Thursday, June 30, 2011

Budget Vote

Grand Terrace council balances city budget

2011-12 spending plan includes $533,692 in cuts

GRAND TERRACE - It's not the budget city officials hoped for, but it's the one they expected and one they can live with.

After the third consecutive week of reviewing a set of proposed cuts and hearing updates on state budget developments that play a big part in the city's plans, the City Council voted Tuesday night to accept a package of cuts as part of a balanced budget.

The city cut $533,692 by removing positions, reducing programs and consolidating services. That leaves it with a surplus of $290,793 in its General Fund for fiscal year 2011-12, which begins Friday.

City staffers, council members and citizens had repeatedly reviewed the city budget because they were unsure how decisions made by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature would affect the city.

Council members said that led to a grudging acceptance of the necessary cuts, which they approved unanimously.

"The thought is, (let's) move forward with all this that there's some comfort level with, even though it's very painful," Councilwoman LeeAnn Garcia said. "Whatever the dangers that are going to hit our city, I know we'll weather it together."

The city cut the position of the deputy city clerk, a longtime city employee, and a management analyst from the Community Development Department. It also ended city sponsorship of events like Grand Terrace Community Days, reduced maintenance of parks and City Hall and merged several departments.

On the heels of a report showing most categories of crime declining in the city, they also cut a traffic deputy position and will share a patrol deputy with Loma Linda.

Also, a patrol deputy's hours might be cut in half, to 20 hours a week, if funding is not found through the state Community Oriented Policing Services grant.

The state budget that passed Tuesday, during the city's meeting, indicated the program would be continued but did not clarify its funding source.

City Manager Betsy Adams, who checked news from Sacramento via Twitter and updated the City Council immediately before the vote, said little had changed since the June 21 meeting - the city would get by, but would be substantially hurt by state plans to require cities to pay in order to continue using redevelopment agencies.

"In no way is it ideal," Adams said. "It is going to cost Grand Terrace a lot of money we don't need to be spending, but will be able to keep our RDA."


Grand Terrace budget changes

The Grand Terrace City Council approved seven changes Tuesday as part of a balanced budget. The cuts and the amount saved by each are listed below:

1. Remove traffic deputy position from sheriff's contract: $228,714

2. Merge rental inspection program into Code Enforcement: $51,465

3. Cut management analysis position in Community Development: $6,496

4. Not fund community events program: $52,880

5. Cut deputy city clerk position: $58,533

6. Reduce parks and City Hall maintenance: $17,200

7. Share patrol deputy position with Loma Linda: $118,404

Saturday, June 18, 2011

BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET

A Special CRA/City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. The Notice is available online.

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx

Budget and Closed Door Meeting regarding potential law suit... are on the agenda.

This City Council and City Management is being forced by economic factors to address the sustainability of the Redevelopment Agency and City Management Staff and Government Provided Services.

The State Government Decisions have an impact on the GT Budget and the State's input is still in flux so our Council/Board and Management has continued the discussion on the final budget.

This is the first time the Council and the Citizens are being provided a real look into the reality of funds on hand, funds projected as revenue, expenses and how fees were paying for civic activity. For example, the Code Enforcement Officer was being paid to support Civic Activities like Grand Terrace Days. With the loss of funds and the lower Rental Inspection Fees expected to be collected this function will be cut, and hopefully replaced by community support. When the Rental Inspection Fees were on the Agenda, the Agenda and Staff Reports did not include the fact that the Code Officer would be using some of those funds in effect to support Grand Terrace Days. This is a slight of hand, a dishonest way of raising fees for one service to pay for another service. That is just plain wrong if the Government wants to be respected and trusted.

If your child asks for money for a college book and you find out the money was spent on a trip to the beach a parent may be a bit careful the next time book funds were requested.

It is always difficult to have to layoff people. However, it is clear that the workers are being cut and those with the top incomes are not making equal sacrafices in their income and benefits. The City Council and RDA Board should waive all but Liability Insurances and Bonds. They should surrender their Medical Insurance, Retirement Payments, and Meeting Stipends and Gas Allowances. Second the City Manager should VOLUNTEER a contract change, at a minimum cut her contract costs by 50,000.00 year, without cutting the hours she is working. Most of our citizens are working longer hours for less income in order to keep our jobs. The 1.4 Million in Employee Wage Cost for a city with a less than 5 Million budget is top heavy. Maintenance workers and clerks earning barely minimum wage should not lose their jobs. Maintenance workers were not the ones who created the need for property maintenance to be done.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Cuts in GRAND TERRACE BEGIN

The Scope and Cost of running Grand Terrace City Hall is getting a serious and much needed trim.

The City of Grand Terrace has been acting and spending like a Big City not the Small City it is. Cutting back will hurt. Undoing the structure that has been built will take time. The community will as it did in the past either want to support and conduct civic activities sans the City's Support or Management or activities will go by the way side.

The City Council and City Management finally seem to get the picture that they need to make cuts and change the modes of operations that have justified the inflated unsustainable costs of City Governance.

Who opens and closes the parks? Why not the Sheriff's Department or the Citizens' Patrol. Who cleans the restrooms, or a similar service oriented business bill the city 10.00 per hour for 2 hours a day or the time it should take to wash the heads 365 days a year. Perhaps a Sports Team would like to have their parents do this on some sort of rotation to off set park use fees or firework sales.

Cuts in Maintenance Crews could have been off set by cutting the City Manager's Contract down to 100,000 rather than 172,000. No loss in services would be suffered. Past City Council's and City Manager's have created Beautification Projects and Parks in such a way as to demand labor for upkeep. Yes, Property Owners who have Beautification on or adjacent to their property could be asked, nay required to maintain the plantings.

The 11,000,000 in CRA Bonds being issued can not go to pay for these routine repeating cost of operations. Nope it perpetuates the un-sustainability of the city's overall economic health. Well we'll see if the A rated bonds sale or are funded and at how steep of a discount.

Crunching the State Budget

SPENDING CAP
 Spending cap (general fund and special funds) is equal to prior year actual spending adjusted
by CPI + population
 Leave Prop 98 minimum guarantee funding unaffected by the cap.
 Spending cap is in effect until:
o Specified budgetary debt (above amounts already scheduled) is paid down
 Education deferrals ($10.4 b)
 Mandates ($4.3 b)
 Education settle-up ($2.6 b)
 Economic Recovery Bonds ($7.1 b)
 Special fund loans ($5.1 b)
 Borrowing from local government -Prop 1A ($1.9 b)
 Non-98 deferrals ($2.5 b)
 Suspension of general fund transfers for Prop 42 ($0.4)
 After the budgetary debt is paid down, trigger off the hard cap and transition into the ACA 4-
style rainy day fund which would be in effect permanently.
 All of this would be in one measure. Instead of creating a contingency if ACA 4 should pass in
2012, this measure would include both provisions.
 Spending of surplus dollars can only be for one-time uses, including infrastructure, and any
spending for infrastructure must be approved in a stand-alone bill with a 2/3rd vote.
 Under ACA 4 - Emergency spending for emergencies (narrowly defined) declared by the
Governor can occur above the limit with a 2/3rd vote, but the surplus does not count towards
the next year base amount.
 If programs are shifted to local government without funding to pay for them, the funding for
those programs are reduced from the next year’s limit.
 Prohibit counties and school districts from imposing a local, vehicle license fee, transactions
and use tax, extractive business activities tax, oil severance tax, and excise tax without
Legislative approval. Reiterate that income taxes may not be levied on the local level.
 Base year is 2011-12, but limit is adjusted down by amount of temporary tax increase
revenues when they expire.
PENSION REFORM
1. Hybrid Pension (Mandatory w/ Opt-Out provision): New employees are to be offered a
hybrid pension plan that consists of a lower defined benefit plan and a defined contribution
component. The costs of the new DB plan will be shared equally between the employer and
employee. Employees may elect to participate in the defined contribution component only.
(Goals: Reduce government costs; mitigate taxpayer risks of future funding
obligation/unfunded liabilities; provide employees with a sensible retirement plan that is
more in line with the private sector and achieves about 75% salary replacement after taking
into consideration social security benefits).
2. Pension Cap: Cap the amount of pay pensionable for employees taking into consideration
those employees who participate in social security and those that do not. Employees
participating in social security cap at $106k and those that do not, cap at $119k (allow for
COLA adjustments)
3. Permits changes to future unearned benefits: Permits public employers to prospectively
change the retirement benefits for any member prior to retirement. (Benefits that have been
promised but not yet earned).
4. Eliminates “Airtime” purchases: eliminates the purchase additional retirement service credit
for service not yet performed or “airtime” (i.e. credits for up to 5 years for work not yet
performed).
5. Prohibits Employer/Employee pension holidays: Prohibits the suspension of
employer/employee retirement pension contributions until an independent plan actuary
determines it is actuarially sound to do so.
6. Prohibits retroactive pension benefit increases: Prohibits California public employers from
granting any retroactive pension benefit increases, such as benefit formula improvements
that credit prior service.
7. Pension spiking –Base Pay: Defines “final compensation” to mean the normal rate of pay or
base pay of an employee and excludes special compensation, overtime, and accrued leave
from retirement calculation
8. Pension Spiking – Average Salary: Final compensation for new employees would be defined
as the highest average annual compensation during a consecutive 60-month period.
9. Double Dipping: Employee cannot work for public entity while collecting a pension from that
same public entity.
10. Felony convictions: Prohibits payment of pension benefits to those who are convicted of a
felony related to their employment. Any contributions made will be returned without
interest.
11. California State Teacher’s Retirement System (CalSTRS): Requires CalSTRS to annually set an
actuarially sound contribution rate for the state that is funded within the Prop. 98 guarantee.
12. Reduces Unfunded Liabilities: Require current employees to contribute $## more of their
salaries towards reducing unfunded pension liabilities, and they will pay more for health
care costs both during employment and post-retirement (could be done through Collective
Bargaining). Future employees will be required to pay more for their healthcare.
13. Retiree Health Care: Require future employees to pay a share (about 50%) of their postemployment
health benefit costs.
14. Vesting: Change from partial at 10 years and full at 20 years to partial at 15 years and full at
25 years
15. Public Defense: Permits a taxpayer to defend this measure should the State Attorney General
fail to do so. And, requires the funds to defend this measure come from the AG.
16. Greater Board Accountability: 2/3 of a pension board must have demonstrated expertise in
financial, legal accounting or health care fields and shall not have any conflicts of interest.
17. Pension Board’s must follow Independent Plan Actuaries Recommendations: Creates
independent plan actuaries that will proscribe recommendations on sound actuarial
practices.
18. 2/3 Vote: Requires implementation of this measure and future changes to salary and benefits
by approved by 2/3 vote.
19. Applicability: Applies to all California public employers - state, local, special districts
University of California and the California State Teacher’s Retirement System (do we need to
include STRS?).
20. Severability: The provisions in this measure are severable.
REGULATORY REFORM
Problem: The rule-making process fails to use standard tools and best practices to create
regulations that achieve the desired societal benefits while placing the least burden on the economy.
Solution: Improve regulation development to ensure higher quality analysis and more predictability
and consistency, and provide the resources to get the job done. Greater use of a standardized set of
economic analysis tools, applied as appropriate to the circumstance, and with consistent oversight,
would improve the likelihood that the rule-making process would produce regulations that selects
the alternative that achieves their public policy goals in the most cost-effective manner, reducing
unnecessary burden on the regulated parties and the overall economy.
Process
1. Improve the process for economic analysis of regulations
a. Require that all proposed major regulations undergo a high-quality, standardized economic
analysis, usually a cost-effectiveness analysis.
b. “Major regulations” would (a) have an estimated economic impact of more than $25 million
or (b) adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, or public health or safety.
c. Require the economic analysis be prepared prior to the commencement of the formal
regulatory process.
d. Apply these requirements to currently exempt agencies – the PUC, Water Resources Control
Board and San Francisco BCDC.
2. Improve the process for alternatives analysis of regulations
a. Require agencies to justify that the regulatory approach selected would be the least costly of
equally effective alternatives in achieving the purpose of and compliance with the statutory
mandate,” and respond to official comments on its alternatives analysis.
3. Improve economic analysis of legislation
a. Authorize and provide resources for the Legislative Analyst to prepare a benefit-cost analysis
of major legislative proposals.
Oversight
4. Improve oversight of economic analysis and alternatives analysis requirements
a. Create an Office of Economic and Regulatory Analysis in the Department of Finance, modeled
on the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis in the OMB.
b. Task the Office with reviewing and approving economic analyses of proposed major
regulations, reviewing and commenting on alternatives analyses of proposed major
regulations, promulgating standards for high quality economic analyses, and (with OAL)
provide best practices and continuous improvement of agency processes.
c. Task the Office with creating policy and procedural guidance to state agencies for ensuring
and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including
statistical information) disseminated by state agencies, similar to the federal Data Quality
Act.
d. Require the Office of Administrative Law to return any regulation where the proposing
agency has not adequately responded to comments from OERA regarding its alternatives
analysis, in particular regarding selection of the alternative regulation that would be least
costly to the economy and to those persons subject to the regulation and would be equally
effective in effectuating the purpose of the statute.
5. Improve accountability by requiring retrospective review of regulations.
a. Require agencies to assess and report on all new major regulations every five years to
determine if they are accomplishing their purposes.
b. Permit petitions from private parties for economic and alternatives analysis of existing
regulations, in five year intervals.
CEQA REFORM
 Attorney Fees
Explanation
The intent of the language is to have any award offset by the amount of fees that the other
parties spent defending against claims where the party seeking fees lost or did not pursue.
From the CEQA defense perspective, it will reduce the number of fee claims to begin with, and
will force opponents to concentrate only on the claims that they think have merit, rather than
use the shotgun approach of bringing many, many different claims since there is no “cost” for
losing any of them.
 Frivolous Law Suits
Explanation
Increases penalties to $20,000 – these penalties were created by the Simitian bill last year.
 Document Dropping
Explanation
Provide that a lead agency is not required to respond to a comment after the closure of the
public comment period (unless in response to changes made to the project)
 Exempt Projects
Explanation
Projects otherwise exempt not subject to review because of GHG emissions.
 Fair Argument
Explanation
Increases the evidentiary threshold from “fair argument” to “preponderance of evidence” for
filing claims.
 Timeframe on Cumulative Impact Analysis
Explanation
Requires the timeframe for the cumulative impact analysis to be set 90 days before the EIR or 30
days prior to the circulation of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration

Democrats Craft Budget Sans GOP

Share Add your comment

File Photo: AP/Rich Pedroncelli

We may never know for sure where the point of no return was passed in bipartisan budget talks this year, but it now seems clear that those talks are all but over and that Democrats have a majority vote plan in place to send to Governor Jerry Brown on Wednesday.

No election in 2011, no immediate extension of hotly debated taxes, and -- in the wake of last fall's Proposition 25 -- no need for Republican legislators to be consulted.

The plan, described in detail by Assembly Democratic staffers, proposes to replace Brown's entire $10.8 billion revenue package with a mix of windfall revenues, additional cuts, and one-time solutions.

The Democratic legislative budget includes no debt repayment; reinstatement of Brown's original $2.85 billion deferral of money owed to K-12 schools and community colleges; an additional $300 million cut to higher education (shared equally by UC and CSU systems); an assumption that $2.2 billion from the sale of state buildings and from taking tobacco tax money from childhood programs survives court challenges; that the feds hand over $700 million to the state's Medi-Cal program; and that a complicated tax swap from years gone by is unwound, thus freeing up $900 million while canceling a quarter-cent of the sales tax decrease now scheduled to take effect on July 1.

Those are only some of the highlights, but ones that go a long way towards filling in the hole left by extracting the governor's revenues -- the only portions of the budget plan that were subject to a supermajority vote.

"We've worked hard with the governor to engage a handful of Republicans in each house," said Assembly Speaker John Perez. "It's essential that we not allow people to drag out the discussion for no real purpose."

The proposal appears to lay much of Governor Brown's complicated state/local government realignment plan aside, except for the public safety component that now is linked with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on prison overcrowding. Democrats say they would propose Brown's tax package be considered by voters in November 2012 -- a general election where voter turnout, thanks in part to the presidential race, should be high among Democrats.

The 'Plan B Budget' rejects a plan for $500 million in local law enforcement grants -- something sure to draw lots of local fire -- and tacks on a $12 vehicle registration fee to replace Motor Vehicle Account dollars that now come from the general fund -- a fee that Democratic staffers say doesn't trigger the Proposition 26 supermajority vote.

Whether the proposal relies on too many assumptions or gimmicks lies in the eye of the beholder. Following news by Controller John Chiang that May revenues were more than $400 million better than expected, the Democratic budget plan tacks on a similar amount in the 2011-12 year for a grand total of $800 million in solutions. The plan also asks the controller to delay a $540 million payment to the UC system for two months, thus counting as a budgetary "savings."

And as rumored, the Democratic budget appears to resolve the hot button issue of redevelopment with a take-it-or-leave plan: redevelopment agencies (RDAs) can either agree to a $1.7 billion one time raid, with annual payments to help the state's finances of $400 million... or... the RDAs will be officially scrapped.

No word from Governor Brown's office on how he feels about the proposal, and whether he'll sign it... at least nothing beyond his cryptic answer at Monday's news conference. Speaker Perez described the package as a "multi-year workout plan," and dismissed the political impact of accusations Wednesday's vote will be motivated by the budget-or-no-pay provision of Prop 25.

Rather, Democrats will work hard to portray this as an on-time budget that calms Wall Street jitters about lending the state money for cash flow needs this summer.

All of this should make for an interesting day of debate on Wednesday.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Budget Reductions in Detail

The City Council Agenda and Staff Reports for the June 14, 2011 Meeting are now available on-line.

Click Below for Agenda and Staff Reports:

http://ca-grandterrace.civicplus.com/archives/38/06142011%20Council%20Packet.PDF

What is missing in the presentation is the following:

A cost of the reduced services for parks and public property to determine if there is reason to go with a contracted services.

Why aren't Project Management Services share with Colton/Loma Linda and GT? Has this option been looked into? What is the cost benefit of the cut how much would the contracted services cost... WE MUST have a comparison.

IF the City Staff no longer spends any time with Halloween Haunt, Movie in the Park, or other activities on City Property what are the activities covered by the Insurance Umbrella. Let the Citizens and Service Organizations know up front what activities they could host without impediments and added insurance costs. Would it be better for the city to pay a little more in insurance to cover a diversity of activities by Volunteers, Private Contractors and Individuals so that the opportunity exists if the interest and volunteers are available. There would be no diversion of or use of city employees for any of the Social Activities, sports, movies, concerts, or GT Days. ALL that is needed is space and the city's insurance umbrella to be sufficiently broad to cover the risk.

The Dog Park: The City should provide basic Insurance Umbrella as mentioned above. Then the city should lease the land to the Friends of the Dog Park at a buck a year for 20 years. Let them make improvements little by little using donations and thrift as only individuals can do. It would make a fine Scout Project. The city can and should design the basic infrastructure, a restroom for humans, poop cans, and water hand washing stations. The fence of 6 foot and so forth. The park can be used as it is being built, if the fence was put in and toxic plants removed. Donations may increase in kind or in cash if there was some activity in its development apparent to the community.

Parks could be leased to operators just as Calico Ghost Town is owned by the County of San Bernardino, a private company runs the facility. It is a thought. Why would you do this. Well two of the parks have a snack bar that may be utilized 7 days a week.

The interesting thing about the cuts proposed none include the cut into the incomes at the top of the Management Chain, or the most costly of the salary and retirement and benefit levels. For example The City Manager should have her total cost to the city reduced by 50,000.00. She would still be earning nearly 3 times the Average GT income, and over 120,000.00 year. I also think that is a full time income and she should work as management does in nearly all situations a 40 plus hour work week.

Perhaps the truth is that the citizens of Grand Terrace don't really care if there is a City of Grand Terrace, or a city hall or a Redevelopment Agency. Perhaps if it were put up to a vote the citizens would rather return to County Administration and Regulation.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Know Thy Neighbor or Sheriff Slow to Act

,

Man with gun to be booked for attempted murder in Grand Terrace


Robert Lee Northrup, who allegedly pulled a gun on another man Tuesday outside a Grand Terrace daycare center, will likely be booked today on suspicion of attempted murder, according to a Sheriff's spokeswoman.

Northrup, 59, was detained after the incident but was not immediately booked because he was taken to a hospital for treatment of minor injuries he sustained in a struggle with men outside the daycare center. He was later admitted to the hospital for a preexisting medical condition, according to a San Bernardino County Sheriff's news release.

Northrup will likely be absentee booked today for attempted murder, said Sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller.

"As soon as he is released from the hospital, he will be transported to a county jail facility," he said.

Sheriff's investigators served a search warrant Tuesday afternoon at Northrup's home and found 15 assault rifles, 10 handguns, a shotgun and "numerous" loaded high capacity magazines, according to the news release.

Some of the weapons were legally registered to Northrup and others were not, Miller said.


Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_18182282#ixzz1O3a7rLDF


Weapons found next to day-care center

Man arrested after dispute with parents
Updated: 05/31/2011 10:14:46 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - Sheriff's investigators collected automatic assault rifles, multiple handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition at the home of a man who pulled a gun on parents Tuesday morning outside a day-care center.

San Bernardino County Sheriff's deputies responded just after 9 a.m. to a report of a man with a gun outside Busy Bee Day Care, which until Tuesday afternoon operated out of a home at 12738 Wilmac Ave.

"The man was a neighbor to a day-care center in the neighborhood," said Sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller. "A grandfather was either dropping off or picking up (a child), and the neighbor seemed irritated with him."

He was irritated enough to pull a gun on the man as he sat in his truck with his grandson next to him, witnesses said.

A San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy inspects a dismantled assault rifle pulled out of a Grand Terrace home Tuesday after investigators served a search warrant there. (Jesse B. Gill/Staff)

A third man got involved, and he and the grandfather wrestled the gun away from the neighbor, Miller said.

Sheriff's deputies arrested a man but by Tuesday afternoon had not yet booked him, said spokeswoman Jodi Miller. Deputies took the man to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries he sustained in the struggle for the gun.

No one else was injured in the struggle.

The Sheriff's Department does not reveal the identities of arrestees until they have been booked.

Property records show that Robert Lee Northrup, 59, lived at the home. Neighbors confirmed that Northrup - whom some knew as "Bob" - was the man deputies arrested Tuesday morning.

Deputies served a search warrant Tuesday afternoon at Northrup's home on Wilmac Avenue.

By late afternoon, the deputies had pulled numerous weapons - handguns, shotguns, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines - and ammunition from the home and catalogued them in the home's driveway.

Investigators sought the search warrant after taking statements from neighbors and parents at the day-care center that the man had made comments about owning weapons.

Some parents who bring their kids to Busy Bee Daycare say Northrup has been a problem there in the past, and some have filed complaints with the Sheriff's Department.

"I've lodged three complaints (against Northrup) with the Sheriff's Department," said Joey Jouan, 29, who drops off his 4-year-old son at the daycare center every day. "We have to hear this guy rant and rave, and nobody comes."

Busy Bee Daycare is moving because of Northrup, Jouan said. Owner Betty Heck reportedly moved away from the home on Wilmac Avenue on Tuesday afternoon to get away from Northrup.

A call Tuesday to Heck seeking comment was not returned.

Neighbors said Northrup had a history of yelling at neighbors and posting threatening notes outside his home in full view of people living nearby.

But other neighbors say Northrup is a Vietnam veteran who - until now - hasn't received the help he needs.

James MacFarland, 25, lives across the street from Northrup and says the man is eccentric and often yells at neighbors, but isn't dangerous.

"He's a hermit," MacFarland said. "But he's harmless."

Gramp Has Some Thoughts:

Northrup needs help. That help may well be going to jail or to Patten or to confinement at a VA Psych Ward. However, the Sheriff's Department let this go on too long prior to getting the Vet help and the community free from the real risk of a massacre nightmare.

Is the day care a licensed facility? If it is the neighbors were put on notice that there would be such a business in operation. That includes of course the coming and going of the children. Home based business in GT are not supposed to have customers coming and going to the house. Apparently and by the nature of the business this code is not enforced on any of the Day Care Providers in GT Neighborhoods. Here is where the City should remove that code requirement for all businesses.

Is the day care a licensed facility: If it is not then there are problems. When a day care is being established there are inspections, and safety reviews. Parents who keep their children in a day care where they have the risk being presented as in this case should also be questioning their own judgment at this point. Why did they continue the use of a service in the proximity of a risk they seem to have recognized.

Checking the City's Business Directory on the City Web Page. Day Care Providers are not listed. Parents needing day care have no official site to look to for a licensed facility.

This episode has many lessons. Let's hope the Vet gets the help he needs. Let's hope the crime and punishment is fair and just. Many Vets with mental problems do not commit crimes. Day Care Providers need to know their Neighbors and the Parents of the Children should not file 3 reports and then keep their children in the same facility with the risk present. The Sheriff's Department and VA need to get their acts together.