Request for Support

I am writing to you on behalf of Grand Terrace Community Soccer Club. We are a non profit organization that promotes sportsmanship and offers all levels of the sport of soccer to the youth of our community. We have scheduled our 2011 Opening Ceremony, which will take place on Saturday, August 6^th 2011 at Richard Rollins Park. The ceremony is a celebration of the children of this and the surrounding communities, with lots of fun and laughter, food, activities, and raffles for the children and their families.

We would like to offer you the opportunity to provide assistance by supplying us with a suitable prize for the raffles we would like to have at our event. These prizes will be raffled to kids who are registered to play soccer for the 2011-2012 season. Our goal is to make this an exciting event for the community of Grand Terrace, and we would really appreciate your assistance. We value your participation and would like to let you know that any appropriate donations are welcome. Please send items at your earliest convenience so that we may advertise your donation to the community on our website.

Another option is to advertise your business by sponsoring a team for the cost of $175.00. Your name will be displayed on a plaque that will be given to you for display in your place of business. In addition, your business name will be added to the team’s banner, which will be displayed at every soccer game in which that team plays.

All sponsors and donations for our raffles will be acknowledged during our Opening Ceremony presentation and will be published in the “Blue Mountain Outlook,” which is delivered to every home in Grand Terrace. This is a great opportunity to advertise and to promote your business in Grand Terrace, while helping the community!

If you are able to help, please send you donation to:

Grand Terrace Community Soccer Club C/O Brian Reinarz

22765 Bluebird Ln.

Grand Terrace CA 92313.

Please do not hesitate to contact me anytime at (909) 904-1273 or email me at reinarz14@sbcglobal.net if you have any questions.

Thank you in advance and best wishes from everyone at Grand Terrace Community Soccer Club. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Brian Reinarz

Event Coordinator

Grand Terrace Community Soccer Club

Tax ID #33-0345015

Getting Closer in Sac.

RDAs have come under considerable public scrutiny for wasteful government spending, eminent domain abuse and, according to independent state analysis, failing to increase theoverall number of California jobs. The campaign is designed to build support among the public and to ask GOP legislators to sign a pledge to abolish redevelopment agencies. This pledge will serve as a commitment to conservative values such as protecting taxpayers and private property.

“Republican Legislators need to convince voters that they remain dedicated to defending private propertyrights and protecting taxpayers,” said Jon Fleishman, a conservative blogger and former officer of the California Republican Party. “Pledging to abolish redevelopment agencies will reaffirm their commitment to conservative principles.”

A State Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) report found that RDAs divert over $5 billion in tax increment revenue annually without any reliable evidence that they create new jobs.

“All the while redevelopment agencies are using eminent domain to forcibly seize property from unwillingsellers, they have not fulfilled their promise of creating new jobs,” said Marko Mlikotin, president of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. “Redevelopment has failed taxpayers and threatens private property rights. It is time for the Legislature to do away with these government boondoggles.”

A notable taxpayer organization also voiced concerns. Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said, “Redevelopment agencies have been the biggest abusers of homeowners’ property rights in California. Immediate action is needed now and we urge all legislators, including Republicans, to reject the influence of politically connected developers and do what is right for ordinary California homeowners.”

Redevelopment agencies’ insatiable desire for revenue has led them to forcibly seize places of worship, small businesses and homes by eminent domain that are clearly not blighted. Illustrating that RDAs have run amuck, the Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform found that a full 30% of all urbanized land in California has been declared blighted.

A California’s State Controller audit of RDAs reached a similar conclusion that overly broad definitions of “blight” expose private property to eminent domain abuse and invite wasteful spending of tax dollars on dubious redevelopment projects such as luxury golf courses. In addition, redevelopment funds were inappropriately used to supplement the general funds of local governments.

“California’s redevelopment agencies are some of the worst perpetrators of eminent domainabuse in the nation,” said Christina Walsh, from the Institute for Justice, the organization that represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London. “Until state legislators abolish these agencies, no private property owner in California is safe.”

Californians are encouraged to visit www.stopthemoneypit.com to learn how they can join our campaign to protect private property rights and eliminate government waste, and support legislation that abolishes RDAs, SB 77 and AB 101.

The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights is California’s leading private property rights (non-partisan) organization founded in 2005 and was a lead sponsor of Proposition 98, a 2008 state ballot measure that sought to protect private property rights.

It’s high time that we fight back and high time that Republicans start living up to their stated principles.

The Democrats have taken the lead on Private Property Rights... Republicans are still Spend Spend Spend... Debt Debt Debt.

40.00 From Every Man Woman and Child

$550,000.00 budget shortfall could be funded with a contribution of 40.00 from each man woman and child in Grand Terrace.

GT after the RDA

The vote to approve the offer of 29 Million in Muni/RDA Bonds is not going to make GT Sustainable as a City. As a matter of fact it can be argued the added debt forces the tax allocation/RDA funds to be returned to Bond Holders first and pay for construction and the Planning/Economic Development Department will have some of their costs funded.

Will the projects inspire businesses to move to GT and increase the Tax Revenue Base? Well first we should ask what businesses have said to the City or Planning Department, gee we'd like to move here but for the fact the infrastructure is lacking. Who has rejected the city because of the infrastructure? Lets look around, there are large buildings and entire complexes that are empty in the IE. What makes GT / RDA / City think that your all that? Well let's see, the freeway frontage would be attractive to some businesses. However, what freeway frontage? What business has 10 to 20 years to wait for Caltrans to finish design and construction. During that 20 years the traffic on our legendary bottle neck freeway will not be conducive to additional customer traffic or easy logistics.

Let's look further into the proposed improvement in the GT Storm Drains that are supposed to make the land attractive to developers. First of all the idea of capturing all the run off and directing it to the freeways drainage system is a bit troubling to anyone who has driven on the freeway during the rains. The section of road between Iowa and Center already floods, will we be adding to the freeways drainage problem? Has CalTrans been advised of this grand water diversion plan? Has the EPA or who ever is concerned with the water quality of the Santa Anna River approved such a plan?

Hillside stabilization of Mt. Vernon Ave. is a nice thought but any weight you put on the upper hill side will cause the road bed and below to be stressed and potentially damaged. The road was a temporary cut in for light traffic. One of the first things that should be done to aid in the safety and longevity of that road is to stop all heavy traffic on the road. No school buses, or commercial vehicles over 1 ton should be allowed on that hill. To "Fix" that hill side would cost more than the 29 Million the city is issuing in bonds. Did the RDA/City even get a rough idea of what the proposed projects would cost prior to commuting the bond issue to specific projects? Where is that documentation? It was not in the published support detail in the Council RDA Packets.

To raise funds for ill planned or ill projected projects does not serve our community. This serves only the employees of the Planning Department and the perks the RDA Board / City Council receive. It is time to eliminate the Planning and Economic Development Department and all the RDA functions and turn these functions over to the County of San Bernardino.

Our own city is not collecting taxes and business license fees from out of town realtors who let bank owned foreclosed homes become eye sores. What is the good of Code Enforcement if they aren't doing even the easy stuff? How many business are listed on Craig's List that do not have a business license in GT? Why isn't the fiance department going after these free loaders? Have a yard sale without a permit you get all jumped on. Run a business, sell homes in GT oh never mind.

What we need to do is plan a GT after the fall out of this added debt load, and the end days of GT that are no doubt coming in our future. The RDA debt will go away when the RDA does, so we are told.

Who is buying Muni Bonds these days?

GT Needs to Raise Taxes 275.00 per household to balance this years budget.
550,000.00 short fall paid for by 2000 homes would equal.

YES it is time to close City Hall and revert to County Services, and have a fully Vollenteer City where the City pays for the Insurance for Parks, Senior Center, and Civic, Youth Activities. The City Council could start off by elimination of their Life, Medical, Retirement and Stipends.

Unsustainable back in 1978 to Now: Why a Bigger Hole

Plan outlines stark future for Grand Terrace

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 05/25/2011 05:08:06 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - A presentation on how to rebuild the city's budget to escape what a consultant called serious financial trouble was delayed about 10 minutes Tuesday evening - when the lights went out at City Hall.

"These are not part of the cutbacks," joked Councilman Bernardo Sandoval.

But it might get to that point if changes aren't made soon, according to consultant Jim Simon of Santa Ana-based Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc.

The city is facing a projected deficit of about $550,000, about 10 percent of the General Fund, for the fiscal year beginning July 1. That figure is expected to balloon to $1 million for 2015-16, if no changes are made.

"You're not at a point where this is insurmountable," Simon said, "but you are at a point that a lot of cities have been at a crossroads and made the wrong decision."

If the city doesn't enact some combination of service cuts and increased taxes, he said, the city will run out of money by 2015.

Simon recommended rethinking the budget by dividing it into three priority levels: legally required functions; services the city considers essential, such as business development; and optional services.

"It's not about deciding what line items are we going to delete but what's most important, next and next," he said.

Projections of rising costs for services such as law enforcement - 70percent of the city's budget - show the city will need to raise more money if it wants to keep service levels above what unincorporated communities receive from the county.

It's something people have said about the bedroom community since it incorporated.

"It's true what was said back in 1978: You really have no other sources of revenue," Simon said. "The city's gotten by for years doing things - pulling money from reserves, relying on redevelopment - that quite frankly are not sustainable."

Grand Terrace, which has very few businesses, draws heavily from its Redevelopment Agency to fund many basic functions - including part of the salary of 13 of the city's 20 full-time employees.

But the agency expires in 2034, and Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating all redevelopment agencies this year.

"Redevelopment loss would be catastrophic," Simon said.

But the city does have bright spots, including a small employee roster that saves it from the ballooning pension costs crippling many other cities.

And it still has until July 1 to incorporate Simon's suggestions into a working budget.

City Council members, who had warned about the city's financial situation before hiring a consultant for $25,000, said they want residents to tell them which services they consider essential.

"I speak for myself, and I think I speak for the rest of the council, when I say I want to hear from you," said Councilwoman LeeAnn Garcia. "If you (study) the annals of (Grand Terrace) history, the founding mothers and fathers, the things they did are amazing. Definitely, difficult decisions have to be made, but we can do it."

Sandoval agreed.

"It's a critical moment for our city," he said. "The solutions to these problems do not lay in the City Council, they do not lay in staff and they don't lay in residents. The solution is for us to come together in a way that's never been done before."

ryan.hagen@inlandnewspapers.com,
909-386-3916

Grand Terrace authorizes $29 million in bonds

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 05/25/2011 05:49:56 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - The City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency board, has authorized up to $29 million in bonds, which officials hope to use on infrastructure to lift the city's stagnant tax base.

The bonds can't be used to cover the city's General Fund deficit, projected at about $550,000 - 10 percent of that fund - and also projected to increase in the coming years if no changes are made.

But as consultant Jim Simon of the Santa Ana-based Rosenow Spevacek Group told council members on Tuesday evening after they voted unanimously to authorize the bonds, the shortfall can't be met entirely by cutting expenses in the bedroom community.

The money from this bond could attract businesses to help increase the city's tax base, said Community and Economic Development Director Joyce Powers.

"We're primarily interested in building new infrastructure for the city that would allow us to build new revenue," Powers said.

The money is intended for road widening, storm and street rehabilitation and hill stabilization, according to Powers' report.

She also listed infrastructure projects in the southwest area of the city, east of the 215 Freeway between De Berry Street and Pico Street.

Public Works Director Richard Shields filled in some details, such as a plan to expand Michigan Avenue so it can function as a secondary highway and handle increased traffic from the opening of Grand Terrace High School, expected in August 2012.

But resident Sylvia Robles said she wasn't sure how such "nebulous" projects would help raise money.

"The problem I have with (redevelopment agencies) is the lack of transparency that's inherent to it," Robles said. "While they were able to divulge more about Michigan Avenue - its (widening) seems something very valuable to the entire community - it still seems difficult to justify the balance for what we're getting."

But city staff members said the bonds - expected to result in debt payments of $1.6million to $2million per year from 2011-12 to 2033-34, based on current market conditions - are the only realistic way to perform long-needed work.

"That would be a critical challenge for the city because we'd have to accumulate money in the General Fund," which would take at least 10 years, said City Manager Betsy Adams.

ryan.hagen@inlandnewspapers.com, 909-386-3916

Here We Are Again... Thanks Schwab/Berry

When you get a bill that is way to low you should ask is this right... but not if your the City of Grand Terrace... You do a happy dance. DUMB

The first low bill came during the Berry Administration. Of course this was also during the Schwab oversight of the budget where both men said the city and the RDA had RESERVES to boast about. The Finance Department Head should have pointed out the odd assessment but hey they are Schwab Hires so who knows what motivates their conduct. City Manager Betsy Adams was the recipient of the second billing which was the second low ball calculation so there was no red flag to indicate there was a reason to investigate the billing.

In real life, if you go to the store and buy a fur coat, and the cashier rings up the bill and it is 20.00 instead of the 2000.00 it should be and you pay the 20 and leave doing a happy dance your guilty of a crime. Yes a crime. If you plea that you thought the coat was on sale for 20.00 that argument won't hold in court. You'll either have to pay the remaining 1980.00 or return the coat at a minimum. If there was reason to believe you knew you were under charged you could be convicted of grand theft. So we must continue to recall the moral compass of Schwab/Berry and apparently the Head of the Finance Department has been broken in GT and the GT RDA for a long long time.

To continue to use the RDA to fund the City Employees as a financing plan runs the risk of perpetuation of these same pitfalls. Ending the RDA and learning to live within the budget of what we can really support should be the immediate goal of the City Council. Stop playing the shell game of Debt Bonds and RDA Plans.

Agency taps Grand Terrace for $2.3M

Water bill error cited in new debt

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 05/23/2011 05:02:54 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - County auditors report that the city owes more than $2 million to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, worsening an already precarious budget and possibly imperiling efforts to sell bonds for city projects.

In fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the office of the county auditor, controller and treasurer used the wrong formula to calculate the amount owed by two redevelopment agencies, including Grand Terrace's, that were created before 1989, according Matt Brown, spokesman for the county office.

The other agency that should have had its apportionment computed differently - the Inland Valley Development Agency - owes more than $6.5 million to the water district, according to county records.

"Ultimately, it was human error," Brown said. "Obviously, we accept responsibility."

Brown said county staff had been shuffled and an additional supervisor assigned to prevent such oversights in the future, and re-checking entries confirmed that the error only involved the two redevelopment agencies during those two years.

That leaves Grand Terrace to negotiate a repayment schedule for its newly discovered nearly $2.3 million debt, even as the city struggles to close a deficit in its general fund of roughly $50,000 and growing - equal to about 10percent of that fund.

The payment won't come out of Grand Terrace's general fund - the Redevelopment Agency is a separate city-controlled entity - but it further limits options for a city that is scheduled to review a plan at tonight's City Council meeting that recommends severe cuts.

Most of the city's redevelopment revenues were committed to projects early this year, a tactic council members described at the time as a prudent move in light of Gov. Jerry Brown's plans to disestablish California's redevelopment agencies and honor only existing debts as part of his efforts to balance the state budget.

The status of that plan, which many in the state Legislature opposed, is still undecided.

Worse, according to Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz, is that the error was announced just before the city planned to issue up to $29million in bonds to finance public infrastructure improvements.

"The timing was really bad," Stanckiewitz said. "We're trying to put together a bond offering and this pops up, which we had to make public."

Generally, investors demand higher rates on bonds when cities have higher debts. That means less money in the city's pocket.

A motion to authorize those bonds - which would include storm and drain rehabilitation and so-far-undefined infrastructure work in the southwest area of the city - is also on the agenda for tonight's meeting, which begins at 6.

City Manager Betsy Adams said she anticipates bringing the reported error to the City Council for discussion after city staff members complete their own review, but she is not sure when that will happen.

The news added to the city's already heavy burden, said Councilman Bernardo Sandoval.

"It's just another financial challenge that we will need to overcome," he said. "It's just another financial challenge that we weren't expecting."

INCREASED RDA DEBT OBLIGATION PLAN

The May 24, 2011 City Council Agenda and Staff Reports are now available on-line.

Click below for Packet. It is 160 pages. Included is 29,000,000 INCREASED DEBT BOND Proposal. These funds will be 27% spent on CITY HALL Operations via the "Pass Through".

IS THIS HOW GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FUNDED?

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/38/05242011%20Council%20Packet.PDF

What will be the price for the GT City Council moving to incur debt? What is the overwhelming public benefit of rushing to encumber debt? Is the council rushing to pay fees for consultants before they learn the fate of RDA's? authority

Fitch: Challenging Tax Base Expected to Negatively Impact California RDAs - Yahoo! Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fitch-Challenging-Tax-Base-bw-1470521098.html?x=0


The Legislative Analyst's Office has just issued the following report:

The 2011-12 Budget: Overview of the May Revision

Significantly improved General Fund revenue trends since January and over $13 billion of budget actions already approved by the Legislature have reduced the size of the budget gap still to be addressed by California’s elected leaders. The administration identifies a $9.6 billion remaining budget problem based on generally reasonable 2010-11 and 2011-12 revenue and expenditure assumptions. The Governor’s plan to address this shortfall and leave the state with a $1.2 billion reserve at the end of 2011-12 has many positive aspects. It would help bring annual spending and resources much closer in line for the next five years, and its focus on reducing budgetary debt obligations is laudable. On the other hand, the Legislature has other options to address the reduced budget shortfall, including adoption of alternative tax proposals, additional program reductions, and selected fund transfers and internal borrowing. The improved economic and revenue situation, along with significant budgetary solutions already adopted, mean that California now is in a position to dramatically shrink its budget problem with a focus on ongoing budget solutions. (28 pp.)

This report is available using the following link:

http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2482

Late this afternoon we will post a video of Mac Taylor’s press conference discussing the report. It will be available using the following link when we’ve finished preparing it for the website:

http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2483

Arrest Reports April / May 2011

Crime report for 4/1/2011 - 5/12/2011
24 crimes found. From Crimemapping.com

Only showing crime for: Grand Terrace Police, CA

Within a 2 mile radius of 92313, CA
New feature! Click a crime to "Map It."
Type: Description: Case #: Location: Agency: Date:

MISC NARCOTIC MISD - 22000 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 5/11/2011 12:00 AM

DRUNK IN PUBLIC - 12100 BLOCK OBSERVATION ST Grand Terrace Police 5/9/2011 12:00 AM

DUI-ALCOHOL, DRUGS (MISD) - BARTON RD / LA CADENA DR Grand Terrace Police 5/8/2011 12:00 AM

BICYCLE - 22400 BLOCK TERRACE PINES DR Grand Terrace Police 5/4/2011 11:32 PM

VANDALISM LESS THAN $1,000 - 12100 BLOCK MT VERNON AVE Grand Terrace Police 5/4/2011 12:00 AM

VANDALISM LESS THAN $1,000 - 21800 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 5/4/2011 12:00 AM

FRAUD BY FALSE PRETENSE - 12000 BLOCK HONEY HILL DR Grand Terrace Police 5/2/2011 12:00 AM

COMMERCIAL-NIGHT, ENTRY BY FORCE - 21900 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 5/2/2011 12:00 AM

COMMERCIAL-DAY, ENTRY NO FORCE - 12000 BLOCK MT VERNON AVE Grand Terrace Police 5/2/2011 12:00 AM

POSS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - CANAL ST / NEWPORT AV Grand Terrace Police 4/30/2011 06:56 PM

UNDER THE INFLUENCE - 12000 BLOCK PRESTON ST Grand Terrace Police 4/30/2011 03:27 PM

MISC NARCOTIC MISD - S MT VERNON AVE / E WASHINGTON ST Grand Terrace Police 4/27/2011 12:00 AM

COMMERCIAL-UNKNOWN ENTRY NO FORCE - 22200 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 4/25/2011 12:00 AM

POSS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - 1700 BLOCK E WASHINGTON ST Grand Terrace Police 4/21/2011 08:08 AM

RESIDENTIAL-UNKNOWN TIME, ENTRY NO FORCE - 11800 BLOCK MT VERNON AV Grand Terrace Police 4/19/2011 11:58 AM

STOLEN FROM AN AUTOMOBILE - 11900 BLOCK PASCAL AV Grand Terrace Police 4/15/2011 10:24 AM

PETTY THEFT RETAIL STORE - 22100 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 4/14/2011 01:25 PM

RESIDENTIAL-UNKNOWN TIME, ENTRY BY FORCE - 11800 BLOCK MT VERNON AV Grand Terrace Police 4/9/2011 03:25 PM

RESIDENTIAL-NIGHT, ENTRY BY FORCE - 11800 BLOCK MT VERNON AV Grand Terrace Police 4/8/2011 09:24 AM

FROM BUILDING (OFFICE, SCHOOL) - 22300 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 4/7/2011 08:49 PM

FRAUD BY FALSE PRETENSE - 11700 BLOCK MT VERNON AV Grand Terrace Police 4/7/2011 11:47 AM

GTA - AUTO - 11800 BLOCK MT VERNON AV Grand Terrace Police 4/3/2011 06:00 AM

RESIDENTIAL-DAY, ENTRY BY FORCE - 22700 BLOCK BARTON RD Grand Terrace Police 4/2/2011 10:22 AM

DRUNK IN PUBLIC - 11800 BLOCK ETON DR Grand Terrace Police 4/2/2011 03:13 AM


Arrests from localcrimenews.com

Ofarrell, Richard (M/W) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 05/07/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

Santa Maria, Jose (M/O) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 05/04/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Lewd or Lascivious

Farris, Jonathan (M/W) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 05/04/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Offenses

Denney, Scott (M/W) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 05/03/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Other Drugs

Martin, Aaron (M/W) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 05/02/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Unknown

22491 De Berry St Apt 191
Reported On: 04/30/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

22233 Ladera St
Reported On: 04/28/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Drunk

12282 Warbler Ave
Reported On: 04/26/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Other Drugs

12721 Vivienda Ave
Reported On: 04/25/11 in Riverside County
For: Narcotics, Other Drugs

22111 Newport Ave Spc 43
Reported On: 04/22/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

22928 Palm Ave
Reported On: 04/23/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Petty Theft

22491 De Berry St # M163
Reported On: 04/23/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Marijuana

12454 Michigan St
Reported On: 04/18/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Dangerous Drugs

22316 Lark St
Reported On: 04/10/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

11852 Mountain Vernon Ave
Reported On: 04/09/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Burglary, Felony Theft, Other Felonies

22558 Robin Way
Reported On: 04/17/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Selected Traffic Violations

22822 Palm Ave Apt 12
Reported On: 04/14/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Felony Theft

22233 Ladera St
Reported On: 04/13/11 in Los Angeles County
For: Drunk

12636 Pascal Ave
Reported On: 04/13/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

11750 Mt Vernon Ave Apt C106
Reported On: 04/10/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

12056 Mount Vernon Ave
Reported On: 04/07/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Tresspassing

11981 La Crosse Ave
Reported On: 04/07/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Dangerous Drugs

22111 Newport
Reported On: 04/07/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Assault and Battery

22111 Newport
Reported On: 04/07/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Other Felonies

12312 Pascal Ave
Reported On: 04/06/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Dangerous Drugs

22558 Robin Way
Reported On: 03/31/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Robbery

11852 Mountain Vernon
Reported On: 04/02/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

Where The Land Under Negotiation Is.. RDA PURCHASE

They Needed Help to Locate IN GT and Paid 0 Park Fees

The Press-Enterprise

Stater Bros. Holdings reported net income of $8.8 million for the second quarter that ended March 27, a 47 percent increase from $6 million in the same period last year.

Total sales were up 3 percent in the most recent quarter to $913.4 million.

Net earnings were down for the first six months, totaling $10 million for fiscal 2011, compared with $12.7 million last year. Results for 2010 included a $5.6 million after-tax gain related to the sale of the company's dairy business.

Jack Brown, chairman and CEO of Stater Bros. Markets, attributed the improvement to customer loyalty, and the company's decision to reduce margins during the tough economy in order to keep prices low.

Stater Bros., headquartered in San Bernardino, operates 167 supermarkets throughout its Southern California chain.

HOLD THE HORSES

Why does the Mayor and council seem to know what nebulous projects like "Southwest Corridor" are urgent and demanding of the taxpayers' contribution and debt. Why hasn't the PUBLIC BEEN INFORMED?

Where then is the debate to be conducted when millions of taxpayer money is being pledged to debt?

Why hasn't staff prepared press packets on projects to educate the public on the so-called emergency at hand?

It looks like the City Council is holding Daisy Chain Meetings and consulting between meetings or else how can they be fully informed to add to the agenda of Closed Door Meetings. Either they have been informed prior to the meeting, or they are making rushed decisions. Either case is not good governance and we may need to refine the Council and Mayorship even further, to put a stop to these kind of antics.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ALL THE MORE

HOLD THE PHONE... Are these Land Purchases or Sales? Were the Properties Listed for a PUBLIC BID? OR ARE WE BACK TO SCHWABISTIC PRACTICES OF SELECTING OUR FRIENDS TO DO DEALS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? HOW ABOUT AN ADDRESS ON THE PROPERTIES OR A LOCATION OTHER THAN A PROPERTY ID NUMBER..

COME ON FOLKS WHERE IS THE DISCLOSURE YOU SAID YOU WERE ALL FOR.

GRADE THIS A BIG F-
FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
NOTICE AND CALL OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND TO THE CITY CLERK:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace is hereby called to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California.

Said Special Meeting shall be for:

1.Closed Session Regarding Labor Relations per GC54957.6.

2.Conference with Real Property Negotiators (GC54956.8)

Property -APN 1167-151-10; 8.45 Acres
Negotiating Parties - Ed Smith, Lee and Associates
Agency Negotiator - Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation - Price and Terms of Payment

Property - APN 1167-181-12 & 1167-181-13; 8.57 Acres
Negotiating Parties - Jim Towers, Towers and Associates
Agency Negotiator - Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation - Price and Terms of Payment

Property - APN 1167-151-22; 14.22 Acres
Negotiating Parties - Bo Smith, CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
Agency Negotiator - Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation - Price and Terms of Payment

Dated: May 11, 2011

WALT STANCKIEWITZ, MAYOR

* * * * * *
This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers that might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx [http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx]

Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission.

Something to Ponder: Points and Counter Points

GT city council questioned how they could meet requirement to build affordable housing without RDA. The true answer is that without RDA a municipality does not have the ability nor the mandate to build affordable housing.

EXCEPT Under the Schwab the City Over Spent Funds in such a way the RDA has to make up for past Money Spent Not on Low and Moderate Income Housing. Thanks Tom... The alternative answer is to FORCE Jacobsen to replace the Low and Moderate Income Housing he removed to provide Jack Brown of Stater Brothers the property for the Mega Staters. That was what was agreed to, but that requirement has been waived along with other requirements the community was told were part of the agreement. Gee go figure. Thanks Tom, Doug, Jack.


The Brown Act requires 48 hours notice to the press when there is a change in the council agenda.

How ironic that Assemblyman Morrell aide requested support for a "transparency bill" to require 72 hours for the assembly to receive and review a bill before it is voted upon." The GT council amended the agenda and voted to support the bill.

Yep, and our Open Council is having an Emergency, Behind Closed Doors Meeting. Don't know if they notified the News Papers or not. One must ask: What is the Rush?

Special Closed Meeting for Labor Relations...

CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
NOTICE AND CALL OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND TO THE CITY CLERK:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace is hereby called to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California.

Said Special Meeting shall be for:

Closed Session Regarding Labor Relations per GC54957.6.

Dated: May 9, 2011

WALT STANCKIEWITZ, MAYOR

Debt Bonds: Funding the Future with Debt.

The City Council/Redevelopment Board is being asked to approve the issue of more debt bonds to raise funds for specific projects and to operate the City via the pass through funds which are about 27 percent of every dollar of RDA Funds.

The issue of Debt Bonds may actually facilitate the construction of the needed projects. However, we as taxpayers need to ask is this the best way to finance these projects and do we want to fund the GT City Hall and RDA at the rate and cost.

Well, let's look at the work the Redevelopment Agency has done. Most recently a they have been dependent on hired consultants, planners and project managers to do the work that in most cities the city employee would be doing. We should ask what are they actually doing at City Hall. Do they earn the salary and other compensation or is there a more efficient way to handle the Planning Department and Code Enforcement.

A contract city needs to have a strong contracts manager and a minimal staff to keep the contractors to their contracted obligations. This is often a much more efficient way to manage a small town.

Code enforcement is not keeping blight down. The Fire Department should go around to all the homes occupied or foreclosed that have weeds taller than 12 inches. Send a fire abatement notice with some teeth to it. The county will come and abate the property. Does the City have a crew to clean private property?

Businesses operate in GT without proper licenses, and there seems to be no effort to correct this loss of revenue stream.

What is good about this New Council and City Manager is that they are putting the plan in view of the public and there is less Hores trading opportunity when the plan and bonds are dedicated to specific projects. It is unlikely that the City or RDA will "Loan" each other funds improperly as they did in the Schwab Era.

This City Needs to be FREE of the RDA. Bonds and Debt is not a good way to finance your family or your city. The City is not using that money to be more productive, in a way it will increase it's resources. No the City is using that money to extend and justify it's own existance and funds it only for the short term in doing so. This Debt Issue is a short fix to the problem of funding a city off of the available and reasonable resouces a community our size have to provide for that added level of governance.

Lets all remember we are under the Governance of The USA, The State of California, The County of San Bernardino, the AQMD, and other Regional Agencies. We really need to ask, "Do we need to have additional regulation, and services beyond what is or should be provided by the other levels of government". Is having a City Government cost effective?

Unlike the National Government, Grand Terrace can't print money to offset it's debt financing. We don't control the local or regional economy. We certainly do not control the national or international economy.

I say, cut the City Function to only a Contract Manager and a Maintenance Department. All other functions are to be done by other agencies or contracted out. Including Redevelopment Agency Functions. It is time to cut to the bare bones. When we extend the budget of the RDA and the City for 5 more years, that makes a larger amount of retirement we will have to pay down the road, when the Debt Bond Funds will have been spent, and the City will be in the same place looking for more and more funds. This cycle needs to be stopped. The quicker we stop it the more likely the patient (the City of Grand Terrace) can survive in some form.

Debt Financing is like a tumor and adding more Debt Bonds to the City is like feeding the very Cancer that is threatening the city's long term existence.

When this issue of Debt is spent and gone, then what. Higher wages, Higher Retirement Obligations, and how will we pay for it then. No let's not keep feeding the tumor. It is time to have it removed... call the surgeon. It is time to amputate the Redevelopment Agency off of Grand Terrace in order to save the City.

MORE DEBT for GT RDA THIS WEEK

The City Council Agenda contains a report about recommendations about future funding of the RDA. One note about the report is that it does not include any examples of what would be/ could be the option and result of Not Increasing the RDA's Debt. The City Council Deserves to have such a presentation and the PUBLIC should also be informed of all the Options and Realities. This kind of "Recommendation" is like picking being asked to pick which foot you want cut off as a punishment. Neither would be the answer, but, IF you knew one had bone cancer there may a better reason to pick one over the other.

We should all be tired of City Employees, and City Hired Specialists who do not document and disclose the option to exist with out DEBT Bonds and DEBT Financing.

Going into more debt... WHY? Well when the RDA goes into debt about 28 Percent of those funds can be drained off to pay City/RDA Employees. Citizens should have some say as to what they want their tax dollars to go to. In addition, if the Bonds are for the specific identified projects and only those projects the City / RDA should lift the blanket of classification of the entire city being "Blighted". The designation of being blighted allows the City to have power over your property.

So, IF this City Council approves the scheme to fund the City/RDA's operations by using Debt financing and paying interest in addition to excessive salaries of management, then at a minimum the rest of us should have our property taken off of the Blighted Designation.

It is the opinion of Gramps that you don't solve financial problems by going into more debt unless you have a money printing press. It would be better to lay people off, cut salaries of those earning more than 55,000.00 per year, (above the GT Average), Yes the projects need to be done, but like a house repair a prudent home owner saves up to make a repair, they don't put it on a credit card and pay interest.

Be informed, and let your City Council know how you feel.

_______________________________________________________

The May 10, 2011 Council Agenda and Staff Reports are now available on-line.

Click Below for Packet

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/38/05102011%20Council%20Packet.PDF

* * * * * * *
This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx [http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx]

Income Opprotunities...

GRAND TERRACE: City to seek offers on cell phone towers

Note: Can anyone in the City of Grand Terrace offer their land for a Cell tower? Or is the City waiving it's own tower rules for the City's Benefit. People use the park, and live in the park and how is that different from having a ham radio tower next to your house?.. Is there a flag pole regulation? Sign me up... I could use an extra 200,000 per year.

10:00 PM PDT on Sunday, May 1, 2011

By DARRELL R. SANTSCHI
The Press-Enterprise

Selling space for cellular towers at a Grand Terrace park and fire station could pump as much as $364,000 into the cash-strapped city's coffers.

The City Council voted this week to seek competitive bids on space at Richard Rollins Park and fire station No. 23 on Center City Court after being approached by Unison Site Management.

Unison wanted a perpetual lease agreement for a 15-foot swath of land at the park and fire station, offering to split rent to be paid by cellular phone companies.

But Richard Shields, the city building and safety director, told the council the city sought bids from four other lease-buying companies and received responses from three. All three would have paid more than Unison's offer.

A consultant hired by the city says Grand Terrace could generate from $200,000 to $364,000 by soliciting competing offers. The city could then lease space on either a perpetual basis or for a specified time period.

A Verizon cell tower is built into a flagpole at Rollins Park and a cell tower at the fire station serves T-Mobile customers.

The council voted 5-0 to continue seeking bids.

Reach Darrell R. Santschi at 951-368-9484 or dsantschi@PE.com

Down the Debt Path Again: This Council is Digging a Bigger Hole

This past City Council Meeting the Redevelopment Agency voted to barrow funds from Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to pay the County for School Funds. This loan has to be paid back in 5 years and is a zero interest loan.

The justification for the loan was there was no other source of funds to pay for this obligation. What was not provided to the public is proof of any effort to identify any other funds, such as cut backs in Code Enforcement, Planning Department Employees, or Finance Department Employees. No investigation in cutting the Management's Income Expense to reflect the supportable levels closer to the incomes of the public they serve.

There was also no disclosure of where the money to repay the loan will come from in the next 5 years. There was no disclosure on how removing the funds from the Low and Moderate Income Housing fund will hurt those who should provided services under that fund, while the City Staff continues to be paid excessive incomes.

This City Council and City Redevelopment Agency has not gotten the point that they need to stop dipping into this fund to pay for that expense. They have not gotten the point that they need to follow the intent of the funding, and limit the cost of daily city / staff operations to the levels we can support without debt financing and dependency on Loans of funds from one fund to another, that will have to be paid some time in the future with revenue we can not be sure will exist.

While this City Council is better than those of the past, and City Manager Betsy Adams is better than Tom Schwab. Citizens must ask is this the Government we are satisfied with? Do we want continued Debt Financed, Redevelopment Agency Stranglehold on our community?