City will Sell off Future I1 Funds as Debt Bonds.

On the City Council Agenda Tonight...

This idea to get Bonded Debts for Future Receipts is not a sound practice and it does not come at zero cost. The cost or premium for getting the money now will be paid in a fee or interest. Fees to pay some one to sell the bonds, interest to the holders, and a premium if the I1 funds are over estimated by the City in the First Place.

There should be extraordinary reasons for borrowing or in this case Selling our Right to Future Funds. I do not find sufficient justification for such financial trickery. In addition the City Attorney should not be the agent selling the bonds or be compensated in anyway with regards to this transaction.

Other things in the agenda specifically the check register still needs clarification.

First of all a normal family check register has records of Deposits from where the contributions to the pool of funds come from. No such accountability is made visible to the citizens or the City Council in their Council Packets.

Second: CalPERS is being paid for Council Members however there is no Charge to Department 110 for Retirement. Citizens should know the Benefits and Stipends paid to each Council Seat. It looks as if a council member receives $600.00 only. How much should be added for Medical Insurance and Retirement Fund that the city is paying for? If this amount is known perhaps a wider pool of candidates would run for the council in the future.

Third: The Senior Centers Kitchen. Who is responsible is important when an 80,000.00 fix is required.

The Corp for Better Housing. "Professionals" submitted designs and a contract that the City Council Approved. Was the kitchen they built the same as in the approved designs and contracts?

If it was, then they are not responsible.

If the Planning Department, and City Council Approved the design and contract then the Fault is within City Hall and the "Professionals" there in. Perhaps their incomes for the next 20 years could be reduced by 10 percent to repay the error.

IF the Builder got a Change order that did not comply with contract change requirements for approvals then the Builder and the Persons making the changes should be held financially responsible for the Contractual Breaches and Transgression of Authority. Such actions may even cross over into an issue of Fraud. Any Authorization to build less than contracted for is a theft of a sort. The person approving that theft or fraud should be held in account.

This is a PUBLIC ISSUE and what is known should be On The Record and dealt with in the courts if needed. That is a big chunk of boo boo to fix up and sweep under the rug. $ 80,000.00 do over funds could have gone a long way for other uses. This money may be available, but think of what is not being done because the kitchen needs to be re done. Some thing is being neglected because of the types of Professional Management the City of Grand Terrace has allowed to provide the oversight to the building of the Senior Center and Senior Housing.

In conclusion.

The Traffic Flow on Grand Terrace Road, and putting no parking on the North Side of the Street across from the Park is further evidence that the Park is not for Public Use. The Development Fees and Plans should have provided for making the road wider or put in parking turn out where the Orange Trees Were Planted... The "Professionals" in City Hall fought the public concerns over traffic, ignored the concerns of the court, and went right on with the cheep construction plan. Red Curbs and No Parking Signs do not indicate a Friendly City. Visitors and Residents are offended by all the RED Curbs... covering poor traffic and park use planning.