Oh Wallgreens Fresh N Easy also in Packet

Wallgreens/Fresh N Easy plan is also in the Council/RDA Packet.

A point to be looked at. Both of these retailers will request a ABC License, and will sell Tobacco Products in close proximity to the Grand Terrace Day Care Center, and the Alternative School on Mt. Vernon. In addition they will be competing for the Alcohol and Tobacco trade (same taxable sales) as the New Staters, CVS, Smart Time. GT Liquor, and GT Market, and the 2 Gas Stations. Will we consume more taxable alcohol or just spread out the same purchases amongst several stores?

The Maps do not reflect any zone changes where the New Staters is being built. Did the requirement to change the plot map and zoning get waived for Staters?

City Council Agenda Read is Important;

City Council Agenda and Staff Reports - 07/26/2011 City Council Agenda and Staff Reports This archive is a document file. Click on the link below to open it, or right-click to save the document or open it in a new window. 07262011 Council Packet.PDF (12215 kb) The Council Agenda and Staff Reports contain interesting information regarding the Plan to Extend the RDA. There are several disclaimers that are interesting. One essentially says that there is no guarantee that the spending of RDA funds will result in the intended increase in revenue. There is NO plan presented for what the City would be able to fund if it cut back to its Non RDA Status and Revenue. Included in the packet is a list of all homes that have not paid their Trash Bills, YET the individual bills for Weed Abatement are not so supplied. Who's weeds are we cleaning up. Are these people, banks being billed? Included in the packet is a revised ordinance to Reinstate the RDA.

Every dollar a city spends on real estate ventures through its redevelopment agency is a dollar in property taxes that the state, schools, counties and cities cannot spend on the basic services.

Why are fire stations closing? Why is the county jail on skeleton staffing? Why has college tuition doubled? In part because city redevelopment agencies systematically skim property taxes — billions of dollars worth statewide — off the top.

To spend on what? Sometimes worthy ventures like affordable housing or the overhaul of aging streets and sewer lines. Sometimes on civic improvements that beautify cities.

But all too often redevelopment money simply subsidizes businesses that cities hope will goose their sales taxes. Redding's potential purchase of the Dana Drive Costco building as part of a deal to move the retailer to Oasis Road is a prime example. Does anyone outside City Hall think that scheme is the best use of increasingly scarce tax dollars?

It might be too much to ask of city officials that they embrace a change that makes their jobs more difficult. The rest of us, though, should ignore this parochial bellyaching and keep an eye on the big picture.

© 2011 Record Searchlight. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

RFP:

Posted on: July 22, 2011

Request for Proposal - City Facilities Cleaning Service for the City of Grand Terrace

The City of Grand Terrace is seeking an experienced, responsible, capable and Professional with proven experience in Facilities Cleaning Services.

The Professional shall perform the general and specific tasks as described in the Scope of Work section of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The City intends to select the most qualified Professional for the Project. Proposals shall be evaluated by the City’s Screening and Selection Committee on the basis of professional expertise in cleaning services.

You are hereby invited to submit a proposal by the Submittal Date and Time of August 18, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.

There will be a mandatory job walk on August 9, 2011 at 2:00p.m. for all interested parties submitting a proposal.

Additional Info...

GT Greed or Need?

You may read the article below and ask why should GT get back only 22 cents on the dollar that are paid to the State in Taxes via Property, Sales, Income and Vehicle Registration Fees. Well to begin with GT provides less than 22 cents value of services to its citizens. GT City does not educate our students. GT City does not build freeways. GT City does not pay for regional health care for basic communicable diseases and health promotion. GT City does not pay for regional public transportation. GT City does not manage state parks, mental hospitals, courts or prisons, colleges and universities and the library system. GT City does not provide our power, or water infrastructure.

So the value of what we get from our government may in fact only be worth 22 cents while we utilize 88 cents worth of services provided by other Agencies, and Districts that also need to be funded.

Grand Terrace has been focused on the lowest rate of taxation Sales Tax Generation. Where as the city should have been looking to increase the Real Income of the citizens, by increased Jobs in the City's Industrial Base. Even the fictional inflation of property values was a false basis upon to lay your hopes for a sustainable revenue supply to the city.

So the question and answer not being disclosed to the public is what would the City's finances and staff look like IF we accepted the 22 c per dollar contributed, and we paid our fair share for the numerous services we consume from other agencies, and levels of government.

The Cities that have in the past been operating in a RDA have been taking a bigger share of the available funding pie. This greed has not been productive and there is little reason to think that continued use of RDA funding and debt financing will result in any different outcome. We are foolish to think otherwise.

The Citizens and Council Members should be presented with a real budget, and a picture of a City that can or does operate on 22c per dollar. If the city / citizens find that it is better to be under the administration of the County, then so be it. It should not be the preference of the City Manager or even the Council. The Citizens should be informed and engaged on such an important matter. This by far is more important than the question of having or not having Fireworks.

Spending money to defend our right to have an RDA and pretending we don't have to pay the fees or kick in until there is some sort of court ruling, is approaching the same mismanagement tactics of the past administration. The inappropriate accounting for the red light fines were an example of improper accounting. Let's spend money, that we may have to pay to the State if we lose the case, or later decide not to be an RDA. In addition there will be significant legal fees paid to lawyers and others to defend the RDA income game. Eventually these funds will be so drained it may be useless effort or folly to continue down this path as it will not lead to sustainability or the clear refinement of the functions the city can sustain on its real available and true resources.

To resent a pay back into the system we have been drawing more than our fair share out of all these years is nothing more than Greed. We really need to ask is our NEED greater than the need of the other agencies and departments and service providers? We need to ask what can we afford on 22 cents and can we actually justify taking money for US and deny the Greater WE. Stankiewitz and the Council need to put the budget tourniquet on the limb that is bleeding the most. That would be OUR RDA Dependency, as it is making the entire state die a unsustainable death. Guess what... If the State of California fails, so does GT folks. It is time for us to bite the budget and be real about our expectations for local government funding.

It is time that the City of Grand Terrace face the fact it can't afford steak. It is time to figure out how to live on rice and beans of a budget. If our loyal employees can't adjust to the reduction in their income while working full time, let's hope they can find work at the income they desire. We as their employer can not afford to pay more than we have to spend. We don't have the right to print more money just so a few people in City Employee provide part-time management, while providing only a small portion of the civic and social services consumed by GT Citizens.

Mayor Stankiewitz and Council, there is no shame in an honorable end of GT as a City if that is what the financial reality we face. However, to go run up more unsustainable costs, or increased spending for any reason is like a person going on a 30 day curse after being told he is going to be terminated. Such an action lacks any moral high ground. This council knowing that the city is unsustainable under current laws, should not be spending more and more trying to avert or defend itself from the responsibility of living within its known financial resources until the other matters are reversed, ore resolved. There should not be any would of could of, might be spending from this point forward. We as a city have been doing that for far too long. We still carry the stench brought about by those practices.

If the foreseen crash comes, it will not be the long term homeless that are the most impacted by further economic down turn. As Citizens of a Bigger WE, we have or should have a real concern for the greater good beyond Grand Terrace. As shown above we from Grand Terrace extract services, well beyond those provided by the City. What are you going to give up? Would you sacrifice a limb or organ to save a life? That may be the real comparison here folks. In order to save all those services we consume from non GT City Agencies, we may have to either live on 22c of each dollar paid by GT Citizens, or both GT and the other Agencies Fail or die.

Grand Terrace: City pondering continued use of redevelopment

10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, July 20, 2011

By DARRELL R. SANTSCHI
The Press-Enterprise

Grand Terrace may have to surrender $2.8 million to the state of California this year and more than $670,000 a year in the future to keep the city's redevelopment agency alive.

The City Council voted preliminary approval July 12 of an ordinance re-starting the agency after state budget legislation abolished local redevelopment agencies. The state left the door open to reinstate them on a voluntary basis, provided local governments pay the state hefty shares of the money they raise.

The Grand Terrace council is expected to take up final approval of the ordinance Tuesday.

City Manager Betsy Adams told the council that Grand Terrace will appeal the $2,850,665 amount it owes this year to the state's Director of Finance, who could rule on the appeal by Sept. 15 and has the option of extending the deadline another month.

The city is also hoping the state legislation will be overturned by the courts as a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of local redevelopment agencies.

"This is a money grab. That's all this is," Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz told his fellow council members. "The state is extorting $2.8 million out of Grand Terrace."

He said that without redevelopment, 22 cents on every tax dollar paid by Grand Terrace residents would come to the city. With redevelopment, 64 cents comes to the city, he said.

Councilman Bernardo Sandoval said that if the state wanted to abolish redevelopment for the benefit of taxpayers, it would have lowered property taxes to refund the money.

Councilman Gene Hays asked "What if the agency said, 'We don't want to play?' " and did not make the payments.

"If we do not pay," Adams responded, "our agency would be dissolved" in November.

Grand Terrace raises $7 million a year through its redevelopment agency, which pays for public improvements and helps pay the salaries of two-thirds of city employees.

"This is a very difficult time," Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia said. "We're trying to hold onto revenue."

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

Example of Bad Use of Tax Payer's RDA Tax Funded Money:

SAN BERNARDINO: In-N-Out buys new site from city

10:49 PM PDT on Thursday, July 21, 2011

By BRIAN ROKOS
The Press-Enterprise

The In-N-Out restaurant on Second Street in San Bernardino that is being chased out by construction of an Interstate 215 offramp will settle three blocks away on property once inhabited by a pair of crime-ridden motels.

The City Council on Monday approved a deal to sell to In-N-Out the vacant property on the southeast corner of Fifth and H streets. The city paid $6.3 million for the land and buildings and spent about $800,000 more to relocate tenants, clean up contamination and cover other costs, according to a staff report. It will be sold for $844,000, and the difference between the purchase and sale prices drew criticism Monday.

Carl Van Fleet, vice president of planning and development for In-N-Out, said the company hopes to keep the Second Street location open through the day before the new restaurant opens. That likely will be near the end of the year, he said. In-N-Out is required to be out of the current location by Dec. 31.

That building has twin drive-thru lines and no inside seating. The new location will have a single drive-thru line and seating for 95, including the outdoor patio, Van Fleet said. In-N-Out also has a San Bernardino restaurant near Interstate 10 and South Tippecanoe Avenue.

The conversion of the motel properties to an In-N-Out location is part of a Redevelopment Agency plan to remake the Fifth Street corridor. The agency sold $26 million in bonds to pay for the acquisition of properties. Laundromats, motels and pawnshops are being replaced by senior housing and businesses that might attract others to the area, said Emil Marzullo, the agency's interim executive director.

"The area had become a magnet for crime and blight," he said.

The redevelopment plan didn't please everyone.

When will they learn? RDA's are not the People's Choice

Region Officials that are RDA Junkies want to continue to have a bigger piece of the tax pie than they would other wise qualify for. The RDA Funding Scam draws a disproportionate amount of tax funds to RDA's and away from other districts and services such as schools. The City of Grand Terrace and the Mayor should know this as MANY Citizens have been advising them of the flaws, folly and yes fraud with the RDA Scams in California. (Yes and right here in Grand Terrace.) Citizens and the State have had enough, it is time for RDA's to get the hint. They are no longer acceptable to the citizens of the State of California including Grand Terrace.

REGION: City officials slam state over redevelopment

Press-Enterprise - Duane W. Gang - ‎Jul 14, 2011‎

"Redevelopment is critical to us," Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz said. "This is not Democrats or Republicans anymore. This is Sacramento against the rest of us." The officials spoke at the City Center Senior Apartments in Ontario, ...

Red Lights To Go....

Traffic Light Cameras to go August 14, 2012

By: Jim Miller
Community Writer
Grand Terrace City News 07 14 2011ed

The Grand Terrace City Council this week authorized City Manager Betsy Adams to notify Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. that operates the red light cameras in the city that Grand Terrace will not be extending the current five year-contract with the company beyond August 14, 2012.

On August 14, 2007, the Grand Terrace City Council authorized city staff to enter into a five-year agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems for the implementation of an automated red light photo enforcement system. In 2007, Michigan Street.

Adams acknowledged that there may have been an element of municipal greed in the motivation behind the red light cameras but, ironically, the program has cost the city money, while enriching Redflex. Adams indicated that the city had sought to disguise its intention to generate money with the program by citing public safety as the rationale for installing the cameras and may have utilized the new housing development to be built in Highgrove as an impetuous for its final approval. Council member Bernardo Sandoval said, “If in fact the sitting council at that time voted this contract into place because of the possible new housing element in Highgrove; it currently has been shown that it didn’t meet the needs that it was intended for.”

“The goals of the city’s red light enforcement program were to reduce the number of fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage that resulted from city-wide traffic collisions and to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians at locations where cameras are in place,” said Adams in a report dated July 12 to the council. “In addition, there was an expectation that citation revenue would cover the cost of the program and provide some additional revenue for the city, which never came to fruition. This coupled with the increased workload the program created for the finance department and the sheriff’s department is the fiscal reason for not extending the program.”

In addition, the red light cameras proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with residents. Fines for running red lights typically ran to $465. The city saw little of that revenue, as the contract was structured to provide Redflex with a major portion of the money collected up front and court costs ate up much of the remainder of the money obtained in fines.

All around the country as well as in cities where the red light cameras had been installed in San Bernardino County, the devices have been removed by the cities that had once hoped to cash in on them, including Upland, Loma Linda and Rancho Cucamonga.

“At the council meetings of September 14, 2010 and November 9, 2010, during discussion on the resolution of past due payments to Redflex, the council indicated a desire to terminate, the agreement with Redflex, which does not include an early termination clause. Mayor Stanckewitz said, “This does not preclude the council from providing Redflex with early notice of the city’s intent to not renew the agreement and I feel it will provide a peaceful end to the contract.” Councilmember Hays made a motion to issue the termination with Council member LeAnn Garcia seconding it. The motion was unanimously approved.

Red Light Camera On Way Out:

In todays Grand Terrace City News you'll read the article about the Council giving notice to Redflex and the Citizens of Grand Terrace the Red Light Camera inforcement contract will be allowed to expire and there is no intention to extend the contract.

Some honesty came out of the Staff Presentation. The then City Manager Tom Schwab desired to gain not only public safety but a winfall of income for the city. The result of the scheme, and the miss management of funds by then Acting City Manager Steve Berry, resulted in excessive fines and fees paid by citizens, and added expense or costs to the City of Grand Terrace. The inflated fees were paid to a business not only out of Grand Terrace, and California, but OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

The then City Council did not listen to Citizen Comments when they voted to instal the camera inforcement and the contract. At least the reality has come to light, red light camera enforcement does not increase the safety or local economy. At least this Current Council isn't going to try to justify holding on to a bad idea of the past just because it is installed.

It may be time for other funding schemes of the past to be either adjusted or disclosed. The Home inspection fees for rentals was a scheme to pay for a Code Enforcement Officer that functioned as a city party planner. Let go the city party planner in the Code Enforcement Office for budget cuts, but what about the fees that were supposed to cover that cost. Is the City going to retire that scheme. The adiministration of the Rental Home Inspection costs the city. What has been the result of the effort other than justification of a fee collected, accounted for, paperwork and a salary and retirement payment or expense? The County Health Department can handle this function.

Signs of Bad Blood Continue. with Sign Issue.

The Real Question is:

When is it right to stop free speech?

Grand Terrace reviews sign limits

Changes could help campaigns

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 07/13/2011 08:18:09 PM PDT

Updated: 07/13/2011 09:17:09 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - In what some are framing as a battle between freedom of speech and freedom of vision, the City Council will decide whether to remove restrictions on the posting of political signs that court rulings indicate could run afoul of the First Amendment.

"This has been an illegal ordinance for a long time," said Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz of the restrictions.

"I kind of feel like it is my job to keep us from getting sued for stupid things."

The council voted unanimously Tuesday to hold a meeting to decide the issue, which Stanckiewitz said will take place July 26 or Aug. 9.

Based on court decisions since the original city ordinance was passed, three sections that limit political speech more than commercial speech appear unconstitutional, according to City Attorney John Harper.

The proposed replacement ordinance removes restrictions on how long before an election people may post signs about a candidate or issue, previously limited to 30 days.

It also cuts requirements that signs be placed six feet above grade and issued a permit, because the $50 permit fee poses a potential burden.

Signs still cannot be larger than 16 square feet, cannot block the public right of way or "obstruct visibility," and must be removed by 10 days after an election.

But they still can be an eyesore, said Doug Wilson, chairman of the Planning Commission, who voted against the proposed changes when they came before that body.

"I don't think it makes the city a better place," Wilson said.

"(In 2010) I counted, and each candidate had upwards of 250 signs in a 3 1/2 mile area, and you couldn't drive down the street without one smacking you in the face."

The Planning Commission considered the issue in June 2010, after a candidate complained, but the City Council chose not to decide the issue until after the 2010 election.

In the meantime, city officials took no action against those breaking the ordinance, including many who put up signs for Stanckiewitz's mayoral campaign.

Wilson, who ran against Stanckiewitz, said then that posting the signs was "criminal."

Crime and Public Safety, July 14

Staff Reports

Posted: 07/13/2011 06:33:21 PM PDT

RUNNING SPRINGS
Resident accused of molesting three kids

A Running Springs man suspected of molesting three children has been arrested, authorities said.

Christopher Mills, 31, was taken into custody by San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies on July 5 at a home in the 22000 block of Newport Avenue in Grand Terrace.

Sheriff's investigators received a report from a Grand Terrace resident that three children in his neighborhood had been molested by Mills. Deputies said they interviewed the children, two age 11 and one age 10.

The children had been molested for five years in Grand Terrace and Running Springs, sheriff's officials said.

Deputies booked Mills into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga in lieu of $500,000 bail.

He pleaded not guilty Friday in San Bernardino Superior Court to 10 counts of having sex with a child younger than 10 and lewd and lascivious acts with a child.

Mills is scheduled to return to court July 19.