
Worries that rents would rise sharply without controls make senseonly if rents are being held below what apartments are worth (whatothers would be willing to pay). And Prop. 98 does nothing to change rents as long as tenants remain where they are, stopping only subsequent theft. Claims that landlords would evict tenants to gethigher rents or that rent control would reduce low-income housing reveal the same thing, because both scenarios assume that rents are now forcibly underpriced (they also ignore the fact that any government assistance should be financed by Californians, not forced on landlords).
Mobile-home owners complain that ending rent control would lower their home values. But that is only because rent control has transferred much of the value of the park's owners to the tenants. Prop. 98 would only undo that theft.
Subject: Props. 98 and 99
(NOTE THERE IS NO RENT CONTROL IN GRAND TERRACE)
Below is an article from the Orange Co. Register regarding Props 98 and99. When you get around to discussing these propositions I ask that you consider the backer of 99. The main backer is the League of Ca. Cities. This is a private organization that cities join for a fee. Their"Gold" and "Platinum" sponsors are Utilities, Labor Unions and Developers.
The League of Ca. Cities hold seminars for cities on how to use and takeprivate property by using Eminent Domain. The later is the largest lobbying group in Sacramento.
If "Arnie" wants to save money for the State he should eliminate State and local Redevelopment Agencies. They cost taxpayers over a billion a year and is nothing more than free money for developers. Our property taxes go to pay off redevelopment agencies debt instead of going for what it is intended like schools, police and fire protection and infrastructure.
Both this propositions are being advertised on KFI at present. Please read this article below and help inform the voters as to how the developers and the League of Ca. Cities are trying to scam the voters once again. They were successful in our last election. Please don't let these crooks do it
ArticleMay 12, 2008
Difference between Props. 98, 99
Orange County Register
By GARY M. GALLES
The June ballot is bringing the issue of rent control back into the political spotlight in California.
Proposition 98 would protect all Californians from abuses of eminent domain, government's power to take private property, and phase outrent control.
Prop. 99 is a decoy measure that would override Prop.98 if it attracts more votes, was written by beneficiaries of eminent-domain abuse, and that the state's Legislative Analyst's Office concluded involved so little reform that it "is not likely to significantly alter current land-acquisition practices.
"Prop. 99 offers precious little protection. It wouldn't protect farmland, churches, businesses or rental properties from eminent-domain abuse. It wouldn't restrict the almost unlimited purposes for which governments can take private property, provided they provide some compensation. It leaves a gaping loophole for "blight," which includes anything government decides it doesn't like. It does notcompensate owners for fighting abuses.
So, Prop. 99's backers are trying to reframe the real reforms of Prop. 98 as an attack on renters. Renters and renters' advocates offer horror-story scenarios if rent controls were ended.
However, they omit the fact that Prop. 98 would only end rent controls after current residents leave a rental property. It also ignores the fact that rent control is simply a majority of voters (current renters) in a jurisdiction taking the property of a minority (landlords), which is why Prop. 98 includes it with other forms of government theft. Rent control is theft because it removes landlords' rights to accept better rental offers and takes away a large portion of their property's value (as shown in plummeting market values wherever controls are enacted) and gives the "savings" to current tenants (which why those tenants almost never leave).
However, tenants voting themselves $500 monthly rent reductions is no different than each of them robbing their landlords of $500 a month. But while robbery is a felony, the beneficiaries call rent control "democracyin action," as though a majority vote legitimizes theft. This can be seen by analogy to the labor market, where renters are sellers rather than buyers. Since a rent cap limits what landlordscan earn as well as what tenants must pay, the labor-marketequivalent would be a law prohibiting employers from paying workers more than, say, $10 an hour.
Renters would recognize a maximum-wagelaw as theft, even though it does the same thing rent control does to their landlords. The arguments made against ending rent control also demonstrate that it is theft.
Worries that rents would rise sharply without controls make senseonly if rents are being held below what apartments are worth (whatothers would be willing to pay). And Prop. 98 does nothing to change rents as long as tenants remain where they are, stopping only subsequent theft. Claims that landlords would evict tenants to gethigher rents or that rent control would reduce low-income housing reveal the same thing, because both scenarios assume that rents are now forcibly underpriced (they also ignore the fact that any government assistance should be financed by Californians, not forced on landlords).
Mobile-home owners complain that ending rent control would lower their home values. But that is only because rent control has transferred much of the value of the park's owners to the tenants. Prop. 98 would only undo that theft.
New Plans Being Formed: Keep an Eye On This
Why should you be interested as a Citizen:One: The City Redevelopment Agency has title to about 50 Percent of the Property and this was purchased with the treat of use of Eminent Domain or Zone Changes that limited the property owners use or sale of the property to non City Buyers or Users of the Property.
Two: The Developer Mar Ventures was the great brain trust behind an ill thought out "Outdoor Adventure Center".
Three: The City's Selection of Mar Venture Development was done without bid and an open request for Proposals.
Four: The City's Planning Department has on staff a person who double dips with outside developers.
Five: The End of Pico is where Pico Park is, and where the High School and Power Plant are intended to share traffic, air and space.
Six: Infrastructure: Streets, Lights, Sewer, Water must be put in this area at the "Developers" Cost not the City's.
Seventh: PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO BENEFIT FROM THEIR PROPERTY. THERE SHOULD BE NO FORCE or EMINENT DOMAIN USED to CAPTURE the REMAINING PROPERTY. THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE ISSUING LETTERS THAT THREATEN THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, OR FORCE CURRENT LAND OWNERS TO NEGOTIATE WITH MAR VENTURES. PERHAPS THE CURRENT OWNERS COULD BE OFFERED SHARES IN THE DEVELOPMENT. REGARDLESS THE CITY SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PRIVATE OWNERS AND A PRIVATE DEVELOPER.
Friday, May 02, 2008
IS YOUR BUSINESS or HOME AFFECTED???
Meeting to be held for 215 freeway development
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/01/2008 06:10:42 PM PDT
GRAND TERRACE - A community meeting is scheduled for May 14 in which preliminary plans will be unveiled to develop a 100-acre commercial, office and residential gateway project adjacent the 215 Freeway.
"We're introducing the project and general concept. We expect to get input from the public on what they think the general uses should be out there," said Gary Koontz, the city's community development director.
He said the project is in the "very preliminary" stages, and that the city is working with developer Mar Ventures, Inc. on a specific plan for the area they're hoping is completed within the next year.
The city has been pondering the development of the land east of the 215 Freeway, south of Barton Road, west of Michigan Street and north of Pico Street for the last 20 years. It entered into a formal agreement with the Torrance-based Mar Ventures, Inc. in late 2007 to prepare a development plan for the area that would provide a strong retail base for city residents, healthy sales and property tax revenue for the city and "an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the community."
At the May 14 meeting, which will be held in the Community Room at City Hall, 22795 Barton Rd., representatives of the City and Mar Ventures will seek input and comments from citizens regarding how the area will be developed. The information gathered at the meeting will be used in developing the specific plan, which will contain development standards and issues in the area where the project is to occur.
Mar Ventures is paying for the specific plan.
Once complete, the specific plan and environmental impact report will be available for public review and comment. Public hearings will also be scheduled for the Planning Commission and city Council, where the public will also be able to provide additional comment.
The city redevelopment agency owns about 50 percent of the land, and the rest is privately owned. Mar Ventures is currently in negotiation for the remaining 50 acres, Koontz said.
The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. May 14. For more information, call (909) 430-2247
joe.nelson@sbsun.com, (909) 386-3874
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/01/2008 06:10:42 PM PDT
GRAND TERRACE - A community meeting is scheduled for May 14 in which preliminary plans will be unveiled to develop a 100-acre commercial, office and residential gateway project adjacent the 215 Freeway.
"We're introducing the project and general concept. We expect to get input from the public on what they think the general uses should be out there," said Gary Koontz, the city's community development director.
He said the project is in the "very preliminary" stages, and that the city is working with developer Mar Ventures, Inc. on a specific plan for the area they're hoping is completed within the next year.
The city has been pondering the development of the land east of the 215 Freeway, south of Barton Road, west of Michigan Street and north of Pico Street for the last 20 years. It entered into a formal agreement with the Torrance-based Mar Ventures, Inc. in late 2007 to prepare a development plan for the area that would provide a strong retail base for city residents, healthy sales and property tax revenue for the city and "an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the community."
At the May 14 meeting, which will be held in the Community Room at City Hall, 22795 Barton Rd., representatives of the City and Mar Ventures will seek input and comments from citizens regarding how the area will be developed. The information gathered at the meeting will be used in developing the specific plan, which will contain development standards and issues in the area where the project is to occur.
Mar Ventures is paying for the specific plan.
Once complete, the specific plan and environmental impact report will be available for public review and comment. Public hearings will also be scheduled for the Planning Commission and city Council, where the public will also be able to provide additional comment.
The city redevelopment agency owns about 50 percent of the land, and the rest is privately owned. Mar Ventures is currently in negotiation for the remaining 50 acres, Koontz said.
The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. May 14. For more information, call (909) 430-2247
joe.nelson@sbsun.com, (909) 386-3874
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)